Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc - 2 of 4- - I "ice �•r� [ h IVAN L r;) rr-A.. h FYt - - I "ice �•r� [ h Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action Environmental Review Record Subject 1. Project Description Project Description/Purpose and Need 2. Draft and Final EIS (Attached CD) a. Draft EIS b. Final EIS 3. Technical Information a. Noise Calculations provided to HUD b. Biological Assessment, and memos 4. Record of Decision, NO[/RROF, and CZM Consistency a. Record of Decision b. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Correspondence c. NMFS Correspondence - Letter of Concurrence d. Certification of Consistency with Coastal Zone Management Program e. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Comments f. Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds g. Request for Release of Funds 5. Record of Publication/ Notices a. NEPA Notice of Intent: Federal Register Notice b. SEPA Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice - Newspaper notice c. SEPA Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice - affidavit of publication d. SEPA Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice - affidavit of posting e. NEPA Notice of Draft EIS Availability - Federal Register notice f. NEPA Amended Notice of Draft EIS Availability - Federal Register notice g. SEPA Notice of Draft EIS Availability, EIS meeting - Newspaper Notice h. SEPA Notice of Draft EIS Availability, EIS meeting - affidavit of publication i. SEPA Notice of Draft EIS Availability, EIS meeting - affidavit of posting j. DEIS Distribution to NEPA Agencies - affidavit of courier delivery k. DEIS Distribution to NEPA Agencies - affidavit of 1 ICF May 23, 2011 City of Renton Environmental Review Record Checklist Subject FedEx delivery 1. NEPA Notice of Final EIS Availability - Federal Register Notice (U.S. EPA) m. NEPA Notice of Final EIS Availability - Federal Register Notice (U.S. HUD) n. SEPA Notice of Final EIS Availability - Newspaper Notice o. SEPA Notice of Final EIS Availability- affidavit of publication p. SEPA Notice of Final EIS Availability - affidavit of posting q. HIS Distribution to NEPA Agencies - affidavit of courier r. HIS Distribution to NEPA Agencies - affidavit of FedEx delivery s. HIS Distribution to City and RHA - affidavit of delivery L Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds - affidavit of publication u. Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds - affidavit of posting v. Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds - affidavit of mailing w. Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds - email transmission V May 23, 2011 Chapter 2 Proposal and Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This DFaft 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 Drall EIS. as well as the Preferred AlterTi;i.t 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). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-1 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 mxmm� Figure 2-1 ICFPlanned Action Study Area IMTOINATIONAI Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 R! !A «w RHA urchased 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).' RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. 1 Proposed only under Alternative 3 and the. 1'rclerrcd :llteru;ativt, asdescribed in Section 2.7. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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_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. 2.4.2 Other Components of the Planned Action As a result of the planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the 269-acre3 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. 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. 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. 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% AM), and eligibility includes income restrictions. Market denotes housing developed completely with private sector funds, with no restrictions on pricing or income eligibility. The study area equals approximately 269 gross acres, and the net parcel acres equal approximately 213. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 April 2411 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593,10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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." Surset Area Community Planned Action 5 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 59310 City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Future Land Use Commercial Corridor Commercial Neighborhood Fft Center Village Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Multifamily Residential Single Family N k 0 540 1,000 Feet NE 14 NE 13TH PL W z W d LA Q aa� {3 LU tNEPAR��� a z W W 0 cc m Q NE 18TH PL w 2 NE 18TH ST 2 NE 9TH PL y NE 9TH ST W z W NE 8TH PL z NE 8TH Sr D 'VE 6rH PL NF 6rH C1� Source: City of Renton; King County 3 NE 21ST ST NE 20TH ST NE 19TH ST NE 18TH ST NE 21ST ST NE 21ST ST I E 17TH PL NE 17TH ST W 0 Cr z 0 r� r 0 u NE 11TH PL z } NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL W z W 7 d d FL W J Z a NE 10TH ST Lu W a O O O NE 9TH ST O 5 z z J NE STH ST I NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL .w--- Figure 2-2 ICFExisting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations INIFHNAI:OryAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Zoning 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 N A o e00 1,000 eet W z w 4 Q W LU z W W a m a NE 21ST ST NE 20TH ST NE 19TH ST NE 18TH ST ST NE 13TH ST NE 6TH PL NF 6rH C!R Source: City of Renton, King County NE 21ST ST t� W +L cc Y a a C G c 15TH ST LSTH PL ATH ST NE 12TH ST uj W z W z W z u a AU Q C Q x C "' � Z ozC z W W � W z W W a z r P a W x it N�a�N i a a a o p C r� m 7� Z q m r NE 21ST ST 17TH PL NE 17TH ST W Q X z Q 2 W z LU 'a F 3 u NE 11TH PL z NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL z LUa CL W z wj z Q NE 10TH ST W Ly a O p O NE 9TH ST O z z NE STH ST NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL Figure 2-3 'CF Existing Zoning IN I t H NAT ION A 1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS :z NE 10TH PL j 2 NE 10TH ST o 2 m ,0 4 2 NE 9TH PL h NE 9TH ST w z NE STH PL w q z NE 8rN Sr o 4 NE 6TH PL NF 6rH C!R Source: City of Renton, King County NE 21ST ST t� W +L cc Y a a C G c 15TH ST LSTH PL ATH ST NE 12TH ST uj W z W z W z u a AU Q C Q x C "' � Z ozC z W W � W z W W a z r P a W x it N�a�N i a a a o p C r� m 7� Z q m r NE 21ST ST 17TH PL NE 17TH ST W Q X z Q 2 W z LU 'a F 3 u NE 11TH PL z NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL z LUa CL W z wj z Q NE 10TH ST W Ly a O p O NE 9TH ST O z z NE STH ST NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL Figure 2-3 'CF Existing Zoning IN I t H NAT ION A 1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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, law -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 The purpose of the CV zone is to provide an opportunity for concentrated 87.4 (CV) 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: 24 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 Commercial The purpose of the CN zone is to provide for small-scale convenience 1.3 Neighborhood retail/commercial areas offering incidental retail and service needs for the (CN) 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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement -g ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 Pl-i#4 EIS are described below. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/$EPA Environmental lmpact Statement 2 ICF 593.14 Extent in Net Zone Purpose, Density and Height Acres Residential The RM -F zone provides suitable environments for multifamily dwellings. It is 12.1 Multifamily further intended to conditionally allow uses that are compatible with and (RM -F) 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 Residential 8 The R-8 zone is established for single-family residential dwellings, and is 48.8 (R-8) 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 Residential 10 The R-10 zone is established for medium -density residential development that 5.0 (R-10) 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 Residential 14 The R-14 zone is established to encourage development/redevelopment of 58.0 (R-14) 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 Source: Summaries of Renton Municipal Code Title 1V 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 Pl-i#4 EIS are described below. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/$EPA Environmental lmpact Statement 2 ICF 593.14 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 If 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 lI 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 PFa€tEIS, 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 graft 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 10 Aprd 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement iCF 593.10 S13 yd3S/Vd3N lEul� uop7ly Pauucld A7lunwwa) ualV aasunS sasodlnd PwduaS,ok wejeelu lljurna-ULJd PooyjOg0laN Ealy lasunS b-2 alnffld �6�a�� a,tiFpmcsol�son5 :.� sall],i1 d. a511�AII ljF - 13 , I v laa,acn,w,n 5-rc wa, Fc l n N o v7 ung as 9'L � � k • , I ag unur�o� I¢n�alodl n apl4 p Fvly nu a �'S ,.0 A a�cld P,i.4jt � (uoVelo�le.uJlod!auu,aj vast nsR Al'.',gl�g • I 1, I.:«yry'::3 : is A"pi—O ea,y AF SF nOC dSl3 Vo l]4Fp 'rid £ ,ogeNoauwV�ay 5175 DCZ euue,nd,c]uI1dN���, T IL r 4 { A f ' ■ L 'f■:' 1. f Ow ■ ' .. MGM �.- a+. 1 ,■ YY NnH11W �r # .~ai i l F r Yom* . �, • y s )! .r LWN u0ju I Of Pilot .6 E .. �` 15i* -1 r t % ■ it .'■ 4♦ -1p ■ :� .rte s.� �,• ' - .1� �. �r_r.�.,'� lei"ti!. r<:�. �:. '�� a . v It 14 S x. 'VP.-, 1.. 111 ��� ■'. , R ..7��■ I.Y IF 1 L i log �r • L 1' a I. it 1 ■ ' • f ,.. ._ Fr,.�F uIMrIIIHjr { "� � - ~ n ■ ■ a { x ■ .'.f . a IF 1 16 S r �M■ Will art ■. 1 : � ■ �... � ` f . � a L i.14A,-f iC. r Willi '■ r J ra■IY., ■ T Il::;i !_ ,I } l"E rlr�. ` 11�'r in ..�A E �Iq�� fit'■.. '! , q•11;q M'/ I frra �'1/.i {� i' «ter 1 i +I . . i'•' �t+rrw:r�r r, ;ul'.�rfYarrr aYr, .��I■ i!■ i ■ Y1 .�Y�rlra■Yi��re� 1�'Ifa■11 }LL�:�!■' j, �t R ■-y ■ '■7f7 4 { //� Li �� *� •.,�I you L i .is �.. F ■ ■ City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives AddiLio1111 )ul)IicIt nn1117C,11t_[?l?,17[>I'lll_Il.11]Cti OCCII,I-red_t?-ithotl„,�i,45-da'_�;�1�fl't...?,JS. (ltlllll�llt�)�'I:,iod cxtcIIdin"'� lronl 1)ecclnber 17. 201(1, to janilary31. 2011. FoiIowinh direct mail and posting notices, R1 ]A held a meehn;; tier Sumet'l'erracc residents IIn January 1, 2011, Lit which molrc than 25 participank glee hued. Aller nwilinl posi-czirds in F.nf;hsll and Spanish, besting notices, a11d publishill , noticc in the City's local newspaper, a public heal ingwas held before the PhIlilling Commission at Reiaton Ci uall on lanuary 5, 201.1 at which eight,1_er�ons spoke. DLlrint,he 45 -day comment period 12 pieces ol” correspondence were received. Please see Chapter 5 of this Final EIS for more IniONMItinn about the comments and reSIMnses. 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. (cropper pens. 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-13 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.5.4 Environmental Analysis and Review—SEPA and NEPA 2.5.4.1 Joint NEPA/SEPA Process This Dratt 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 Ill EIS. The environmental elements analyzed in this Bl -aft 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 • Earth • Environmental Health • Historic/Cultural Resources • Land Use • Parks and Recreation • Public Services • Transportation • Water Resources • Air Quality • Energy • Environmental Justice • Housing • Noise • Plants and Animals • Socioeconomics • Utilities As noted in the Fact Sheet of this Final 1 Fa# -EIS, t4i,-the Draft EIS document 4,was l circulated to agencies, organizations, and individuals for a 45 -day public comment period closin; on lanuary 31, 2011. A public meeting on the Draft EIS will ^'^^ he hek was held on lanuary 5. 2011. At the conclusion of that period, the City w prepared ti,-this.Final EIS, The Final EIS w+ll incorporates Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-14 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 Pi -a#4 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 Bta-ft 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 I1. 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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 15 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ;CF 593,10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 contains approximately 1,289 dwellings with an estimated population of 2,978 personS.4 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 ,'the Draft EIS. 2.6.1.1 Housing and Employment 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-16 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA EnvironmentaE Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Year Built 1930-1940 ® 1941-1950 0 1951-1960 0 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991- 2000 M After 2000 N A 0 560 t,00a Feel NE 13TH PL NE W z W a VI LUNEQPR�aR a z w v W a NE 10TH PL 2 NE 10TH ST m Z NE 9TH PL NE 9TH ST w z W NE STH PL a z NE 8TH ST c a NE 6TH PL IVE 6TI1 3 Source: City of Renton; King County 3 — NE 21ST ST NE 21ST ST NE 20TH ST NE 19TH ST z NE 18TH ST % > $t CE`STH ST W Wi z z 7 a yE 15TH PL W a ■_ pj a INE 14TH ST LL t,�13tN� 1 ST NE 12TH ST w H Jam' cn yJ2 �h LU iu ?w V t 4,e _ u Ii, y� jp7 S Lx LU LU z W Z J Z W z W W ■® W z x Nta�,�pt a x z NE�tNct n O K, m K z a m r txet NE 22ST ST 17TH PL NE 17TH ST a z O 2 1 NE 11TH PL NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL W z wi 'a a C6� W y� z Q a NE 10TH ST z NE 9TH ST O NE STH ST NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL pllllp� Figure 2-5 'CFAge of Structures [NTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Housing created during the World War I1 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], s 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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-18 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ;CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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. 4f 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 -awned properties in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, RHA has purchased property in the vicinity of Sunset Terrace to address affordable family and seniors 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. 2.6.3 Proposal Goals and Objectives The prupos il goals zind object Ives held guided the preptujation of Draft EIS Alternatives 2 and 3. TI e cc_onipat_i_biIity of iIle Pre ft rrcd AIIcrnalive with the goats and objectives is anirlyzed in FimiI 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. s 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-19 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives • 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: o Report and Recommendation of the HighlandsAreu Citizen's Zoning Task Force (City of Renton 2006), a Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase I! Task Force (City of Renton 2008a), o Highlands Action Plan (City of Renton 2009c), o Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (City of Renton 2009b), a Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (City of Renton 2009d), a Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan (estimated completion date September 2011), a Utility system plans, and o library replacement (in process). 6. Create a Great Street6 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 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." Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-20 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives connecticl Extend conceptual design of improvements between the Interstate 405 limited access right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NE, and include them in the Planned Action effort. 7. Encourage low -impact stormwater management methods and areawide solutions as part of a master drainage plan to support development. 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 Alterl 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 21 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 th+ee 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. '1'his alternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and sh VhtI less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential SLIn set Terrace Redevelopment Sul:larea with a mode3-atc numhcr of dwellings developed in a mixed -income. nixed -use style oriCt ted around a larger park space and loop road Other su xn'tin actions include major public investment in StUdy area infrastructure and services and adopt ion 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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 22 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.30 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 ha,,had not been selected,, as of the Draft EIS in [)t't7emher 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. AHA 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, Sunset Area Community Planned Action 23 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 he 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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-24 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593,10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 AHA 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 environmental I prcIcrahle alternative that best meets N EPA'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 havv identified an environmentally_)referred alternative within the range of the Draft FIS Alternatives l throtl;,.h 3. The Preferred Alternative urovides for: • ]nixed -use growth and transit and nonniotorized transportation improveinclits that result 111 rey,ionally beneficial air' duality and energy effects, • a drainage master plan that promotes green infrastructure and improves water ckuality. • expansion of parks and recreation facilities, and • hnusing anCi 001) opportunities. Key features are identified helow. The Preferred Alternative provides for growth in the Planned Action Study Argil Similar to but less I Tian Alternative 3. while maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and xoninE classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Newgrowth in the neighborhood would he About 7% Tess than under Alternative 3. This reflects the preferred conceptualplan for the Pittcnhal Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and refinements of a land capacity analysis presented in Final EIS Appendix B. Similar to Alternative 3. the Plref'erred Alternative includes redevelopment of Sunset Tcrrzrce. its weal as major public investment in Riiiiied Action Study Area transportation systems;, drainage, sewer, and water systems; and CURLI ML educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructureand_sGrXjCC.5 would tMillyze privale property reinvestment at a greater scale, and realize tlie.existing permitted zonin,; USCS triol delitiityL which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and affordable homeownership and rc ntal housiji� onoortunil_ies, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use p ttcrns would be of an urban ilitensily fot:used aloe the NE Sunset BOtdevard corridor and would] allow for Vertical and horizontal rtlixed uses. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, environmental revickv or development would he streanilined with_a-P_lanned Action Ordinance. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 25 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives RHA would redevelop the Sunset 'Terrace public IrerusiIjU comnnrnity as part of redeveIopment of the entire Potential Snnsel Terrace Redevelormient Subarea. It would..hc redeve o ned into a mixed -income (nixed -use development according to a master plaii, a "central" )ark of Aout 2.65 acres and a loop road,, Wi,tha lac er bark space, the density of the Sunset Terrace development tivould he lower than Alternatives -2 and 3 at 33 units 1)er 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 he integrated with the mixed-use development and could contain the following: a new Paris space, it)cluding over a segment of Harrington Avenue NE Sunset Lane NE) to he vas ited: a reconfigured Sunset Lane NE alonthe library Chat could he used ;)s a plata: an elder clay health center; a new public library in a single -purpose building: retail shopping and Commercial space; and I=rcen infrastructure. The civic and recreation s races could act as a "third place." Similar to Alternative 3, a fancily village in the North Subm-ea would provide an opjrc)rttrnity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education. recreation. anti supportive services rdesigned to promote a healthy. walkahle, and nei hhorhood friendly community. NE Sunset 13oulevard would be transformed, similar to under Alternative 3. to incprove. all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor t_lcreLI ;h urban desi,gn_anlenities. ]n)rovements to traffic o13erations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles: there waUdd also be a planted median with left -turn lanes at mid_two ]cii;h-volume, mid -block driveway locations. Improved Sidewalks and crosswalks Logeth_er with _streetsca pe elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art and lighting, would promote walkahility_ A multiuse trail alar); the tivest side of NE Sunset Boulevard would iw•on)ote nonmotori•red transportation. In addition to the multi ase trail on th Q west side of NE Sunset Boulevard an eastbound bike lane would run frorrr 1 dmondsAvenue NE up the hill to the City's bike route ern NF, I Oth Street. Nalclral Sturmwat r infrastructure would he integrated into the design of streets )arks and new develo 3ment Similar to unci 'r Alternative 3. Several residential streets Idesigwited as Xrecil connections} in the neighborhood would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater impq ,t5_[hc�th for water duality and flow reduction). and create iru inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. In addition to the: green connections projects. the City would imnlencent regional detention/retention irnpr-overnents to provide tadvancc ntitiiration fOl- fu,t,u.re. increases in impervious area that could result- from redevelopment. 04)bon for green infraStr•uctu re are addressed ire Section 1.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunith s would be retained and enhanced. This would include the 2.65 -acre central park at Sunset Terrace. alis o the relocation and consolidation of Sunset Court Park at Sunset Terrace as well aS the proposed vacation of portion of Harrington Avenue) NE, the central Bark spore is enlarged compared to other alternatives to bettc r meet the needs of the increas 'd o n]1l•rtion of the nei(ghborhoodm with relocation Sunset Cotirt Park property would then redevelop with hocrsilIU 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 RMA senior icuusin�. )oint-ttse agreements could he forged h.etwcen the City and the menton School District to allow for pral)Iic use of school (;rounds for arks, »d._hccreaticm mir poses during non -school hours. Min Public properties arc no longer needed for present uses. iiiey cLoulci 1_)erepurlaosed for other puhliC_pu.ta2oseS,such as parks and recreation. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-26 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.14 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 Alter,native_3 Preferred Alternatives thick border arou_nd_featurcS_of Al.ts_l, 2 or 3 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2.27 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 59310 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Table 2-2. Alternative Development Matrix—Neighborhood Land Use bevelopmenl Pattern Public Facilities, Services & Supports Interconnection/ Land llse Form and Location Housing Employment Infrastructure Walkabillty Alternative 1: No Action Stand-alone commercial: clustered Multiplex Redevelopment Small Retail Civic Uses - e.g. Community Center, No inlprovetneut complexes Urban Intnity Focused Arounte Redevelopment Senior Center, a ndJur Library on single Ueiran Inteniff" Faeesed:Aloa� purpose sites corHdoi: Slm�td._ Primarily residential: urban scale, Vacant Infill Development ReUid Lot Consolidation Civic Uses - -e. g. Community Center, Pedestrian -oriented stacked Nat and/or tnwvhousos Senior rchtev, and/or Lihraty development: minimize with structured parking. integrated into mixed use development setbacks, promole public realm, structured parking Horizontal Mixed use Homeownership Shopping Center New pa rklard to support i ncreased Transit -oriented Opportunities Redevelopment residential capacity. development: density supports, transit integrated Vertical Mixed Use Rental Opportunities Local serving retail & Parks & Recreation: Integrated with services Master Planned Development Urban Intensity Focused Around Market Rate Regional serving retail & Parks & Recreation: optimize Key Nodes, a g- Sow el Terrace, services City/School Facilities Institutions U than Intensity Focused Along Affordable Parks & Recreation: Integralion with Corridor: Sunset Boulevard Regiunal Drainage Facilities Mixed I nuome Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Development, Green Streets Sunset Terrace Education - Spectrum of Ages Redevelopment Family Village Redevelopment Integrated Social Services Alternative 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Stand,lttne eommemial: clustered Multiplex Redevelopment Small Retail Civic Uses- e.g. Corrimunkty Cerner, No improvement complexes Redevelopment Senior Center, and/or Library on single purpose sites Primarily residential: urban scale. Vacant Infill Development Retail Lot Consolidation Civic Uses - -e.g. Community Center, Pedestrian-orlented slacked flat and/or townhouses Senior Center, and/or Library development: minimize with structured parking. Integrated Into mixed usedevelopment setbacks, promote public realm, structured parking N oriaonial Mixed use llorneownership Shopping Center New parkland to support increased Transit -oriented Opportunities Redevelopment residential capacity. development: density supports, transit Integrated Vertical Mixed llse Rental Opportunities Local serving retail & Parks & Recreation: Integrated with services Master Planned Development Urban Intensity Focused Around Markel Rate Regional serving retail & Parks & Recreation: Optimize Key Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, .u-mccs City/School Facilities Institutions llrban Intensity Focused Along Affordable Parle& Recreation: Integration with Cnrridor: Sunset Boulevard Regional Dralmge Facilities Mixed Income Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Development, Green Streets Sunset Terrace Education - Spectrumol Ages Redevelopment Family Village Redevelopment Integrated Social Services Aiternative3: Iligh lnlensity Improvements Stand-alone commercial: clustered -lff4' - Small Retail ,' •` No improvement complexus - - Redevelopment Primarily residential: urban scale, r:Ytrt-iftl'e4Eloplplfjt stacked Nat and/or townhouses I - with structured parking. - noura?aonn mrrte�use - _ Urban Intnity Focused Arounte tMarke-t Key Nudes, e.g. Sunset TerraceInstitutions Ueiran Inteniff" Faeesed:Aloa� corHdoi: Slm�td._ Mixedln®me ante public nrec..Rnnamr w:wRpwcrgcrwmsl uraruac-orueusoeu t sl -0 &W16pnie-density w� for r r>dv@rry Reglotal serving ntTeil & - Pat4s&regtl¢tlrOntimffie ;services flltj'J6clmnl - Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-28 Apr! 12011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Table 2-3. Alternative Development Matrix --Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Street Network, Housing Development Urban Farm Sunset Terrace Amenities Pcdcsti ian Realm Non -Residential Developmcnt Alternative Ne Action No improvement Focus density along Sunset No improvement New open space, e.g, active, Nu improvement Improved Intersection and None Neighborhood Retail Infill on vacant RHA properties No improvement No improvement No improvement None 1 1 Public Flowing replacement Focus densih• along Sunset New open space, eg active, Improved intersection and Neighhorhnod Retail [100 units) Blvd garden, other crossing at Sunset Blvd and Green connection/ bioswale New stand alone Highlands units (250-35n) Harrington Intersection and ngton Harrington along Harrington New agoi dable and market rate Focus densilyat Sunset Blvd/ Ncw rainwater park Greencennectiun/ biuswaie New stand mune Highlands units (250-350) Harrington intersection and Use townhomes to transition to 1 along Harrington Libray at Sunset Terrace New M ixed-I Ise Highlands north an Harrington residential neighborhood community building Blvd east of Harrington New affordable and market rate Use townhomes to transition to Third Place Plaza with civic or New hillside path on Sunset New Mixed -Use Highlands units (450-5501 residenlial neighborhood community building Blvd east of Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and 'Third Place incorpnrated into Close pardon of Barri ngtan as Office Dit9gersetownhomesand apanMrnts now retail green street/open space Build Sunset Terrace site to zoning ..,'uewi ll- Flexible Community Services Trani Hub: improved bus SnildSwsetTei towning capacity Flexible Community Services Center slops, carsharing and bike Center stops,carsharing. and bike storage - .- Community Center Alternative 2: Mid -Range Intensity Imprnvements Infill on vacant RHA properties No improvement Focus density along Sunset No improvement New open space, e.g, active, Nu improvement Improved Intersection and None Neighborhood Retail IA Public Housing replacement 1100 units) Blvd garden, other crossingat Sunset Blvd and No improvement Nn InIl" mart No improvement None Harrington New affordable and market rale Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ New rainwater park Green connection/ bioswale New stand alone Highlands units (250-35n) Harrington Intersection and along Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace north on Harnngton Nev: atlordahl, and marker rat, Focus density at Sunset Hlvd/ New affordable and market rate Use townhomes to transition to 1 Third Place Plaza with civic or New hillside path on Sunset New M ixed-I Ise Highlands unils (450-550) residential neighborhood community building Blvd east of Harrington Library al Smrxt Terrace Neighborhood residential infil l Disperse townh omen a nd Third Flaceincorporated into Close portion of H arri nglon as office apartments new retail green street open space Build Sunset Terrace site to zoning Flexible Community Services Transpo kubConnactions: capacity Center improved bus stops• carsharing. and bike storage Sunset Area Community Planned Action 29 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Community Center Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements '' IioDs ot�HiS:,y i; - No improvement Nn InIl" mart No improvement None 1:i Rbi Hsfee �v �C$ Ratail ,(ion atdtn) 13wd gafflar4 otlur � crae $ntnes�iVHi Nev: atlordahl, and marker rat, Focus density at Sunset Hlvd/ New rarnwatcr park Greer connection/ bl-wale New mune Ilighlands Units(250-35[1) I larringwn intersection and along Harrington Library at Sunset Terrace north on A.1rriugl n i .l itv;afflard"an im>inYaatrNe Use tuwnhomes to Irrnsitiun to 'riiird Pl:u^ Plaza with civic ur New hillside path on Sonsel NewmiumddboNgjtlanda ., . _. (4PSS�j residential neighborhood community building Blvdeas of Harrington 116ralyat5litfsBtiBt7ace Noli0baAwd okdWa InIII11 t Dit9gersetownhomesand 1"Pla>:e•Igcltpvrahld Ea a dffi& Yas Office apartments ..,'uewi ll- ` t. SnildSwsetTei towning Flexible Community Services TranspoItub: improved bus Center stops,carsharing. and bike - .- storage Sunset Area Community Planned Action 29 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 2-4. Alternative Development Matrix—NE Sunset Boulevard Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Traffic Capacity and Community Based Design Access Management Operations Improvements Pedestrian Walkability Amenities hikes Transit Enhancements Measures Alternative 1 No Action No ilnprovurri No improvements No improvements No lmpmvements No Improvements No Improvements Optimize trafficsignal Pedestrian supportive Preserve existing street Bike route signage New shelters Consolidate driveways liming signals(countdmwn heads trees and audible signaks) Left turn storage Improved side street Plant new streetuees in Narrow inside lanes, widen Special design of transit Curbed median to respicl lengthened to meet design sidewalk connections to landscape strip along outside lane to zones throughout the left turns from driveways year LOS Inwrscclinns corridor accommodate hikes corridor including paving, shelters, street furniture. Traffic signal Pedestrian refuges in Use special paving for Narrow lanes, stripe a hike Special concrete bus pad in Directional left -turn interconnection and median crosswalks line (requires WSPDT roadway at transit stops pockets mid -block coordination approval) Widen to add Husi ness Narrow lance and reduce Ilse special paving within Provide mulri-use trail New local transit service Provide U-turn Access/Transit Lane crossing distances intersections along the corridor. connecting across SR900 to accommodations Community Center/Library Ilillside walk paved path Way finding and signage and planting Multi -use trail ale ng project incorporate Art corridor Realign skewed Garden / Art'rmllk intersections and reduce crosswalk dlslanees Comfortabie separation of Clenches, trash and pedl from vehicle recycling receplacies traffic (landscape buffer) Widen sidewalks to meet Improve corridor roadway Complete Streets lighting minimums (8 ftsidewalks and 8 ft landscape strips) Special pedestrian scale lighting Surveillance ca meras for increased security and/or emergency response. Alternative -1 Mid -Range Intensity improvements Na improvements No improvements No impmvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Optimicetraffic signal Pedestrian supportive Preserve existing street Bike route signage New shelters Consolidate driveways timing signals (countdown heads trees and audible signals) Left turn storage Improved side street Plant new street trees in Narrow inside lanes, widen Special design of transit Curbed median to restrict lengthened to meet design sidewalk conritcdonsto landscape strip along outside lane to zones throughout the left turns from driveways year LOS Intersections corridor accommodate hikes corridor including paving shelters, street furniture. Tmffic signal Pedestrian refuges in Ilse special paving for Narrow lane% stripe a bike Special concrete bus pad in Direclimml left -turn interconnection and median crosswalks lane (requires WSOOT roadway at transit stops pockets mid -block coordination approval) Widen to add Business Narrow lames a nd reduce Use special paving within Provide mull -use trail New local transitservim Provide L' -turn Access/'1'raiWt[.a nc crossing distances intersections along the corridor. connecting across SR9UO to accommodations Community Center/Lihrai y Hillside walk paved path Way finding and signage and planting Multlarse trail along project Incorporate Art corridor Realign skewed Garden/Art Trellis intersections and reduce crosswalkdislances Comfortable separationof Bencbies, trash and pedestrians from vehide recycling receptacles traffic (landscape buffer) Widen sidewalks to meet l in prove corridor roadway Complete Streets lighting minimums (8 R sidewalks and D ft landscape strips) Special pedestrian scale lighting Su rvelllance cameras for i ncreased ;ecurlty and/nr emergency response, Sunset Area Community Planned Action 30 Apri12011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 'CF 593.10 City of Renton l niprovements and planting Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Trattic Capariiy and Operations Improvements i',deslrian Walkahklity Cnnununily Bused Design Amenities Hikes Ac'ccss M1ia nagemen; Timisil En ha lice numts M -,ere, Alternative 3. High Intensity l niprovements and planting Mult1•use trail along PmJect Incorporate Art Nn improvements No improvements No impmvenoents Nn improvements No improvements Nu iml—vemcnls oplintiee lraffivsignal Pedeslridn sep},orlive Preserve existing♦treet Bllte routes Net.'sheltcrs Gonsdlidatediiveways timing signals(ccuntdown heads 4+005 - - bnprovewrifdprt "i *'..+ Gompi kite straets lightim Pirllmnms (a ft.aidawAks and audlhlc signals) and B R.tsodsmae ffirinsl , Leftturostorage Improv�edside street P[aninewspeettneesfh 'Plarmivlesklepaite�t i Spr:datde*roftratislt Curbed median to restrict lengtbenedtaracetdesign sidetvalkennnectionstn landscape stripalc!Ag otuddalane to zonnowaugbeutthe left tlrrmframdriveways year LOS - intersections corridor-a00dtnmadatejsilies rtilCAldiag paving, .�sgeekfurntturc. TraNlcsigual Pedestrian refuges in ilsospecial pavingfor NwIoWlanae,strlpeablke Spedalmncetetwspadin Directional lett-tum interconnection and median crosswalks - lane (requires WSDOT rnadwayattransltstops poc)tstsmtd,Llock coordination - approval) widen to ndd B—nrss Narrow lanesand reduce Use special paving within Provide muldusetrail New local transit service PreAdc U-turn Arses fTransill.ane crossing distances intersections- along the corridor mnaectftigacross SR900to accommodations . 1.-. - . - Community Center/Library Hillside walk paved path Way finding and signage and planting Mult1•use trail along PmJect Incorporate Art corridor Reafignskewed Garden/ArtTreills intarsedlons and reduce crosswalk distances - Comfortableseparatkinof &ndiea,ttaskadd pedestrlansfromvehide recyclfngrwe7ta11els ' traffic (landampe buffer) WithmAdewalkstotneat - bnprovewrifdprt "i *'..+ Gompi kite straets lightim Pirllmnms (a ft.aidawAks and B R.tsodsmae ffirinsl , Sunset Area Community Planned Action 31 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Table 2-5. Alternative Development Matrix—Stormwater Management Parcel -Based Stnrmwater Requirements Sunset Ter rare Stnrmwater Tcchniqurs Comeyance Improvements in ROW Flow Control EM Ps in ROW Water Qualky'rreatmenl BMPs in ROW Upon Space/Sub-regtonel Facilities Alternative 1: No Action Connectiun Irrigation Use Meet Code Requirements Meet Code Requirements No improvements No improvements No improvements No Impmvoments On-site On -Nile Meet Code Requirements Incentivize Green Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb&Guile; Permeable Pavement Media Filter Vau Its Rainwater Parks (e.g. rain Stormwater, Sidewalks gardens) Infrastructure Retrofits Rebuild Curb &Gutter Permeable Pavement Media Filter Vaults Rainwater Parks (e.g. rain Stnrmwater Require Green Raingardens for Fiorelentinn Biorcrention Swales Biorelention planters Regional Detention Ponds Stormwaler Residential Units Swale/Planters with Curb Infrastructure where Openings Require Green Infiltration is Frasihle Bioretendon Bioretention Swaies Bloretentlon planters Regional Detention Ponds Stormwater Require Green Fermcahlo Sidewalks Build/Rebuild Storm Bioretentiun Planters with Ratn Gardens in rnedtans Underground Detention Stormwater Openings Drain Pipes Detention Infiltration is Feasible Infrastructure including Require Grecn non -infiltrating practices RUIId/Rebuild Stonn Bioretention Planters with Rain Gardens in medians Underground Detention Stormwater Allow Fee In -lieu of Cisterns for Residential Detention Rain Gardens in medians Permeable Pavement Sportsfield/Playficld Providing Ci Units Water Quality Treatment Detention{detenliun Detention during wet scason only) Green Parking Lot Green Roofs Rain Gardens In medlam Develop narrow street Allow parcel Aormwaler, New Rainwater Par' at Standards slandardsw reduce trratmenr wlthl n ROW Sunset Terrace Harrington Street Green Rainwater Harvesting for Connectiun Irrigation Use Rainwater Harvesting Alternative 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Meet Code Requirements Meet Code Requirements No improvements No improvements No impruvemeri No improvements on -sit. On-site IncentivlaeGreen Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb &Gutter Permeable Pavement Media Filter Vaults Rainwater Parks (e.g. rain Stnrmwater Sidewalks gardens) Infrastfvctum Retrofits Require Green Raingardens for Bioretendon Bioretention Swaies Bloretentlon planters Regional Detention Ponds Stormwater Residential units Swale/Planters with Curb Infrastructure where Openings Infiltration is Feasible Require Grecn Permeable Sidewalks RUIId/Rebuild Stonn Bioretention Planters with Rain Gardens in medians Underground Detention Stormwater Drain Pipes Detention Infrastructure including non -infiltrating practices Allow Fee In -lieu of Cisterns for Residential Rain Gardens In medlam Perineable Pavement Spnrtcl'icld/Playfield Providing On-site Units Water Quality Treatment Detention (detention Detention during wets grni only) Green Parking Lot Green Routs Develop narrow street Allow parcel stormwater New Rainwater Park at Standards stnndardstoreduce treatment within ROW Sunset Terrace impervious coverage Harrington Street Green Rainwater Harvesting for Connection Irrlgatlun Use Rainwater Harvesting Alternative 3: High Intensity Improvements Meet Code Requirements Mecl Code Requirements No Improvements No improvements No improvements No imprnveincnts On-site On-site Incentivize Green Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb & Gutler Media Filter Vaults Storinwatel' 414 17'rn`p.,�.°' Infrastructure Retrofits a,�*�• - �.• a.. y` Raingardens for:. t '.p�1:DA1C18ltllt-- . :r Residential Units open t BgYtl@"��16®pPBt9alea�ie-StlkN,S 'guild-ghaYm4'ryjiygt t Ilndrrground Detention StdnmWa6pr' Drain � �teGaduluq - Itl6rastr4�re�otiudiug" I t nan-llAii `k!'dt�es . - - - AtlotvI�ejinl ubf. CistermIiResldentiat RIilnGtirA¢urie7u Permeable Pavement Sports8eld/Playfldd ProvldlugOn4te - Units - WatcrQuality'rivalmcnt Detention (detention DeFendon - duringwetstawnonly) Green Parking Lot Green Roofs Deve4narrtwstteet Allowpanoel swrmwaler Hew mlit ter Park at Standards soon m*toreduce treatmentwitkln ROW Sunset Terrace impervious Harrington 5treetGreen rah,r,•ntcr narvrzti ng for Conmedlon irrigatlnn nu. Rslmvatrr Ham, Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-32 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 2.7.2.1 Neighborhood Land Use Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 FiiiA 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 IMrccls 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 thl-ee alternatives. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-33 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Table 2-6. Summary of Land Capacity—Net Additional Growth above Existing -2030 Dwelling 1'�.c f c1 rcd Subarea Units/Jobs Alternative 11 Alternative 21 Alternative 3Alternative Potential Sunset Dwelling units 168-1752 310 479 266 Terrace jobs 49i 164 182 79-117c' Redevelopment Sunset Mixed Use Dwelling units 1,109 1,052 1,509 1,4.131. jobs 410-652 1,728 2,875 2,£1(1.2. Central, North and Dwelling units 206 296 518 592 South jobs 152-213 273 273 273 Total Study Area Dwelling units' 1,483-1,490 1,658 2,506 2,a:39 Net Growth Population`' 3,430-3,442 3,830 5,789 584:.(1.:3_ Employment Sl" 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 1.247A44- 1,259.944" 247A44 - 1.259.944" Jobs6 611-9147 2,165 3,330 1 3.154-3.192' The +;#t 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 e4jy ;.. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. s 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. s Applies an average household size of 2.31, an average of two census tracts 252 and 254. 6 Includes retail, service, and education jobs. 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. The lower tigore assujm!s less commercial/service space; whereas, the higher. includes more commercial/services rcc. The Final 1?fS studies the lower number prjobs (38 fewer) -in the technical analysis for.trallsoorrntion, venter, and sewer models though this is consiciered a neglil; bl.e difference from tlic uu7er ra¢ e_(IeSs thin 2%1 �rnd is r. ilnhired 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental fmpact Statement 34 ICF 59310 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Figure 2-6. Additional Growth by Alternative -2030 ---Revised 3,500 3,000 2,500 —_ -- 2,000 _...--- _.. _._.... _._... 1,500 1,000 500 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alterrative 3 Preferred Alt ■ Dwelling units ■ lobs Figure 2-7. Additional Dwellings under Each Alternative by Subarea-2030—Revised 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 --- - -- - - - 500 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 ra Pulential Sumet Terrace Redevelopmeail Subarea ■ Sunset Mixed - w Subarea s Central, North and South Subareas Preferred All Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-35 April 2011 Final NEPA/5EPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Figure 2-8. Additional Permanent Jobs under Each Alternative by Subarea-2030—Revised r 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Alternative Alternalive3 Preferred All ■ Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ■Sunset Mixed -he Subarea w Central, North and South Subareas 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 slily lass than Alternative 3 (about .Yyo less considerin" total growth). Table 2-7. Existing and Total Growth -2030 Alternative Population Planned Action Study Area Total Dwellings Jobs Existing' 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 1 4.460-4498 1 Dwellings are based on King County Assessor 2010 data. Population estimated using a household size of 2.3 1, an average of census tracts 252 and 254. Jobs are based on transportation model estimates for 2006, Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-36 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.7.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Alternative 1 would allow Will growth on vacant land, whereas Alternatives 2 and 3 al 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. Fj ul 2-11 presents the conceptu,al.,plap for the Prelerrcd Alternatjye. It sl'cruld he noted that for Al alternatives thv_flans—.inrl.ud.it�l;..lalul uses, building footprints, circulation layoul and other features—are conceI)ttral. As aplanningdlro(,,Jresses lroral cx�teal to ijore detailed building and construction plans, there nlay he variations From the concepts (lor example. see Final EIS Apj)endix C For ym-iants O' l Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans that are similar to the Pi eferred Alternative and within the ral of EIS alternativesl. Future refined flans will be considered consistent with the alternativesstudied in this EIS ]provided the features are in the ranee° of the alternatives and associated environmental analysis. Allernative '1 represents a JoAve_r bookend of this range and Alternative 3 the upper end of lhi.s ranfe, 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-37 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 i 14) RHA's Edmonds -Glenwood site URR •s t CV A 0' 100' 200' 300' 400' MITHUN N - Figure 2-9 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept --Alternative 2 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 0' 100' 200' 300' 400' MITHUN N - Figure 2-9 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept --Alternative 2 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS 3N -Y sp�owP3 N. : _ 1 r 11 r Lj Li 1 i ry -{i U 0' 1 } 1131,111 - >' / Wu TO ey rj'_'-'\ ,_moi - 1 V `,• ` ' �:'r Multifamily: Flats Multifamily: Townhouses �. Civic/Community Services - Retail/Commercial/Mixed-Use Active park/open space Passive open space 0' 100' 200' 300' 400' N Passive open space: plaza Note: The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would Existing buildings to remain include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas. Figure 2-11 MI T H U H Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. proposal and Alternatives 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 he 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 Pref Qrred Alternative would r d VQ1.0)h Sunset T rr�tee €hlie lu usin T communitY into a mixed -income, mixed-usc development according to a master elan, which feattN-es a centraIrL o.f 2.65 acres and a loot) road. Key features of Sunset Terrace redevelopment are identified helow: • Th central i)ark would be larger than proposed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, because it assumes the relocation of Sit nset Court Park and vacation of I Iarrington Avenue NE for orte ])lock. along with additional L)ntI purposed for park space, to create a lamer wore versatile. Q )I ICe. • The Highlands Library would he relocated from its present sits along NE 12th Strect to NC Sunset BOUICVard on a singl�PLI ruose site, and the space would be enlarged to 15,000 Square feet. • The loot) road would occur• along Sunset Lanz: NE and would enc:ir-cIe the park. Along the library and mixed-use building slrace, (lie lane could he specially paved anti serve as a Ilaza for special events. • Housinstyles would include flats ill rt€ixed-use and residential -only buildings and towilhomes. It is exm!ded that, with the Sunset Terrace prol)erty and associated properties owned or )t�hased by RHA. up to 266 additional new units could be created, would be puhlic. aifurdable. and jor market rote. The total 376 dwellings Would result int€ density of at)jproximatcly 33 units per acre. • The existing 100 nrhlic hoUSing ur its would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio. RQ)Iacement of the i)ublic 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 sliacc kvould be relocated M Sunset Terra(e). RHA -owned i)roperLy along long Kirkland Avenue NE, and the existing library site once it is relocated though another. possible use liar the libra€;y site would be far agency use f k.g.. offices. maintenance)_ • The duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would be replaced with townhause units. some affordable and some market -rate. • Public amenities would be intcgrated with the residential development and could include the following: a central park including a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NEJ. an elder day health center, a new public lihrary alonl;a Sunset Lane NE that would occasionally serve as an active plaza, coinniercial retail or service sl)ace. and green infras3_rucoire. The park and library/plaza as well as the central park could act as a "third place." • RHA's Piha site and Edmonds-GlQnw_ood sitc would ctmLlop with senior and family housin'; respectively similar to Alternatives 1 and 2. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-42 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives G MIA's Pita silelvouId contain 5cnioncou5ii (I ay hc;iItlt_tiervi.(- �" wk_i.Iw,access tram the "Lj4 rcrtd;" the location near the ccntral o ark and lihr iLy vLLm1d provide re[ rcati��n t�uasu lunities fur sclaior lv.sidenl5_ o MIA's Edmonds -Glenwood site tivoukl contain faliiiiy Ildltlsln-!, in h0lh (MV1111Mltie tend flat styles. The laytrut of the Edmonds -Glenwood site pkic:es the: Amin Edmonds Avenue NE, tivherc higher -density already exists, and the lower -density, tmvvnhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE more closely matchin,,, the character of dupJcxes. There. are twoaaccess points Im- theconthine.d lclwnliomeftla( concei)t: Edmonds Avenue NE Jor the prinriry access to [lie. flats and Glenwood Avenue NE for primary access her townhome residents. The Preferred Alternative would include site design measures to litnil pass-through travel from Edmonds Avenue NE to Glenwood AveaaLie i NE..("), traffic_calnaing, 1)arking, and access deligm . 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 floe same proaertics as Altermative 3. The number of acres redeveloped would differ among alternatives as would the density:6 • 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 dwellings (ii net increase «f 266 ci vellin;; units) cin 11.3 acres resulting in a density Of'abc�til 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. a 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-43 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives • 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 Prefernxl Alterniltive wc)tilcl I)Fovi(lc aiii)rciximzttely 78{"/� pu>ilic- and aftordable, and 221yo rrrirket-rate dw(J1in?; omits. 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 aliproxiniately 35 lownhornes 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, Linder any alternative, approval of necessary permits identified in the Fact Sheet (located behind the cover letter) for this Pl-aft 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 All ernat Ives 2 anti 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-44 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 Prelerrcd Alle�rnatiL�)ose"' to redevelop the Potential Sctn'wt 7'erracc }��°cl,�w cl�)17r l.�nt. Subarea itt_fi� e_1)laa5es (a5 illustrated in Appenelix C 1-_ HUD Dt ntalitianf T]iti1p(x5iticrn,.l7rctr_ess, a. Completed for Phase 1 library and mixed trse: site cast 4)[Harringloi Avenue NE: iapproxiinately 201 .1. L Other Deiiiol.ition/DIS]p()Sltloli applications will precede Phases lI thl'Ottl?h IV. 2. Phase L Development of faniil y and senior housing* on vacant sites a.5 well as reloc;i1 ion Clf khrar}s and develol)mcnt oi" mixed use buildings: a. Buildout of vacant RHA -owned sites (identified on Figure 2-11): 1 Glenwood portion of Edn)onds-Glenwood site anticipated for cont )letion hi-sL: 2011- 2012. 2) Edmonds ]portion of Edn)onds-Glenwood site sand the. Pilla site: 2012. b. Between Sunset Latae NE and NE Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE )ropws d library site and mixed use site vacated and de m()Ilsheci and initiation 0f, C01IStI'LICI„Ion Ill 2012. 3. Phase 11: Irlsta_llatinn of public Dark, in tllree sub -[)Bases, dates to he detertuined: a. Area east of HarrinEton Avenue NF. developed as a pant. 1). Harjngton Aye_uete_NF vacation and development of park. e'. Glemvood Avemie NE_re-r0uti11l,1, and townhotnes developed north of park. 4. Phase 111: Develo pnient of townhomes west of central )ark date to be determincd. S,. P17asc.1V 17�yt[opment of remaininV, n)ultifamily and mixed-tise buildinhs fronting NE Suns -et Boulevard west of Harrington Avemlc NE, dale to be determined. 'Hit, phasira is;] best -case: scenario based on potential fundin,a and phases and titnin,,> are submect to chitnge xis!e l (Irl available resources. u cls, R1 [A puhHC 110LIShI ; tenants would be relocated. such as wvitll a potential Section 8 voucher titrate, during Construction phases. Post construction. RHA would offer puhlic housilgtcna.iits rel�lacenent housing; in [lie new developments on the vacant RHA -owned sites. (fir at Sunset Terrace, or at ott-site loralious in the Plaruied Action Studv Area, as applicable.. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-45 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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. 1. and 3 is included in Figure 2-12� and represents a location west of Harrington Boulevard NE in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea vicinity. The Preferred Alternative would include full compliance Wil the City's Complete Street ordinance with some 1110dification in the l)nrtirnl of Sunset Wh(-Te tt �; r�.hhyl�t:evc�n,ts Full,.il,�lhlemci�taCio», At Edmonds Avenue N and I larrimgton Avenue NE. the Preferred Alternative would keep the existing curb and 5 -Font -wide sidevualk (no hlai 1, mid r igf�t of -way would he acquired frons the north side (Sunset Terrace) up to 11 feet. hast of I Olh Street NE there appears to he sufficient right-of-way width along NF: Sunset Boulevard to tIc-c:cFntmodate the C:olnl110(" Street cross section. though in some plac e� , encroach into the existing ril;ht-of-way. See Fi;;ure 2-13 for Preferred Alternative cross sections. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-46 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 �z 1 Suction A- Alternative L- No Action i � s VMT�NMEUIP�� 2 SectionA- Alternative 2: Minimize ROW Impacts txwuq: h'�I Figure 2-12 CH2MH ILL NE Sunset Boulevard—Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE—Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 + Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS APPOOXIMATE AQW-Or-WAY I � 1Z' 8 12 12 J412' 12' we 11' 5 MULi1-USE [!LANTER WS THOU WB7MRU 014 MANAGED ESTHRU EB THOU TRAIL LEI7TURN LANE LANE LEFT N LANE LANE LANE OR AVE OR EB MEgAN RIEDLAN hso MIKE 16a __.. 4;4,am, , �_ _ _. 4 LANE / tt AC=b I r+ i EXISTING SRIEW ALK ryy r S. EXISTING WALL Section 1: Adjacent to Existing Wall between Edmonds and Harrington -Q7... n APPROXIMATE MGM -OF -WAY 17 I 8- 12' T2' 12' 12" 11' S 8' e' MULTFUSE KANTER WB THRU We THOU MANAGED Es THOU ED THOU Ea PLANTER SMMAL4 TRAIL LANE LANE LEFT TURN LANE LANE BKE LANE Oil MEDIANL L74r LANE I 1 J Section 2: Between Harrington Ave and NE 14th ST APPROXIMATE RIIWNMFWAY 77' tf 1Z 17 ORAWLIM PLANTER we THOU We Tlwu MANAGED Be THOU E6 TNRY PLATTER SIDEWALK TAIL LANE LANE LEI7TURN LANE LANE LANE OR MEgAN hso r 16a __.. 4;4,am, , �_ _ _. 4 Section 3: Between NE 10th ST and NE 12th ST Figure 2-13 10 CH2MH1 LL NE Sunset Boulevard—Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE—Preferred Alternative 411111111111. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives In addition to changes along NE Sunset Boulevard, Alternative 3 and._t.he 111-d �rrud Altcrnativc would alter circulation patterns by closing Harrington Avenue NE for one block in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Additionally, f of h Alternatives 2 and 3 and lhc Pi-eh,rrcd Aiternative 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 an2-154, and 2-16 for Alternative. l Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative res pectivel r. hi ;]ddRion to clrtinges aIong NE SLI I1 Set Boulevard, the Preferred Alternative t-vnuld inrlIrove lratI'S tl amejiities along, NE Sunset Bou Iova rd to include ex )-mided hlts Amics in hoIII directions of travel. Bus zonr .. aiul, existing, bus stops could include Shelters ~high aclequ<Ile lialitinY; and street furniture, Transit -Lops are located adjacent to pedestri rn zinc] bicycle facilities. which encouraf;es the use of alternative modes of ir;ivel. Special pavement in the roaclway WOLI,Id cicerlV identify transit stops on NE Sunset Boulevard. Pedestrian -scale lighlinf woulil improve pedestrian_ safety and walkability. Sidewalkconnectioirs frons NF Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improvcd strep<,thenin the colanectivit between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard.'[ o hjjlj c safely for pedestrians Iros5in"' the roadways, the Preferred red Alicrnhive includes the Ilse of special 1rlving, at crosswalks- and intersections. special avi; t can more clearly identiliy pedestrian areas and alert driver's to proceed With cautiorr, which can cunlribute toa saferhedestrian environment. Pedestrian-Stlaiportive sihnzils Such as count -down head~ alid tnrclible si,�r,�.,_IIs would be provided to improve safely for iwdeslrians crossing the roadway's at signal.i ed intersections. Otherpedestrian-level design amenities sl>_ch_as benches. trash r'ecei)tacles. way -finding; signs, and girl tivould he incorporated to encour c pedestrian activity in the Planned Actian Study Arca. 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 2O10c). Alternatives 2 and 3 zinc] the. Preferred Alternative lel}-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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-49 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 withinth-Q., hookends of Al tern hives l Lind 3. Several residential_sti e.c.ts,.(�lcsgtpatccl asgrec:n cannectjonsj in the: neighkpsirhocid would he transformed to ina prove pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater both For water c unlit , aui(I How reduction). Ind t:riaate au iisvitinit corridor to enhance the neighborhood. Harrington Aventte_KE including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets has been identified as a high priorit;reeii Connection (project th�it Would ]provide enhanced pedestrian connectivity between Hillcrest Terrace, McKnight Middle School, Sunset Terrace IirdLldjngthe re!] catcd_Kiii-gCotrnty Lilprar IHighlands Elementary- and HighImids Community Center. ']'his corridor would he enhanced )y n irrowji through -traffic lanes to C�iIni lraflic. create -vide planter areas to acconpnupdate large trees and_rain garden" to rnitieate stornpwater runoFF. anti cretite wider sidewalks (F'igijiy 2-17). This project would he implemented as a public infrastructure' retrofit proaect pending awdiable. funds. The remainin T green connections projects would likely he implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopmetit of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, cicgpc»ciingnta availability offends]. In addition to therg een con»ect_ions projects, the City will implement regional detention f retention i m roy( i nts to provide advance mitigation for future increases in im p eryi is area that could result Iroin redevelopment. Locations of the regional Facilities would. include the western margin of" the newly created park M SimmA Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park beyondthe outfield of the existing hast l ab/softball field Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-50 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.16 4:14— SN Snr 3OaNOw . 1 - A a� _ 3N BAA OQC)MNN),l 7 ¢� I IL 3N3ONdlXif171. rF , t SN 3nv NOsa3j41 fix; it � 1"W';: � � 1� y � /`!r ra�•'a•. � • � x;,40 � ... � � r.. i ,.read..- 44., 40 3N 3nN 30NOw03 R 3N 3AVIGNOV403 L 4 � II LO ' 3N 3AV BO�lNON TPI tel'�.._, 3N 3AV 3ObNOW RIF • \ �' 3N 3Ab Cl(vt4N Al I. tt , ., �`\ �; �i � �'t r. �°.xlr. •1 �� M -i .i A � Lig' ■ I ; _a 7 ��_ �j ~ . ..�� 3Ab ONH1st 712i1 �� 1 tL y, s .3N 3 (INV .y y - i 3N 3Ab,NOS j i3r All N 3Ab N1 4 m yYLyyYR I 3N 3AVS0NOW03w 3N3AVVNOW03 I J �.• ,� �I Y. f Irl a ri 4Al Jo _ f �H v w U e i. III J 31v 3" 3N 3N RAY 3OHNOw 3N 3AV O NAI I rr tw BN GNV gmg4nr -ft-- Lb i AN 11 ONOW03 3N 3AV NOw03 W. Y _ Z I1 Sunset Boulevard Stormwater Preferred Afternative I� I APPROXIMATE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY I8' B' 5' 10' 11' 10' S' 8 8 a ' I I I 79' PROPOSED ROAD SECTION COIIeC tOr with Left TUrn UIL)e L N _ FFFpaRIMATEEXTStt _ 10' • SIDEWALK RAIN -GARDEN DKE LANE LANE BIKE PARKING' PLANTER- SIDEWALK I I I76' PROPOSED RCAU SECTION . I ' RAIN GARDEN AND PARHINCVPLANTER SECTION. A_TERNATE STREET SI�DFS Section 1: C�ollerlor ATIorial, 2 -Lane with Shand Roadwav 83' B' 14 8'0. 10' SIDEWALK 7GPMV0A7E aIKE 56 S8 NS NB BIKE TORhRMATE SIDEWALK I IPLANTER I.ANF LANE LANL LANE PLANTER I _ a2 PRCPDSED ROAD Sir G'TIQN Section 2:4 -Lane Collector Arterial, Ido Parking 16'. RIGHT OE WAY "LANE PORCUS CONCRETE OR PAVERS POPOl15 CONCRETE T CONCRETE OR PAVERS RIBBON + CONCRETE RIB6ON NE 16ih Aller- / Harrington Aller NE j Jefferson Aller ME SIDEWALK RAIN�GARDEN RIkF ERNE CENTER L.ANF, BIKE PARKIN[ PLANTER SIDEWALK Figure 2-17 CH2MHILL Green Connections—Preferred Alternative qW1, TUR'V LANE40 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives The use ol' flaw umitrol RMPS and ullier low impact development standards would he implemented where: feasible and allmved hyo ,the Cid in accordance: with City surface water design standards and 171 crthcr"St�3rlc�i c1.5, T.11c i_�;;lc7i��l tic_.tcnti.oi_i"/rctentio.»..il�l.l�ro�cmc�3ts ancj�,recn conncctiot�s fli��cling is dependent upon the City obtaining grants from various SOLII'Ce5 and the availahility of City funds. Tht�re also is the Option that the frcen connections and the regional detention f retention inipr0ven1ents 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 0+11+4 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 recrcaticin opportunities -incl r 2.6$ -acre central parlc_at Sunset Terrace and the corresponding relocation of Sunset Coul"t Park. Thc: Hillcrest EaI Iv hlldhood Center Sit ' woLlId 'l]so he r `'onfig Ired with North Hl iiIan is Park. In additl() 111 publicly owned properties. yacant pes potential pedestrian connections between blocks a sidewalk network. and proposed ,green conncetions Could allow for improvement and/or acquisiti(m to create a coordinated "pocket park' system (Figure 2-18). Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. opportunities are identified in the EIS analysis regardingJaint-use agreements, rel�urposin� of public proper'tie5 and/or acquisition of private properties in areas where. demand for recreuti(Ill is onlicipaled to be higher (see Section J"15). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-58 Apri12011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 NE 24TH ST z NE 24TH CT City Limits 3RD Pt > h Q Planned Action Study Area z N Parcels ME 23RD ST p Uft,�� °�' NE 22ND PL cc IVs Green Connections NE 22ND ST Z — Sidewalks NE 22ND 5T NE 21ST ST *^ Pedestrian Connection NE 235T ST NE 21ST ST Opportunity Public and Open Spaces Schoolx NE - 19TH ST G r w �c y NE 19TH ST Renton Housing Authority NE 18TH;5T t�+ LU City of Renton �! ! z SN 5� � 'rip ��►+ t1� x A N� L" NE 15TyLs 7 z v+ W z 4~ LU 0 500 4,000 LU IY ✓� Q W Feel Z w a O z W i z x 7 W g a LM NE 12TH ST W a a z OR , � NE 11TH PL �1� F PttK W z L=r1 Ui Joh 0 a h a Q d a DNE 10TH r m NE 10TH ST NE 10TH LN w • z NE 10TH 57 NE 9TH PL Q 2y o NE 9TH 5T y NE -9TH ST C ME HPL 2 m LUiZ NEsrksr a W .N�tN z p� f `� NE8TH ST 01 x�� o % a NE 7TH 5T W p • UJ z 0 74 Z+ 6 `H P� a 0 C yy e� rI N� I NE 7TH PL W y = }G Z� W Z z UiH IIINE 6TH CTnW1 Q NE STH PL OF m �V$ \\�`� z NE 6TH 5i t I NE-STH;PL` 0 NE 5TH -PL Uj a —� z •NrETWST a W NCSTH CTrly W Q + W A! z Uj LU . J x f a Cr �1N9S NE•4TH-CT W r a r z jk9 5f Sou rce- City of Renton a w Figure 2-18 1CFPublic and Open Spaces INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Sections 3.15 and 4.15 of d+is-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. am t.,1 IS_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 addressesaiotential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on irrrks and recreation in [lie 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 2-2046 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 Altermtivcs. 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-60 April 2011 Final NEPA/5EPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives • 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 RBA'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;i 12.500-tiLuiire foot space, or larger for senior health Services includiniz elder day health on RHA's vacant Piha site, a 15,000-g1uarLc_foc}t library, and 9,600 square feet ofcomnitinity service or retail since. 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 -regard ing Altern-al ives Z and 3 �1nd rinai,EIS _Section 3.17 regarding the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Area Community Manned Action 2-61 April 2011 Final NEPA/S PA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 3 Is N .' •r ` y. : i. -7i 7 "orf► [. �4rk a I L■ K r it, rrb+*1 r ■ + .' &6f&6f�'^��il la..■wr-+••+�r++r{,..... ` i S 31 " 7 I." ,r;+ij-* f..�rrw..rr■■•..rw.*., .? Y1f`•'� ai w� L 'J3 w'r .' a.�,+rr,rl �a f-..►�� I�.. '+,l,,.a�«t��,� i l _..,1 Wi. .�..11�■ i r S` go !)' '+!'` i r. + y ■ J•+ a•: a��L r}}• a yi , iir" ` ■_.'T [ i. `r,��� ir,� -... r' ?, # + }-. �.e. ►.�Ry' ■I i�:"_k ■. * ■ • +. r. ■ray► --f. jr �{ .. +,r* �l .R��} T F' ■ Fi�rti. = li • II • i L r r ■ [ iloneyr-4 . F d ■ -■ r t a ;, • a '. ap■M■■ ar■ ' n r iireen6eiE t o a 1 i; i - i r •:. . ■ ■ r. i� a ! �1fw i 1 . f r I w T 4a ' A ,.. r INV ♦. T . r r r� • a a r - a ■ y • .F �. M!I11f ■f 1 M, I" { .• 1Ii 1 ..Y! 'y;L a ara+ r [rr:.' 111 1 J9 ;♦ ��*� fal\ - I i i. r ��I,r •r"� �7, Ir rte.-r#w �. i x I 1 e. r • ., dr. r 1 "I • Ij' �iw• i a • _ _ +* it ai&II L rk ��; ■ R I " i' r. .! ` r Fy- j 1.., � a,r' ■.1 .4■ � �� J ►*`'f OP1t �' "I *--1 i.. i�+i �,� r •.: ■•■: 4 IF y■ ■ra: a [ �: 9 i ' •F" i ,■ :y { 1y1 TUG Plork i'• cpserTerra[e 1_ _ 1 + i♦ 1 f l ri t >>`:4 * s.n rF iii i+ ;l+� � i ■ ', ■''.R =1 �, t' , l' ri( r 111 ';.�: • r'.. r. ! L, �.r f ,a ■ra+ T . s.. 4 r r • It { 7`' 1 1-'1 Ii 'rr w t 1 L {' I;i 1 1. s ■ 1 ■ �11dlni j,r • 'i•: - :� •l. ra l f. !. [: �.ir, .■ : IddleSpl$oi �.0 J.•i i! A16, �a �� 1 , n.,f_r�r•+a.+ - W Iff '-. T ',V�. ■•.` `.F'a -1 i rll+ ,. ? tc+.'ry.` IIL Flrk �. ■ k _ ► 1 ..a 1 I' ' 4111 •ir. .; Ell Itir f'r:,. # iF l. -w 1 _.. ix' y,.Y,_�j, /.+� a a+1�i-'7� : ■4 017 1�s ,.r.�i • ��-'�_ w K e R•.aa r. ■_`. 7 r■� R ._� i _l( '� [_ .." _� }} 4 �i Via• : `a�[1 rf: r�ir r T a'Y. a[, .rr _ i •e n'i, y a: 1 *.' - ..7 C I# qj • r L�� : w.-ra�..,.,z ., I T :1 ' r • s{i �, ■**�:,, �:1� [. Ira . I- ! }rrwrrr, ■r►r R. 'lr.. T }`—\ 4' � =moi y,. 1' 1... ��33" �: I �+i+i_f �', Lr _r ••}! #tiA *rl■+-wr: Fil 1 `� +},� ■ Z I i, fv�r••:.,rF tri,_. L ■til till ■ i J - ���a •r 4•■- rt, f,/." , Ri �.I .i ,s aw.- .r,� Will LL _.JP Apartiee '� r'•Iimk..rib • �. r ■1 it •�"�:'^iV' r • ■r■ _� ti r ' �,r (RHA)+ a �I -'� " anti i : 'ice M ■ r. ■ r - t � i �i 7 • i + !' 1 - 4 t_ a .rl- ti-��r M.rgr Y rw Y, ■f r �' "tA..4ra i� aiJ� �• Mrs � � L�� r ..... # i'�'; 'v .� Y -TV s_ Wy :�(r .. rr 41 1 1 t • '; y a,t ^t F ' Y:�•r�� '• y� l Hfyhiands 1tr� ��,i 3' ■ e .OL +l �'' 1 1 'y . li ��* L*+rr +v'y •_ f, i palil "� ',-T rI .7' l� L f. • :' "a�. . 4r.1 1?li :r+ri-fi �, S:a • '� •I I,.r - 4a + .iii { GG r _..,' i,l ,f la ;yf v A • �u•�� ii : [_ i.ia. p _ a ?� a • r � r 1. • :�n ,•,`*^a t ..41 i' i ~ a� rr I �.,.� + i '>• f. r a~".■r;�4 •i.e R e runr }+! ani ,,�` _ ..1 . • r '� lrx ;�. by.r • rR fIk +i► i; jSD , +w•1, ■ ! 1 1 r '%. ■!'A* M *TJ►{ �'*r; a's '.a; 1 ww((�` ►��� a, f.r 1 i or, ♦. •{• • y'1 it,". ih •_•+f J r,.-�-- IVG�tTf.iF l �e .�, r: ! Ira- �rr+ f•/:;i►t' .'l _ �I aw+-i� d■�a +S+#'i ie ►v �. s' I' + D C41 ` '! ►- .•q.■ Tr*a�ss. i• atm I i'� i1-1 �.'1 '[ } ■,l�N1 ! v;�14�ti #+• ri. 1 1 I'1 Irl VIII' �� • II� R.,+vr� .'r-rrrrti la q.,r- n• •+�. . ♦�. ♦r1ri� �`:A,7 IIS ;rra�Ib • r ■! ;�.... ia�lif - ,! • ► r iitY.r y1 lra,� L + �. . i� I. In a tia + ai FO+� a ■ ■ .: • fSIE 5th 5t a ��i �', _�.•,. ..St r L . * chm[al r rr ■ r ■ L 111 Publicly owned land Iaty 61 R•ntok R►nton Housing Authority, Renton School District, USIFad■ral Gov't, and ROW) MITHUN o 6011) Izoo 1800 240-a feet Figure 2-19 Publicly Owned Sites in Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS Community facilites complex: • Early childhood education center • Senior center • Daycare • Community services • Conference rooms • Fitness, arts, etc. • Plaza/ oudoor seating Green�Gan?�sction in 16th Street k Q. W. - .`1 ,,Sdnior housing . Community garden.. Remote, shared parking lot Cottage/ courtyard green housing r � i Artist's drawing of the Family Village concept at Hillcrest Note: This is a conceptual rendering from the Sunset Area Community investment Strategy, and thus subject to change. Rainwater park/ passive recreation field Children's play area r. •� .:tib IN r.. Interior�ri4en` ' pedestrian corridors/ walkways Figure 2-20 MI T H U N Alternative 3—Family Village Concept Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton 2.7.2.6 Planned Action Ordinance Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 a 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 Dr-a€LEIS 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 nQviwd draft Planned Actk)n Ordinance tziilore.d to the Preferred Alternative is. hICILIded in Final EIS Appendix E. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-64 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 2.7.2,7 Cumulative Growth Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 Dral t -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 it r tngc of iiciyliborhood grmvth patterns, SLImset Terrace. rcdoyelopillunl concepts, circulation improvenu nts, drainage Com-elits. parks and recreatitm fQaAU C`S, utility imp1-o��c3nent and other cicnients. The FIS alternatives present a range of (growth, _service and infrastructure ot)tions, with A]ternatives 1 and 3 repl_eSl2nti1111.khe lnwcr and uuDcr bookends, respectively. and Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative falling in between. [n the future. the City, ulher agencies such as RHA, and private propert-v owners may consider land use. pti_I_�lic_,tieryice., and infrastructure proiects that fall within the range of the FIS ollernalives. Because the EIS analysis cove rs, activities Withitl this range, it CJII lye al)Ii1ic2d to these futLlre projects it thr,�L.i re ccilisistent with the rallgu (it EIS assumptions. 2.S 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 2-65 April 2011 Final NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 a. Noise Calculations provided to HUD Cerise, Gilbert rom: Erika Conkling [EConkling@Rentonwa.gov] ent: Monday, April 25, 2011 11:41 AM To: Cerise, Gilbert Cc: Lisa Grueter Subject: FW: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Attachments: 2030 No Action Ldn no terrain w 8 ft barrier.pdf; 2009 Existing Ldn no terrain.pdf; 2030 Alt 2 Ldn no terrain.pdf; 2030 Alt 2 Ldn no terrain east.pdf; 2030 Alt 2 Ldn no terrain w 8 ft barrier.pdf; 2030 Alt 3 Ldn no terrain.pdf; 2030 Alt 3 Ldn no terrain east.pdf; 2030 Alt 3 Ldn no terrain w 8 ft barrier.pdf; 2030 No Action Ldn no terrain.pdf; TNM Run_Existing without Terrain.pdf; TNM Run—Existing with Terrain.pdf Gil- Is this the email you are looking for? 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: Grueter, Lisa [mai Ito: LGrueter@icri.com] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 12:58 PM To: Mielcarek, Ryan E ,c: SEA Washington State PHAs, mrg; Mark Santos -Johnson; Erika Conkling; Wilder, Jim; Wall, Richard B; Tennison, _'armen Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Hi Ryan, Thanks for your assistance this morning regarding noise levels and for passing along the information to your expert at HUD headquarters to help with mitigation options, particularly construction standards. Here are the detailed data regarding the noise calculations. The PDF files represent the noise calculator results and each file name identifies the location (west or east of Harrington Avenue NE at NE Sunset Boulevard), the alternative and key assumptions. Because the HUD site DNL calculator doesn't account for terrain, we also tested results with terrain in TNM, and we have provided those files as well. (We did the test runs in TNM for existing conditions to compare the effect of terrain. It shows almost no difference for modeled Ldn. We estimated that the average elevation at the third existing building west of the NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE is about 5 feet above NE Sunset Boulevard, and modeled that for a test.) Note we have some shapefiles that show the parcels and topography. For our analysis we used Google Earth elevations, but we can send these shapefiles if your expert may want this kind of information. However, the files are 20 megabytes so I'll send those via FTP if those files are desired. Thanks, -Lisa LISA GRUETER, AICP I Senior Planner 1 206.801.2816 1 Igrueter@icfi.com I ich.com ICF INTERNATIONAL 1 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104 1 425.591.7004 (mobile) In January, ICF Jones & Stokes became ICF International. Check out icfi.com/evolution. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Mielcarek, Ryan E [maOto: Rya n.E.Mielcarek@hud.gov] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 11:44 AM To: Mielcarek, Ryan E; Grueter, Lisa Cc: SEA Washington State PHAs, mrg; 'Mark Santos -Johnson'; Carmen Subject: RE, Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Lisa, 'Erika Conkling'; Wilder, Jim; Wall, Richard B; Tennison, I talked with the noise expert already and submitted to him all that you submitted to me before so you do not have to duplicate that same information. Thank you. Ryan E. Mielcarek PHRS-Facilities Management Dept. of Housing and Urban Development HUD Region X Seatt€e 206-220-6205 From: Mielcarek, Ryan E Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:42 AM To: 'Grueter, Lisa' Cc: Peavlerstewart, Deborah; Jensen, Sara; SEA Washington State PHAs, mrg; 'Mark Santos -Johnson; 'Erika Conkling`; 'Wilder, Jim'; Wall, Richard B; Tennison, Carmen Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis All, Thank you for the call this morning. One regulation that I did not address specifically was that, regardless of other federal department requirements (i.e, DOT), that if the exterior noise level is above 65dB but less than 70dB then at least 5dB of attenuation measures must be included in the mitigation. This is obviously assuming that normal construction automatically provides 20dB of sound attenuation to achieve HUD's goal of 45dB interior noise level. If the sound level is such that it is above 70db but less than 75dB then at least 10dB of additional sound mitigation must be incorporated in to the construction (24 CFR 51.104). To recap the major concerns: 1) Will it be required that the windows adjacent to and facing Sunset Rd. be inoperable if the exterior level reaching these windows is above 65dB, which in addition also requires additional ventilation requirements? 2) How can you negotiate HUD's noise requirements with those of FHWA for this project if it appears that FHWA has more stringent requirements and interpretations of Sound Transmission Class (STC) that contradict HUD's requirements. Essentially, they interpret normal construction of a wall providing less attenuation that what HUD 2 interprets as that same wall as providing, thus requiring additional mitigation above that which is stipulated in 25 CFR 51.104. 3) That the elevation of the buildings adjacent to the main arterial in question, Sunset Rd., fluctuates. What effect dc2s his have on mitigation and what possible solutions can be provided? 4) It has been requested that at a minimum these concerns be evaluated by a HUD noise expert by December 2nd -4th. This would allow enough time to incorporate the technical assistance provided by HUD into the DEIS that is to be published the second week of December. 5) 1 requested all noise modeling and detailed analysis that is available on this site so that I could provide this documentation to HUD's noise expert and that I would forward this information to HUD's noise expert in the hopes, but with not guarantee, that he/she could provide some technical assistance by the time requested. If I have missed something, then please include your concern when you send all noise documentation to me so that I can include it with our technical assistance request. Thanks again for your continued efforts and open lines of communication. Regards, Ryan E. Mielcarek PHRS-Facilities Management Dept. of Housing and Urban Development HUD Region X Seattle 206-220-6205 From: Grueter, Lisa [mailto:LGrueter@icfi.com] lent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:54 PM .'o: Mielcarek, Ryan E Cc: Peavlerstewart, Deborah; Jensen, Sara; SEA Washington State PHAs, mrg; 'Mark Santos -Johnson'; 'Erika Conkling'; Wilder, Jim; Wall, Richard B; Tennison, Carmen Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Hi Ryan, Thanks for your email. I think there's value in talking at 9:30 tomorrow to go over a couple of the points. 1 appreciate your review of all this and your timeliness. Here's the phone information again for reference. Conference Call: 1-877-423-6338 Passcode: 690521 Thanks, --Lisa LISA GRUETER, AICD I Senior Planner 1 206,801.2816 1 Igrueter@icfi.com I icfi.com ICF INTERNATIONAL 1 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104 1 42S.591.7004 (mobile) In January, ICF Jones & Stokes became ICF International. :heck out icfi.com/evqLution, Al Please consider the environment before printing this a -mail. From: Mielcarek, Ryan E[mailto:Ryan. E.Mielcarek@hud.gov] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:10 AM To: Grueter, Lisa Cc: Peavlerstewart, Deborah; Jensen, Sara; SEA Washington State PHAs, mrg; 'Mark Santos -Johnson'; 'Erika Conkling'; Wilder, Jim; Wall, Richard B; Tennison, Carmen Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Lisa, Thank you. It is my understanding that Deborah will only be available Friday afternoon but we can proceed with the call in the morning to recap the following items from our conversation: 1) That it is ultimately the Responsible Entity who must make decisions on the course of action and the RE must be included in all of our communications. 2) That through site design and building orientation proper mitigation looks to be achievable.....although... (see 3) 3) There is a concern about the open space between Sunset Rd and between buildings because from the design alternatives we could not interpret if these spaces are intended or could be utilized as a "noise sensitive use" where playgrounds, picnic tables, and the like would expose residents to the normally unacceptable level. 4) That a balcony is considered a noise sensitive use if it opens to a bedroom. 5) The requirements of the exception at 24 CFR 51.105 to approve raising the allowable threshold from 65d6 to 70dB. (New Comment) I should note here that in the nebulous regulations that this course of action is solely up to the Responsible Entity. HUD only provides technical assistance when the exception is done under PT58. References to "Special Environmental Clearance" and approval from the "Environmental Clearance Officer" should be interpreted as "Environmental Assessment" and "Certifying Officer." This should ease the perceived administrative burden of having to apply for a waiver to HUD for this level of exception only. 6) That if RHA would like in depth Noise Technical Assistance from HUD's noise expert at HQ (that is not me!), that we would need more detailed schematics and documentation. 7) My previous concerns of making sure when implementing site design measures not to concentrate low-income residents into one area of the site. This is a general observation simply to be cognizant of when implementing one of the design alternatives. 1 will be happy to discuss these tomorrow if we continue with the call. Thank you for your continued communication and assistance to RHA and the City of Renton. Regards, Ryan E. Mielcarek PHRS-Facilities Management Dept. of Housing and Urban Development HUD Region X Seattle 206-220-6205 From: Grueter, Lisa [mailto:LGrueter@icfi.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:54 PM To: Mielcarek, Ryan E Cc: Peavlerstewart, Deborah; Jensen, Sara; SEA Washington State PHAs, mrg; Mark Santos -Johnson; Erika Conkling; 4 Wilder, Jim Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Importance: High i Ryan, Thanks for talking with me today about the noise topic. It sounds like HUD would not require the wall as mitigation, but you had some thoughts on the site plan and open space and construction standards. There are also provisions to allow for exceptions to noise standards in 24 CFR 51.105, but that has a process associated with it. I thought we could talk about the site plan considerations and the process in 24 CFR 51.105 on Friday. You thought a conference call at 9:30 on Friday would work (rather than 9) but wanted to confirm with Debbie. As I'll be out much of tomorrow, I thought I'd go ahead and send the call in information for Friday. Conference Call: 1-877-423-6338 Passcode: 690521 Thanks, --Lisa LISA GRUETER, AICP j Senior Planner 1 206.801.2816 1 lgrueter@ieF'i.com I icfi.com ICF INTERNATIONAL 1 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104 1 425.591.7004 (mobile) In January, ICF Jones & Stokes became ICF International. Check out icfi.com/evolution. OWA Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Mielcarek, Ryan E [mailto:Ryan.E.Mielcarek@hud.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:52 PM To: Grueter, Lisa Cc: Peavierstewart, Deborah; Jensen, Sara Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Lisa, I was under the impression this was going to be a conference call. There might not be enough comment on our part at this moment to necessitate a meeting. Please let me get back to you this afternoon with more information. Thank you. Ryan E. Mielearek PHRS-Facilities Management Dept. of Housing and Urban Development HUD Region X Seattle 206-220-6205 'rom: Grueter, Lisa [maiito:LGrueter@icfi.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:45 PM To: Mielcarek, Ryan E Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Hi Ryan, We have availability Friday morning—would 9 a.m. work? Attending would be Mark Gropper, Mark Santos -Johnson (City), Jim Wilder and myself (and maybe one other noise technician). Also we have a meeting room at Renton or RHA offices unless you'd prefer your offices. Thanks, --Lisa From: Mielcarek, Ryan E[mailto:Ryan.E.Mielcarek@hud.gov] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 2:08 PM To: Grueter, Lisa Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Lisa, Deborah and I will be getting together on Thursday to discuss, so perhaps Friday would work best. From: Grueter, Lisa [mailto:LGrueter@icfi.com] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 2:06 PM To: Mielcarek, Ryan E Subject: RE: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Hi Ryan, I'm wondering if you have an idea of what times/days would work for a meeting or call this week on noise? I have some time on Wednesday and Friday and would like to offer possibilities to City and RHA folks too. Thanks, --Lisa From: Grueter, Lisa Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 6:18 PM To: 'Mielcarek, Ryan E' Cc: 'Mark R. Gropper; Alexander Pietsch; Erika Conkling; 'Mark Santos -Johnson' Subject: Renton Sunset EIS - Noise Analysis Hi Ryan, Thanks for talking with me today about the Renton Sunset EIS and noise. As requested here is some preliminary draft analysis (it is for internal review only as we are still refining the document for publication later in December). It sounded like you'd take a look along with Debbie and then we could have a call or meeting later next week. We appreciate your input on this topic given that we have a mixed use concept that needs to relate to the street and be welcoming to residents, customers, and visitors. Thanks, 6 0 LISA GRUETER, AICP I Senior Planner 1 206.801.2816 I I rueter icfi.cam I icfi.Com ICF INTERNATIONAL 1 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104 1 425.591.7004 (mobile) January, ICF Jones & Stokes became ICF International. Check out icfi.com/evolution. '' please cansi[i,:r the enJuo im�mt "aefole p inring this e-mail, Site DN L Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Commui t7 Planning & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise calculator, to access the user guidebook, or • Corrections • • send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, pay/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide Vehicle Type feedhack on how the DNL Assessment :Medium Trucks []� Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or 70 corrections for the improvement of the Distanoe to Stop Sign tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), dick on the "Add Road to: ATEC@hud.aov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button 35 (s) below. 2606$ • All Road and Rail input values must be 133 positive non -decimal numbers. r Day/Night Noise Level Assessment Tool user culde • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be r Day/Night Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. 66.2766 • All checkboxes that apply must be r System Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the 68.2568 tables' headers. r Internet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note:Tooltips, containing field specific 0 Adobe Reader information, have been added in this tool ► Enabling JavaScript and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Oct. 19, 2010 User's Name ICFI Road 4 1 Name: SR 904 - 2030 Alt3 AADT (26,600) Add Road Source Add Rail Source Calculate Site DNL 68.2568 Airport Noise Level Calculate New Site DNL NIA Does the user have loud impulse sound level information (in dB) relevant to the assessment? Yes a No Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/calculator/dnlcalculatortool.cfni 10/19/2010 Vehicle Type Cars' :Medium Trucks []� 1Heaw Trucke C lCffective Dlstanre 70 70 70 Distanoe to Stop Sign jAverage Speed 35 35 35 !Average Daily Trips ><ADT) 2606$ 1399 133 !Night Fraction of ADT 15 : 15 15 !Road Gradient (%) - 2 Vehicle DNL 66.2766 58 1253 625125 Calculate Road #1 DNL 68.2568 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Calculate Site DNL 68.2568 Airport Noise Level Calculate New Site DNL NIA Does the user have loud impulse sound level information (in dB) relevant to the assessment? Yes a No Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/calculator/dnlcalculatortool.cfni 10/19/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 8 May 2004 Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: ■ No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator . Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts a Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh 0 Back to top FOIA Rdyacv Web Policies and Important Links Home f� U.S. Department of Housing and urban Development 1�r III 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-5455 Fina thg address of a HUD office near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.bud.gov/offices/epd/environment/calculator/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 10/19/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Comirnuniry Plaiwing & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Feedback & calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Providing Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment TW, Page 1 of 2 Day/ Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide Neavy Trucks n feedback on how the DNL Assessment Effecthre Distance Tool may be improved. users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or Distance to Stop Sign corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATEC@hud.00v Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button 24794 380 (s) below. q • All Road and Rail input values must be positive non -decimal numbers. Day/Night Noise Level Assessment Tool User Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► pay/Night Nolse Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. 2 • All checkboxes that apply must be r System Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the 62.2775 tables' headers. R Intemet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field I, Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in ► Enabling]avaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Oct. 19, 2010 User's Name ICFI gov WC. Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt2 AADT (25,300) Vehicle type Cars 1 Medium Trucks n Neavy Trucks n Effecthre Distance 70 70 70 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed -- - — — -- 35 35 .35 Average Da#y Trips 24794 380 (ADT) .126 Night Fraction of ADT 15 15 15 Road Gradient (940) 2 Vehicle ONL 66.059 57 9134 62.2775 Calculate Road #1 DNL 68.0343 r Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? 1 Yes -* No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources " http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.efm 14/19/2410 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport ' Site DNL with Loud Impuise Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas), o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook a Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh O Back to top fm Privacy Web POlicie5 and Important Links Home U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 706-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 Find the address of a HUD office near you w mW� Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environ nent/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 10/19/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Comni.,nity Planning & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Providing Feedback & calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. Page 1 of 2 • To display the Road and/or Rail DML Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATBCOhud.gov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below. t .. I.. . • All Road and Rail input values must be r pay/NiahtNoise Level positive non -decimal numbers. Assessment Tool user Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► pay/Night Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be System Requirements' checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. ► Intemet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field / Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in ► Enabling ]avaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Oct. 20, 2010 User's Name (CFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2009 Exsiting AADT (20,200) Vehlcle Type Gars 0 Medium Trucks n 'Heavy Trucks n (Effective Distance 60 60 60 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Daily Trips 18796 303 101 .(ADT) ,Mht Fraction of ADT 15 15 15 iRoad Gradient (%) — 2 Vehicle DNL. 66.0855 57.9342 62.321 Calculate Road #1 DNL 68.0656 rR.set Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? 1 yes 111 No Combined DNL for all Road and Rall sources http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 10/21/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Envirorunent and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport ' Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: . No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator . Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator . Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). a Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh aBack to top FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home 10 P .p U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development d 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 L4Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 ��MMII find the address of a HUD office near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm 10/21/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Community P#amiing & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Providing Feedback RL calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: Atter using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other Input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATEC0hyd.00y Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below. *; • All Road and Rail input values must be r Day/Nlaht Noise Level positive non -decimal numbers. Assessment Tool user Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► flay/Nlaht Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Jool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be System Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. ► Internet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note #i: Tooltips, containing field 0 Adobe Rcpder specific information, have been added in 1 Enabling lavaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #Z: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Oct. 20, 2010 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 No Action AADT (24,200) Vehicle Type Cars i� !Medium Trucks n Heavy Trucks � _ - Effective Distance 60 '60 60 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 35 35 'Average Daily Trips 23716 363 121 {ADT) t6ght Fraction of ADT 15 15 ' 15 Road Gradient (%) 2 Vehicle DNL 66.8702 158.7188 63.106 Calculate Road 41 DNL 68-8504 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport: Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? ,Yes �i No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm 10/21/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are; • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator . Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site pian to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook a Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh a Back to top FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Imoartont Links Home «•+�"'� U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I�I!I!I .a6 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 'NI Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 HnQ the address ofd. HUD office near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud,gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm 10/21/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CFD - HUD Community Planning & Dewe€opment Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Providing calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Page 1 of 2 Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide ;Heavy Tracks feedback on how the DNL Assessment 50 50 Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the 35 35 tool. • To display the Road and/or Rall DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATEUdhud.aov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below. M • All Road and Rail input values must be 1 DavlNiaht Noise Level positive non -decimal numbers. Assessment Tool User Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL vaiue(s) must be F Day/Night Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. ► Internet E%Olorer 6.0 or above • Note:Tooltips, containing field specific 6 Adobe Reader information, have been added in this tool i Enabling )avaScript and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Oct. 20, 2010 User's Name tCFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt2 AADT (25,300) Vehicle Type Cars imedium trucks ;Heavy Tracks Effective Distance 50 50 50 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Daily Trips 24794 380 126 (ADT) Night Fracillon of ADT 15 15 15 Road Gradient (%) � 2 Vehicle DNL 68.251 60.1053 64 469 Calculate Road #1 DNL j 70.2262 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Calculate Site DNL j 70.2262 Airport Noise Level Calculate New Site DNL NIA Does the user have loud impulse sound level information (in dB) relevant to the assessment? ,Yes No http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/calculator/dnlcalculatortool.efm 10/21/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Page 2 of 2 Content current as of 8 May 20D9 Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator e Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator + Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site pian to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook a Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh O Back to top FOIA Privacy Web P4llgle$ and IMOortant Links Home U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 11 �1!1p� 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 ,�a.raf Find the address of a HUD „once near you http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/calculator/dnlealculatortool.cfin 10/21/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Coinmanity Planning & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise r Providing Feedback & calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Page 1 of 2 Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment TOOT Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rall DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: bjEFAhud.gov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below. ' • All Road and Rail input values must be ► Day/Night Noise Level positive non -decimal numbers. AsseslmenjTool Uirr 0111d • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be M Day/Nicht Noise Level calculated separately before calculating the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be r checked for vehicles and trains in the System Requirements tables' headers. P Internet Exulorer 6.0 or above • Note:Tooltips, containing field specific M Adobe Reader information, have been added in this tool P Enabling ]avascript and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Oct. 20, 2010 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 AIl3 AADT (26,600) Vehicle Type Cars :D rNlediuin Trucks M 'Heavy Trucks R Effective Distance 50 150 50 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Dai Trips 26068 399 133 (ADT) Night Fraction of ADT 15 15 15 Road Gradient (%) 2 Vehicle DNL 68.4686 60.3172 64.704 Calculate Road #1 DNL 70.4486 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Calculate Site DNL 70.4486 Airport Noise Level Calculate New Site DNL NIA Does the user have loud impulse sound level information (in dB) relevant to the assessment? Yes WNo http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/calculator/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 10/21/2010 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Page 2 of 2 Content current as of 8 May 2009 Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh O Back to top FOIA Privacy yLeD Policies and Important Links Nome moi. a= U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (262) 768-1112 TTY: (202) 706-1455 rwfl..° Find ther Ta F JIM ffiic near you http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/calculator/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 10/21/2010 \ / § / \ k k r- 0 k CD \ k S � 8 c IT 0 / 3 § $ % 0 § > % z ? E / # CD 0 �g ƒ@fi d� a _. z@� k^2)e {/ k..�E2 % N 2 3 @ of N U> ul rQ 7 ® X22 2§©?2% U) CL 0 � 2 � Jo � o # � . � w� � 0 CD 0 E "cr§ % m »�. {kLa E§ k� § 00m q mce Q4 / § / \ k k r- 0 k CD \ k S � 8 c IT 0 / 3 § $ % 0 § § % / § / \ k k r- 0 k CD \ k S � 8 c IT C w ? 1 O ' m 3 C a a +a CL C wCL10 a a t t _m m C �.ar ro'a' N ro Q m a C Q O N V E v P z 0 H a a w c 0 N 0 C m 0.' LL. F Z F- w w w` C m ,Wj J G7 a n' = z Z D N N W U p 1 uJ J J LL7 ! m m W V Y LU a f� fY -C.0 O N V E v P z 0 H a a w c 0 N 0 C m 0.' LL. F Z F- C m OIm I u E U' ; 4 Cm O S?------I�-,'o' !I In U ci ! m m ly Iv y Ncc Z Ci m 9 0 m cc m 3 i W v Q } J m � F E ,o y r � C 3 m c`a en EOa I-6 > C? , � 0 i � 3 i � u ' CI O O L -. -._i— uol to q -o• I 2 I f➢ C p m IQ QIQ, If c Q y I c w V v;l Z til i I , ` O N V E v P z 0 H a a w c 0 N 0 C m 0.' LL. F Z F- m U Q Q? G G. L_ I CLI uj I � N• � C � I T Z C +QUI 6I M a N T L T,, t L O k o � 0 N IM 0 C , - x d E O C E cm Lo 0 y c _Q m c E o cd,F aCrU) Nm r V{ CN -Ii) En azkm 2 d c ( 3 (n LI ��ciCLU) C W m C O O 7 L_ I uj I a I M uj i O O Q� O rn C 0 N - x d E O C E cm W 0 m N O m c� Ea cd,F aCrU) cc ccraom� 0 I I O I i O O O O N O 6 Q 4 O O O 6 M T Ila I I u� is I i I m Imo, I C C = O 0 9 C IV 2 .� p1 M C VO! Gni w rL I a m Z U m m c � g'' c T m QC u� [V m u c Q ci L tm C o a' � s w V d ca C 2 E m o Z 14 C W ra. c u a 1 a1i 1 O ~ 10 = U Co l li p p p IM v' C U I D m m m '0 0 0 UJI C 3 Zigd U 4 IM 4 F w i o im o olo C C 2 YQ7Q. Q �� I U! H Z LL IOW J rp' ;Z�_ g a � I '. to !, +- 1—mc) T CC N Z p # O I it � I I I III d1 I ' yj w v i J U v ga z � i iu i I I cao p Z I!i N N G W C i LN W N ~ CL rLU a O z SIE as .CLm �i ti Y w d m ¢ I --. IZ m'I� Q: � :Q a 1 M T Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Cornmuii�t? Kimiing & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Feedback calculator, to access the user guidebook, or • Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Davl Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved, Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATECOhud.uov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below. • All Road and Rail input values must be ► Day/Nicht Nolse Level positive non -decimal numbers. Assessment Tool User- ulde • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► Dar/Ninht Nolse Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool FiowcharSs the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. 0 Internet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field 0 Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in b Enabling ]avaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #Z: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Jan. 5, 2011 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt2 AADT (25,300) Vehk;W Type cars Medtum Trucks R 1 ;Heavy Trucks n Owtive Distance 100 100 100 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 35 35 Average DaNy Trips 24794 i380 126 {ADT) Night FraCtlon of ADT 15 15 15 Road Gradient (%) r�^ -� 2 Vehicle DNL 63.7355 55.5899 59.954 Calculate Road #1 DNL 65 7108 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? if "yes *-No Combined DNL for all . Road and Rall sources Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool_cfin 1/5/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are; • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh O Back to top PQIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links home 1W U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development +IAi�451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 I! II Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 ��'•tid.� find the address of a HUD office near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/enviroriment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/5/2411 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Community Fldnciiiig & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noiseProviding Feedback calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, lid Ni ht Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or Corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rall DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road tn: ALECtbu0.aov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below. . . • All Road and Rail input values must be ► DavlNiaht Noise Level positive non -decimal numbers. AsseasmentTootuser Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► Davi iaht Noise Level calculated separately before calculating &Iessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be checked for vehicles and trains in the —S-ystem Requirements tables' headers. ► Internet Exollorer 6.0 or above • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field ► Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in ► Enabling JavaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Jan. 5, 2011 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt3 AADT (26,600) Vehide Type Cars 7v] Medium Trucks W :Heavy Trucks W :Effective Distance 65 .65 65 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 35 35 ,AvenneDaily Tripe 26068 399 133 light Fraction of ADT 15 15 15 Road Gradlerd — 2 Vehicle DNL 66.7594 :58.6081 629955 Calculate Road #1 DNL J,68.7397 Reset Add Road Source7 I Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? I 'Yes 4- No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpdienvironment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/5/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are, • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mltigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calcutator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook a Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh a Back to top FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home 1k " ` a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development aa % 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 �Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 Fmd Jhre5sf a HUD ffl n r Xou Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm 1/5/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Conmrjiiity Plann ng & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise calculator, to access the user guidebook, or send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. Page 1 of 2 • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATECPhud.nov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button .100 (s) below. 12K=2 ,` • Ail Road and Rail input values must be positive non -decimal numbers. ► Day/Night Noise Level Assessment Tool user Guide All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► Day/Night Noise Level calculated separately before calculating _Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. - 26066 • All checkboxes that apply must be r System Requirements' checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. ► Internet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field ► Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in ► Enabling )avaScript this tool and may be accessed by 2 hovering over all the respective data 639531 fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Jan. 5, 2011 User's Name ICH Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt3 AADT (26,600) Vehicle Type -_ Gars .7-1 Medium Trucks 7,0 ;Heavy Trucks C Effective Distance .100 100 100 Distance to Stop Sgin ;Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Dairy Trips - 26066 399 133 (ADT) Night Fraction of ADT 15 15 15 Road Gradient (%1 2 Vehide DNL 639531 55.8018 60.189 Calculate Road #1 DNL 65.9333 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? Yes l* No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources http://www.hud.gov/offices/epd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/5/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Enviromnent and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator . Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator ■ Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas), o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh a Back to top FOIA Privacv Web Policies and Important Links Flame 10 -•"'a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 Find the address of a, HQQ office near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/5/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Confrnunity Plaoring & development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Feedback calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Providing Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic fol#owing the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines; encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the toot. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATECCahud.gov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button `} (s) below. a . All Road and Rail input values must be 0 Day/Night Noise Level positive non -decimal numbers. Assessment Tool user Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► Day/Night Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. . All checkboxes that apply must be r System Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. ► Internet Explorer 6.0 or above ■ Note #1: Tooltips, containing field + Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in Enabling )avaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Jan, 5, 2011 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt2 AADT (25,300) _. _... .. -.... Type MET Cars !7 _.. _._. .... ;Medium Trucks 'Heavy Trucks C ;Effective Distance 65 .65 65 Distance to Stop Sign ;Average Speed 35 35 35 Average dally Trips ADT) 24794 380 126 Night Fraction of ADT 15 15 15 (toad Gradient (9u) 2 Vehicle ONL 605418 58.3962 62.7605 Calculate Road 41 DNL 68.5172 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? ;Yes 'w No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page I of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool-cfm 1/5/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). c Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh 0 Back to top FOIA Privacv Web Policies and Important Links Home A •� "'a, U.S. Department of Housing and Urian Development j,�,� 4517th Street S.W., Wasfiington, DC 20410 ji ee Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 748-1455 a, pIR V rind the address of a.HWD,Offce near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.liud.gov/offices/cp&environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/5/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Community Planning & Developmeiit Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Providing Corrections• send comments, please visit the following page: Atter using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the users Assessment Too] Guide, users are encouraged to provide Feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rall DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATEGLhud,uov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below, . • All Road and Rail input values must be r paylNinht Noise Level positive non -decimal numbers. ,assessment Tool user Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be k Day/Night NOiSe Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be r System Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. P Internet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note #I: Tooltips, containing field b Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in ► Enabling )avaScnpt this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Jan. 11, 2011 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt2 AADT (25.300) Vehicle Type Cars Z Medium Trucks Fwl Heavy Trucks [* ---- Effecttve Distance 75 75 75 Distance to Stop Sign ------------- Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Da -0 Trips 24794 380 126 {ROTS Night FracWn of ADT 15 115 115 Road Gradient (95) 2 Vehicle DNL 85.6096 57,464 61.8275 ........ ..... _ Calculate Road #1 DNL 67.5848 _ Reset Add RoadSource Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud impulse Sounds? Yes 41 No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/11/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DML Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh ID Back to top FOIA PrivaCy Web Policies and Important Links Home 10 p U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1eepo451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Tlhne: {202} 7D8 1112 TTY: (2D2) 708 1455 RR Find the address of a HUD office near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/off7ees/epd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm 1/11/2011 Site DNL Calculator- - Environment and Ener-- CPD - HUD zly comrnuni[y planning & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Providing Feedback & calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page; After using the DNL Assessment Too], Day/Nicht Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines; encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATECOthud.ci Source and/or "Add Rail Source button »y • All Road and Rail input values must be F DavlNlaht Noise Level positive non -decimal numbers. AsgPsglnent Toot User Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► DmJ.Nlnht Noise Level calculated separately before calculating AsrefsmenLTool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be System Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. ► Internet Exuloter 6.0 or above ■ Note #1: Tooltips, containing field ► Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in r Enablinglava5cript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date Jan. 11,2011 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt3 AADT (26,600) Vehicle Type Cars :Medium Trucks :Heavy Trucks ❑Q Effective Distance 75 75 75 Efttanoe to Stop Sim Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Deity Trips 26068 399 133 i(ADT) Nfght Flacdort of ADT 15 15 15 die =Road Grant(9e� 2 Vehicle DNL 658272 57.6758 620625 Calculate Road #1 DNL 67.8072 ;Reset Add Road Sour;T__j L Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? '-,Yes O' No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/11/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh Q Back to top FOIA privacy Web Policies and ImpQtYlIAt.l Inks Home U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development P 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 � y111lplly4,4' Find the address of a HUD officg near you Page 2 of 2 http://www. hud. gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/11/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD CominunirX Phnniiig & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noiseProviding Feedback calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNI- Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the user's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide Effective Distance feedback on how the DNL Assessment 85 Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the Average Speed tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send Comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATEC@hud.Oov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button 126 (s) below. r • All Road and Rail input values must be 15 positive non -decimal numbers. Day/Nicht Noise Level Assessment Tool usercuide • All Road and/or Rail DML value(s) must be ► Dav/Niaht Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment TOOT Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be SyStern Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. ► Internet Explorer 6.4 or above • Note #l: Tooltips, containing field ► Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in ► Enabling]avascript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse, • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrsce Record Date Jan.12, 2011 User's Name 1CFl Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt2 AADT (25,300) Vehicle Tyle cars Medium Trucks 7 ;Heavy Trucks n Effective Distance 85 85 85 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 :35 35 Average Wy Trips 4ADT) 24794 ___ ... .380 126 dight FraeW of ADT 15 .15 15 :Road Gradient .2 Vehicle ONL 64.7942 56 6486 61.013 Calculate Road #1 DNL 66.7696 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? 1 'Ve5 4iii No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/12/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the terrier Performance Module Refresh 0 Back to top FOIA Privacy Web Policies and 1Magrta1]t Links 110M lk U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .. 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 Find ther f g H D office near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/12/2411 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Conimuii'ity Planning & Devek)piftem Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Providing Feedback calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Nicht Noise Level Electronic fallowing the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement or the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATEC0hud.gov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below. • All Road and Rail input values must be ► Dav/Niaht Noise Levels positive non -decimal numbers. Assessment Toot user Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► pay/Nicht Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be System Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. ► Internet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field t Adohe Reader specific information, have been added in r Enabling ]avascript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse, • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrsce Record Date Jan.12, 2011 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR 900 - 2030 Alt3 AADT (26,600) Vehicle Vehicle Type Can - Madiatm Trucks R1 ;Heavy Trucks F Effective C4stance 85 85 :85 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Daily Trips 26068 399 .133 (ADT) Night Fraction of ADT 15 15 15 Road Gradient (56) �� 2 Vehicle DNL 65.01 18 56.8605 61.248 Calculate Road #1 DNL 66.9921 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? I Yes '1 No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page l of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/12/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Page 2 of 2 Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh OBack to top FOIA Privacy Web Policies and J10pQtlant Links momp U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development IIf 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 y•ij �'+� Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: {202) 708-1455 II -0j` Find the address of a HUD, 2ffce near you mai http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 1/12/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Conimunity Pl:inimig & CJevelopment Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Providing Feedback & calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide positive non -decimal numbers. feedback on how the DNL Assessment • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or the Site DNL. corrections for the Improvement of the • All checkboxes that apply must be tool. Page 1 of 2 • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATECC)hud.00y Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button 396 132 (s) below,°t`:,, . • All Road and Rail input values must be Night Fraction of ADT positive non -decimal numbers. P Day/Night Noise LXySj Assessment Tool Uker,guilde • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ► Dar/Nioht Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. Calculate Road #1 DNL • All checkboxes that apply must be System checked for vehicles and trains in the Requirements tables' headers. s Internet Explorer above • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field ► nAd t� specific information, have been added in EnMingJavaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse, • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date February 22, 2011 User's Name ICFI Road # 1 Name: SR900 - 2030 Preferred Alt (26,400 ADT) w!c Vehicle Type cars Z Medium Trucks n ',Heavy Trucks 0 Eflfecttve Distance 70 70 70 [Balance to Stop Stan Average Speed 35 35 35 Average D* Trips 25872 396 132 (ADT) Night Fraction of ADT 15 15 15 'Road Gradient (%) 2 Vehicle DNL 66.2439 58.0925 62.4795 Calculate Road #1 DNL 68.224 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? Yes !, No Combined DNL for ail Road and Rail sources http://www.hud.gov/offices/epd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cl'm 2/16/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation c Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts a Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh OBack to top FQIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home Im « �•'d U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development d 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 �IAIp rind the address of a HUD office near you Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.efm 2/16/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Page 1 of 2 Corrnrnanity Planning & Developioent Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise Providing Feedback & calculator, to access the user guidebook, or Corrections send comments, please visit the following page: After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment TOOT Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATECC)hud.gov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button .. n� (s) below. • All Road and Rail input values must be 1 Day/Night Noise Level positive non -decimal numbers. Assessment Too[ user Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be 1 Day/Night Noise Leve{ calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. r Internet Explorer 6.0 or above ■ Note #1: Tooltips, containing field ' Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in b Enabling ]avaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date February 22, 2011 User's Name ICFI Road Al 1 Name: SR900 - 2030 Preferred Alt (26,400 ADT) wlc Vehicle Type Cara _�Vl INedium Trucks .+❑ ';Heavy Trucks 7 Effective Dastanoe 80 80 80 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed Average Daily Trips (ADT) Night Fraction of ADT Road Gradient (%) - 35 35 35 25872 1:396 132 15 15 15 - - 2 Vehicle DNL 65.374 157,2226 61.6495 Calculate Road #1 DNL 67-3541 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud impulse Sounds? , . Yes 'e No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources http://www.hud.gov/offices/epd/environment/dnlealculatortool_cfm 2/16/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impu€se Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator . Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). a Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DML Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh Q Back to top F01A Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development c rI 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 •�Ir,•L: Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 h Igly 9# Find the address of a HUD office near you Page 2 of 2 httpa/www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 2/16/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Community Planning & Development Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noised Feedback calculator, to access the user guidebook, orCorrections send comments, please visit the following page: after using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the User's Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on haw the DNL Assessment -- - -- -- Gare 7v] Medium Trucks Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines: encouraged to send comments or 65 corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the Road and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATECiddhud.gov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button 132 (s) below.r-,N':teik.. _ • All Road and Rail input values must be Read Gradient (%) positive non -decimal numbers. 0 Day/Night Noise Level Assessment Tool user Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL vaiue(s) must be t Day/Night Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be System Requirements checked for vehicles and trains in the tables' headers. r Internet Explorer 6.0 or above • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field w Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in 0 Enabling lavascript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered, Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date February 22, 2011 User's Name ICFs Road # 1 Name: SR900 - 2030 Preferred Alt (26,400 ADT) elo gov Wase FALV Vehicle Type -- - -- -- Gare 7v] Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks n Effective Distance 65 65 65 Distance to Stop Sign ;Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Daily Trips {ADT) 25872 396 132 Night Fraction of ADT 15 .15 15 Read Gradient (%) 2 Vehicle DNL 66.7266 58 5753 629625 Calculate Road #1 DNL 68.7068 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? Yes '• No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page 1 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm 2/16/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL With Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Caiculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts o Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh a Back to top FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 706-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 nI fl f Find the address of a HUD office near you a. Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 2/16/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Cornrnunicy Planning & Developnier.t Site DNL Calculator For more information on using the noise. Feedback calculator, to access the user guidebook, or send comments, please visit the following page; After using the DNL Assessment Tool, Day/Night Noise Level Electronic following the directions in the users Assessment Tool Guide, users are encouraged to provide feedback on how the DNL Assessment Tool may be improved. Users are also Guidelines; encouraged to send comments or corrections for the improvement of the tool. • To display the (toad and/or Rail DNL Please send comments or other input calculator(s), click on the "Add Road to: ATLQdhud.aov Source" and/or "Add Rail Source" button (s) below. I .,;i..�r, �-� • All Road and Rail input values must be r DayfAight Noise Level' positive non -decimal numbers. Assessment Tool user Guide • All Road and/or Rail DNL value(s) must be ! Day/Nidht Noise Level calculated separately before calculating Assessment Tool Flowcharts the Site DNL. • All checkboxes that apply must be checked for vehicles and trains in the System Requirements tables' headers. ► Internet Explorer 6.0 Ora boy • Note #1: Tooltips, containing field i Adobe Reader specific information, have been added in 1 Enabling ]avaScript this tool and may be accessed by hovering over all the respective data fields (site identification, roadway and railway assessment, DNL calculation results, roadway and railway input variables) with the mouse. • Note #2: DNL Calculator assumes roadway data is always entered. Site ID Sunset Terrace Record Date February 22, 2011 User's Name IGF! Road # 1 Name: SR900 - 2030 Preferred Alt (26,400 ADT) efo Vehicle Type cars V M "um Tnwks 0 !Heavy Trucks (o Effective Distance 75 75 75 Distance to Stop Sign Average Speed 35 35 35 Average Dairy Trips (ADT) 25872 396 132 Night Fraction of ADT 15 ;15 15 Road Gradlent (4k) 2 Vehicle DNL 65.7944 57.6431 62.0295 Calculate Road #1 DNL 67, 7744 Reset Add Road Source Add Rail Source Airport Noise Level Loud Impulse Sounds? Yes 4 No Combined DNL for all Road and Rail sources Page 1 of 2 11ttp://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnlcalculatortool.cfm 2/16/2011 Site DNL Calculator - Environment and Energy - CPD - HUD Content current as of 13 August 2010 Combined DNL including Airport Site DNL with Loud Impulse Sound Calculate Mitigation Options If your site DNL is in Excess of 65 decibels, you options are: • No Action Alternative Cancel the project at this location DNL Calculator • Other Reasonable Alternatives Choose an alternate site DNL Calculator • Mitigation o Contact your Field or Regional Enviornmental Officer - Environmental Contacts a Increase mitigation in the building walls (only effective if no outdoor, noise sensitive areas). o Reconfigure the site plan to increase the distance between the noise source and noise -sensitive uses DNL Calculator o Incorporate natural or man-made barriers. See The Noise Guidebook o Construct noise barrier. See the Barrier Performance Module Refresh O Back to top FOIA Privacy Web Policles and Important Links Horne du U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 1 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 uryy,� Find the address of a HUD office near You Page 2 of 2 http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm 2/16/2011 Denis Law - [ ltr O f Mayor lL (� h Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator December 6, 2010 Steve Landino, Director Washington State Habitat Office NOAA,Fisheries Habitat Program/Olympia field office 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103 Lacey, WA 98503-1273 Dear Mr. Landino: The enclosed biological assessment addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Actibn. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds would support the proposal; which is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part.of a Planned Action that would .encourage redevelopment in, the Planned Action Study Area through land use growth allowances, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process via adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. We understand that DeeAnn Kirkpatrick of your Sand Point office typically reviews Biological Assessments in relation to HUD funds. Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.5:C: 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under, section 9 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 14379), the City of Renton has assumed responsibility -for compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).(42 U.S.C. 4321),in accordance with 24,CFR §§ 58.1. and 58.4. The City of Renton 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. Pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 Section -58.5(e) the City as responsible -entity is responsible for compliance with the Endangered Species Act; particularly Section 7. Thus, the City is acting as a designated non federal agency for the purposes of ESA informal consultation; and the enclosed HA evaluates the potential. effects on ESA -protected species that would- result from HUD funding of the project. The enclosed biological assessment analyzes potential impacts of the proposed project on golden paintbrush, Canada lynx,•grey wolf, grizzly bear, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, Puget Sound bull trout, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead; and on designated critical habitat for those species having designated critical habitat in the action area_ The biological assessment concludes that the project may affect, is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon;'Puget Sound steelhead, and designated critical habitat for both species. The ,project will have no effect on golden paintbrush; Canada lynx oe its designated critical habitat, grey wolf, Renton City Hall s 1055 South Grady Way • ;Renton, Washington 98057 a rentonwa.gov grizzly bear, rnaebled murrelet or its designated critical habitat, northern spotted owl or its designated . critical habitat, oe Puget Sound bull trout or its designated critical. habitat. It is ourunderstarid'ing that with federal concurrence this satisfies our respansibifities Ander Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act at this time: We will continue to remain aware of any change in status of these species and will be prepared,to reevaluate potential project impacts -if necessary. Please contact project manager Erika Conkling at (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Rentdh Environmental Review Committee Gregg. Zim erman, Administrator Public Works Department , J Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Hfgashiyama, Administrator Community- Se Nices. De partment Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department cc: DeeAnn.KirkpMrick Fishery Biologist -National Marine -Fisheries'5ervice MOO Sand Point Way NE, Bldg 1 Seattle; WA 98.115 ` 206-526,4452; deeann.kirkpatrick@noaa,gov DRAFT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION PREPARED FOR: CH2MHill 1100 112th Avenue NE # 400 Bellevue, WA 98004-4511 Contact: Roger Mason (425) 453-5000 ON BEHALF OF: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity PREPARED BY: ICF International 710 2nd Ave # 550 Seattle, WA 98104-1754 Contact: Lisa Grueter 206-801-2816 Author: Christopher Earle, PhD (360) 357-4400 Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Contact: Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner (425)430-6578 In partnership with Renton Housing Authority December 2010 0001000�— 1CF INTERNATIONAL ICF International. 2010. Biological Assessment For Sunset Area Community Planned Action. Draft. December. (ICF 00593.10.) Seattle, WA. Prepared for CH2MHill. Bellevue, WA. On behalf of: City of Renton, Renton, WA. Contents Listof Tables and Figures...................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations...................................................................................................... iv Chapter1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Background and Consultation History.......... ....................................................................................... 1-1 ProjectDescription—__........... ........................................................................................................... 1-1 ProjectElements...........................................................................................................................1-1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment....................................................................................................1-3 Other Components of the Planned Action...................................................................................1-3 PlannedAction Ordinance ........ .......... .......................................................................................... 1-5 ProjectTimeline ..................... ....................................................................................................... 1-5 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures..................................................................................1-6 ActionArea..........................................................................................................................................1-7 Chapter 2 Occurrence of Federally Listed and Proposed Species, and Designated Critical Habitatin the Action Area........................................................................................ 2-7 Terrestrial and Plant Species............................................................................................................... 2-7 AquaticSpecies ..... ............................................................................................................................... 2-8 Chapter3 Environmental Setting....................................................................................................... 3-8 PlannedAction Study Area.................................................................................................................. 3-8 Streams and Aquatic Habitat........................................................................................................3-8 Stormwater and Development................................................................................................... 3-10 WaterQuality.............................................................................................................................. 3-11 TerrestrialHabitat ................................................. ................ ...................................................... 3-12 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area................................................................................................ 3-12 Chapter 4 Effects of the Action........................................................................................................ 4-12 DirectEffects.....................................................................................................................................4-12 IndirectEffects...................................................................................................................................4-15 Effects from interrelated and Interdependent Actions ............................ ......................................... 4-16 Chapter5 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 5-17 Chapter 6 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ...................................... 6-18 EssentialFish Habitat ................................. ......... ............................................................................... 6-18 Potential Adverse Effects of Proposed Project.................................................................................6-18 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures.................................................................................6-18 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................6-18 Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action i ICF 0593.10 Chapter7 References...................................................................................................................... 7-19 Appendix A Life History and Status of the Species Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action II ICF00593.10 Tables and Figures Table No table of figures entries found. Figure Follows Page Figure1....................................................................................................................................................................................1-1 Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ��� ICF 00593.10 Acronyms and Abbreviations RentonHousing Authority (RHA...................................................................................................................................1-1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's .......... ............................................................ 1-1 Codeof Federal Regulations (CFR ..................................... ................................ ........................................................... 1-1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA.................... ................................... ........................................................ 1-1 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA............................. ................................. ......................................................... 1-1 RevisedCode of Washington [RCW.............................................................................................................................1-1 StateRoute[SR.....................................................................................................................................................................1-1 WaterResources Inventory Area [WRIA]................................................................................................................. 3-9 totalmaximum daily load(TMDL.................................................. ............................................................................. 3-11 bestmanagement practices(BMPs............................................................................................................................4-13 Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Iv ICF00593.10 Chapter 1 Introduction Background and Consultation History This biological assessment addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary 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 the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. Pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 Section 58.5(e) the City as responsible entity is responsible for compliance with the Endangered Species Act, particularly Section 7. 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 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 by preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS] for the proposal. 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. Thus, the federal nexus for this action is HUD funding support of both RHA and City actions, with the City is acting as a designated non-federal representative for the purposes of informal ESA Section 7 consultation. Project Description Project Elements 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 (Figu-re 1). Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1 1 ICF 00593.10 z 1 Lw N STH ST ¢ cc CL City Limits z a Gy NE 12TH ST a SE 92ND ST z w O v C3 Planned Action Study Area a N UP CT Source. City of Renton; CH21M Hill; WDFW a [--]Water Bodies E 313rST S z LU 11TH PL Strea ms z ❑ 5E 93RD ST Gr Parcels W Potential Sunset Terrace 2gµ5 O w z Redevelopment Subarea NE SE 95Tµ WAY Drainage Basins NE 28TH ST a W LU 00 Honey Creek NE 27rH 57 u,LU a m a 4 Q h May Creek NE 26TH PL z z N Johns Creek � q z w O m w� Salmonid Habitat o NE 25TH ST NE 9TH ST o —Cohn NE 24TH ST a NE 24TH ST V —Fall Chinookc LU LUn. ^' Winter Steel head AVE 8r" Sr z z a NE 23RD PL zp ren z 2 NE STH ST NE 23RD ST y N�gtH "a' IV N W z ❑ Q zrn z O � R NE zlsr sr Q 07� z z z z W Sr LU LL - o 0 s®oo 1000 C NE 20TH ST LU Oda FBet a W ❑ m a�bti W NE 6TH CT Q VIA- or " z NE 671 PL asryP( 4z O 6TH 5T W w z W z Q W NE 6TH 57 2 NE y a a � 17TH Pt C3 LU 0 z zW p S W NE 17TH ST a NE 16TH 5T 4 Q E1�� g a z NE IST" Sr a a W m a z W o W p NE 14TH ST z O NE 13TH PL 51 LL W Z z 1 Lw N STH ST ¢ cc CL Y z a L. NE 12TH ST a z w O v w ❑ a N UP CT Source. City of Renton; CH21M Hill; WDFW Figure 1 ICFAquatic Habitat LNIEnNAI NAI Draft Biological Assessment for Sunset Area Community Planned Action cc CL NE 12TH ST y4) w O v a S z LU 11TH PL �hJ� Z z ❑ 4. W ?h ¢ O w z a p NE 14TH ST =.q� _a u,LU a m a NE 9rN Y z ~ x w pt � q z w O m w� 2 o O a NE 9TH ST � 'a LU AVE 8r" Sr z z a a z 2 NE STH ST N�gtH ❑ z O � R 07� NE7111 z z NE 7TH ST Sr a o 7 Ip 9� Y m a { m CIL NE 6TH CT VIA- or " NE 671 PL asryP( 4z 6TH 5T NE 6TH 57 NE Figure 1 ICFAquatic Habitat LNIEnNAI NAI Draft Biological Assessment for Sunset Area Community Planned Action City of Renton The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood, hereafter called the Planned Action Study Area; 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. The Planned Action Study Area is in northeast Renton and is also known as the Highlands area (Figure 1). The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action that would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use growth allowances, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process via adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. The components of the proposal are described below. 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 buildings that are 50 -year-old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. Sunset Terrace 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 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. 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 one-to-one 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 -awned properties in the Planned Action Study Area. Specifically, RHA owns approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and intends to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about 8 dwellings); RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. RHA also owns several other properties in the Planned Action Area that may be locations for replacement housing, such as along Kirkland Avenue NE north of NE 151h Street and at Jefferson Avenue NE. Other Components of the Planned Action As a result of the planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area would be catalyzed. 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. Under this Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-3 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton proposal, identified as Alternative 3 in the draft EIS for the proposal, there would be a high level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, consistent with maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Major public investment would occurn 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. Environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance (described in the following section). 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 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, most of which would occur on the current public housing site and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; the other 10 duplex units 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, or "third place," in a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE); a new recreation/community 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. 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 non -motorized transportation. 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 recreation during non -school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for parks and recreation. Stormwater Management Private development would be required to meet City standards for stormwater management including RMC 4-6-030 and Ordinance No. 5526 addressing the storm drain utility. Technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, adopted by the City with amendments. Biological Assessment 1-4 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1CF00593.10 City of Renton Redevelopment plans 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. The proposal incorporates 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 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. The stormwater infrastructure within public rights-of-way would receive enhanced capacity to accomodate 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. 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 on Figure 1. Project Timeline Sunset Terrace redevelopment would be phased with vacant sites developing first followed by redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. A general sequence of events is summarized below and is subject to change based on funding opportunities; Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-5 ICF00593.10 City of Renton 1. HUD Demolition/Disposition process completed for Sunset Terrace public housing community: approximately 2011 2. Buildout of vacant RHA -owned sites completed: 201 l to 2012. 3. Sunset Terrace replacement housing funded and constructed: two phases, with the first phase in 2012-2013 and the second phase in 2014-2015. Improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard have not been scheduled but would likely occur by 2016. Note that this is an independent action (as detailed within Chapter 6, "Interdependent and Interrelated Actions") and would be subject to a separate Section 7 consultation. Other components of the Planned Action are not subject to any adopted timeline but are broadly anticipated to occur during the 2011-2030 timeframe. Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Construction activities affecting more than 1 acre, including the Sunset Terrace redevelopment and likely the majority of redevelopment actions within the Planned Action Study Area, would be required to comply with provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, implemented by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Among other things, Ecology requires operators of regulated construction sites to develop and implement stormwater pollution prevention plans, implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, and perform monitoring intended to identify exceedances or violations. Non -construction (or post -construction) stormwater runoff is regulated by City stormwater requirements. Technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2010). Such facilities are also typically compliant with Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). Most stormwater treatment in the Planned Action Study Area was implemented long before adoption of stormwater detention or treatment requirements, so all redevelopment will result in improved stormwater detention and treatment within the affected areas. The proposal incorporates (for City actions) and encourages (for private actions) these additonal measures to improve stormwater infiltration, detention and/or treatment: 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. Private property options include rain gardens, porous pavement, downspout disconnection, and cisterns. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1 6 ICF 04593.14 City of Renton Action Area As detailed in Chapter 2, the only species proposed or listed under ESA that are potentially affected by the proposed action are anadromous fishes. There are no surface waters in the Planned Action Study Area, so potential impacts are exclusively associated with stormwater originating in the Planned Action Study Area. Those waters are ultimately discharged to portions of Johns Creek, Honey Creek, and May Creek. Figure 1 shows these streams and the portions of the Planned Action Study Area draining to each. Stormwater originating within the Planned Action Study Area is assumed to potentially affect organisms or habitat within any of these streams from the point of discharge downstream to the point of confluence with a larger water body, which for Honeydew Creek is May Creek, and for Johns Creek and May Creek is Lake Washington. Chapter 2 Occurrence of Federally Listed and Proposed Species, and Designated Critical Habitat in the Action Area Terrestrial and Plant Species Terrestrial and plant species potentially occurring in the action area are identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species list for King County (USFWS 2010a). Those species include; • Canada lynx (Lynxcanadensis), listed threatened • Gray wolf (Canis lupus), listed threatened • Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), listed threatened • Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), listed threatened • Northern spotted owl (5trix occidentalis caurina), listed threatened • Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecto), fisted threatened An October 2010 query of the Priority Habitats and Species database (WDFW 2010a) indicated the presence of no sensitive species within the Planned Action Study Area, other than anadromous salmonids. Canada lynx occur primarily in boreal forests. Near the southern extent of their range (King County), they are typically found at high elevations that have habitats similar to the boreal forests of Alaska and Canada. There is no lynx habitat in the action area. There is no designated critical habitat for Canada lynx in King County. The probable range of gray wolves in Washington is in the Cascade Mountains and northeastern Washington. Cray wolves use a variety of habitat, but prefer remote areas that support a high density of prey (e.g. deer, elk, etc...). The action area does not support a high density of prey for wolves and is densely populated by humans, so it does not provide wolf habitat. There is no designated critical habitat for gray wolves in King County. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area community Planned Action 2-7 IcF oa593.10 City of Renton Grizzly bears in Washington are associated with remote portions of the Cascade Mountains. This habitat in King County is only found on the far eastern margin of the county. Grizzly bears use areas isolated from human disturbance where sources of food and suitable den sites are available. Suitable habitat does not occur in the action area. There is no designated critical habitat for grizzly bears in King County. Northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets use old growth and mature forests for nesting. Such habitat does not occur in the action area. The action area is within 50 miles of Puget Sound, a foraging area for murrelets. There is no designated critical habitat for northern spotted owls or marbled murrelets within the action area. Golden paintbrush is not now known to occur in King County, though collections were made historically. This species occupies prairie habitat, which does not occur in the action area. Based on this analysis, no listed terrestrial animal or plant species has been reported to occur in the action area, suitable habitat for these species does not occur in the action area, designated critical habitat for these species does not occur in the action area, and the proposed action would have no effect on any of these species. Aquatic Species Queries to the Streamnet (2010) and Salmonscape (WDFW 2010b) databases indicated that Puget Sound bull trout, listed as threatened under the ESA, do not occur in the action area. Puget Sound Chinook salmon, listed as threatened under the ESA, do not occur in Honey Creek or Johns Creek, but migrate, spawn, and rear in May Creek from Lake Washington to locations upstream of the action area. Puget Sound steelhead, also listed as threatened under the ESA, do not occur in Honeydew Creek or Johns Creek, but migrate through May Creek from Lake Washington to locations upstream of the action area. There is no designated critical habitat for Puget Sound bull trout in the action area, but May Creek in the action area is designated critical habitat for both Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead. Supporting information on the life histories of Chinook salmon and steelhead, and their status in the action area, is provided in Appendix A. Chapter 3 Environmental Setting Planned Action Study Area Streams and Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat in the action area was reviewed with reference to aerial photographs of the area, zoning maps, the National Wetlands Inventory maps maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010b), "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 Biological Assessment 3-8 December 2D10 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 04593.10 City of Renton Wildlife 2010b) database query results, and the Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County and City of Renton 2001). The action area includes the Planned Action Study Area and the areas downstream that may be affected by stormwater originating within the Planned Action Study Area (Figure 1): Johns Creek, May Creek, and Honey Creek. All three creeks are part of the Greater Lake Washington Watershed (Water Resources Inventory Area [WRIA] 8). Approximately 243 acres of the Planned Action Study Area drain to Johns Creek. The creek is a mostly piped system that provides no known anadromous fish habitat. It discharges to Lake Washington at Gene Coulon Park in Renton. Johns Creek extends upstream in a southeasterly direction for less than 1 mile. Because of its proximity to Lake Washington, the stream water level is controlled by Lake Washington, and, therefore, is considered to be a flow -control -exempt water body per the City amendment to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The Johns Creek Basin covers approximately 1,236 acres in the northeastern portion of Renton. The upper basin is dominated by residential and commercial land use, and the lower basin is dominated by industrial and commercial uses. The drainage system serving the overall basin consists primarily of roadside ditches and storm drain pipes. The northwest corner of the Planned Action Study Area, which includes 23 acres of primarily single-family residential land use, drains to May Creek. May Creek is 7 miles long and originates on the steep forested slopes of Cougar and Squak mountains and in the highlands of the Renton Plateau. The entire basin encompasses an area of 14 square miles that drains to the southeast portion of Lake Washington (City of Renton and King County 2001). The May Creek Basin also includes other tributaries: Honey Creek, Boren Creek, and the north, east, and south forks of May Creek. May Creek and its tributaries are designated by Ecology as "Class AA" (superior). Class AA waters can be used for water supply (domestic, industrial, and agricultural), stock watering, fish spawning, wildlife habitat, and recreation, Approximately 3 acres at the northeast corner of the Planned Action Study Area drain to Honey Creek, which is tributary to May Creek. Honey 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. Four anadromous salmonid species are found in these streams. May Creek, from Lake Washington to above Honey Creek, provides migration, spawning, and rearing habitat for Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 0. kisutch, and 0. nerka). From Lake Washington to above Honey Creek, it provides migration habitat for steelhead (0. 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 action area. Pathways and indicators for May Creek habitat in the action area are presented in Table 1. Biological Assessment 3 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Table 1. Environmental Baseline Conditions at the Action Area Scale and the Watershed Scale Diagnostic/Pathway Indicators Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Project Activities Project Action Area Scale* Watershed Scale* Project Action Watershed Area Scale Scale Water Quality Temperature NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Sediment/Turbidity NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Chemical Contamination/Nutrients NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Habitat Access Physical Barriers PF PF Maintain Maintain Habitat Elements Substrate Embeddedness NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Large Woody Debris NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Pool Frequency NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Pool Quality NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Off -Channel Habitat AR PF Maintain Maintain Refugia AR AR Maintain Maintain Channel Conditions/Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Streambank Condition NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Floodplain Connectivity AR AR Maintain Maintain Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Increase in Drainage Network NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Disturbance History NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Riparian Conservation Areas AR AR Maintain Maintain *For each indicator, codes indicate whether it is Properly Functioning (PF), At Risk (AR) or Not Properly Functioning (NPF). Stormwater and Development Impervious surfaces are hardscaped, preventing rainfall from infiltrating surficial soils. Where these surfaces are plumbed directly to a piped storm drainage system, termed effective impervious areas, it results in rapid runoff of stormwater to downstream water bodies. Impervious surfaces are a major source of urban pollution, especially when they convey vehicular traffic. These pollution - generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) are a primary source of pollution that can impair water quality in downstream waters, The Planned Action Study Area is already a highly urbanized neighborhood with a total impervious coverage of approximately 62%. Under current conditions, the majority of this impervious surface is likely directly connected to the creeks downstream and largely pollution -generating with minimal treatment. Table 2 summarizes these existing conditions. Biological Assessment 3-10 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action iCF00593.10 Dty of Renton Table 2. Existing Land Cover Summary Project Area Total Area (acres) Total Impervious Area (acres) Total PGIS1 Area (acres) Untreated PGISI (acres) Planned Action Study Area 255.40 161.17 93.31 88.56 (excluding Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) Potential Sunset Terrace 13.06 4.73 1.83 1.83 Redevelopment Subarea 1 Pollution -generating impervious surface Water Quality Water bodies downstream of the Planned Action Study Area exhibit water quality conditions generally associated with urban developed areas, such as higher concentrations of metals and sediments, elevated water temperature, and increased fecal coliform. Ecology monitors the water quality of the state, and maintains a list of water bodies that have water quality concerns (the 303(d) list). The latest version of the 303(d) list, approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was released by Ecology in 2008. The list divides water body impairments into five major - categories: • Category 1. This is a water body that meets tested standard for clean waters. • Category 2—water body of concern. This is a water body for which some evidence exists of a water quality problem, but not enough to require initiating a water quality improvement project. • Category 3—insufficient data. This is a water body that has not been tested. • Category 4—polluted water, body that does not require a total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment. This is a polluted water body that does not require a TMDL because its pollution problems are being solved in one of three ways; o Category 4a—has a TMDL. This is a water body that has an approved TMDL in place and is actively being rehabilitated. Category 4b—has a pollution control program. This is a water body that has a program in place that is expected to solve the problem. Category 4c—is impaired by a nonpollutanL This is a water body that is impaired by causes that cannot be addressed through a TMDL, such as low water flow, channelization, and dams. • Category 5—polluted water body that requires a TMDL. This is a water body for which sufficient data exist showing that the water quality standards have been violated for one or more pollutants and for which no current TMDL or pollution control plan is in place. Lake Washington at Gene Coulon Park, at the mouth of Johns Creek, is listed as Category 5 on the 303(d) list for fecal coliform bacteria (Washington State Department of Ecology 2009). Further studies and monitoring by the City (City of Renton 2006) have found high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in the industrial areas of the basin and in the upland residential subbasin between Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3-11 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton NE 5th Place and NE Sunset Boulevard. This area includes a large portion of the Planned Action Study Area. May Creek is listed as Category 2 on the 303(d) list for mercury and dissolved oxygen, and as Category 5 for fecal coliform (Washington State Department of Ecology 2009). Major sources of nonpoint pollution in the May Creek Basin include roadway runoff, quarry outflow runoff from construction sites and commercial operations, animal -keeping practices and grazing in riparian areas, and leaking septic tanks. Sediment deposition is accelerated by increased storm flows from developed areas and changes in land cover. Honey Creek is listed as Category 2 on the 303(d) list for temperature (Washington State Department of Ecology 2009). Terrestrial Habitat Terrestrial habitat in the analysis area was reviewed by reference to aerial photographs of the area, zoning maps, "Best Available Science" reviews prepared during the 2003-2004 revision of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 5137), and reference to the Priority Habitats and Species database (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010a). These sources indicate that the only cover types present in the Planned Action Study Area are impervious surfaces in the form of roads, roofs, and sidewalks; and landscaped areas. The landscaped areas can generally be divided into treed and treeless types. The principal treeless landscapes include playing fields associated with schools, and ornamental lawns. These are dominated by a cover of nonnative grasses subject to intensive maintenance. The treed areas consist of landscape trees, primarily conifers with a substantial representation of hardwoods. Most are associated with single-family residences; some are associated with school grounds or other institutional buildings. Ruderal vegetation (e.g., nonnative herbs, Himalayan blackberry [Rubes armeniacus], and young trees) is rare in the Planned Action Study Area, and in consequence, invasive plant species are similarly rare. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Existing conditions in the Sunset Terrace redevelopment area are substantially the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area. This subarea drains only to the City's stormwater system, and thence to Johns Creek. Chapter 4 Effects of the Action Direct Effects As discussed previously, the project area contains no aquatic habitat and the proposed action only has the potential to directly affect anadromous fish or their habitat by discharge of stormwater. Biological Assessment 4-12 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF00593.10 City of Renton Potential impacts derive from the quantity and quality of the stormwater. Changes in stormwater quantity could result from creation of new impervious surface, potentially resulting in reduced infiltration and greater/faster runoff volumes, which can have numerous adverse effects on habitat in receiving streams, such as channel destabilization, bank erosion, or redd scour. Changes in stormwater quality could result during construction from erosion or spillage of contaminants, and could also result after construction from increased pollutant loading due to greater vehicle usage, greater runoff of lawn maintenance chemicals, greater loading by pet wastes, and potentially other causes. The proposal has been designed to minimize these risks. The risk of impacts arising from construction projects is minimized primarily by compliance with NPDES permit requirements. For projects with an area of disturbance exceeding 1 acre, the City is required to file a Notice of Intent with Ecology for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, implemented by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Among other things, Ecology requires operators of regulated construction sites to develop and implement stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, and perform monitoring intended to identify exceedances or violations. Such compliance would be required of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment action as well as for other actions that would later occur during redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. As a consequence, erosion and stormwater discharges associated with construction activities that would occur under the proposed action would not result in impacts to salmonid habitats in the action area. The risk of impacts arising from non -construction (or post -construction) stormwater runoff is minimized by City stormwater requirements. Technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2010). Such facilities are also typically compliant with Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual far Western Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). The City's stormwater management standards are focused on reducing potential pollution from impervious surfaces (Renton 2009 and King County 2009). Redevelopment and new development are required to comply with the current standards for stormwater treatment and discharge. The majority of the Planned Action Study Area was developed prior to the advent of modern stormwater requirements. Since the Planned Action Study Area is already fully developed with approximately 62% impervious surface, redevelopment under modern standards will result in improved stormwater detention, treatment and infiltration, relative to current conditions. The stormwater management code also requires the use of flow -control best management practices (BMPs), where feasible. Flow -control BMPs include many low impact development techniques such as infiltration, dispersion, rain gardens, permeable pavements, vegetative roofs, rainfall harvesting, reduction of impervious area, and retention of native vegetation. Where impervious surfaces cannot feasibly be dispersed or infiltrated, the code requires that a minimum portion of the site or impervious area be managed through these practices. Small lots of less than 22,000 square feet are required to provide either full infiltration/dispersion of stormwater, where feasible, or provide flow -control BMPs for an impervious area equal to 10% or 20% of the site area, where infiltration is not feasible, depending on if the lot is less than or greater than 11,000 square feet, respectively. For larger lots in excess of 22,000 square feet, the total allowable impervious area exceeds 65% for all zoning classifications; therefore, all potential new or redevelopment projects within the Planned Action Study Area are required to comply with the flow -control requirements for Large Lot High Impervious BMP requirements that require flow -control BMPs to manage 10% of the site. Additional Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 la ICF 00593.10 City of Renton flow control may be required within the Johns Creek Basin to match peak flows under existing conditions. Areas within May Creek and Honey Creek basins are 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 SO -year peak flow and match the 2 -year and 10 -year peak discharge assuming forested site conditions. Redevelopment to the levels projected to occur by 2030 would, assuming no further change in stormwater regulation, result in a net reduction in untreated pollutant -generating impervious surface, with commensurate improvements in stormwater quality. These protections are sufficient to ensure that redevelopment actions under Alternative 2 would not cause adverse impacts on fish and their habitat in the Planned Action Study Area or in waters receiving runoff from the area. A detailed quantification of stormwater impervious surfaces and treatment is presented in Table 3. As shown there, development in the May and Honey Creek watersheds would result in an increase in total impervious area from 6.95 acres to 8.46 acres, an increase of 1.51 acres. The area of pollutant -generating impervious surface (PCIS) would remain the same., but due to adoption of BMPs, the area of untreated PGIS would decline by 0.42 acres. Due to the reduction in untreated PCIS, pollutant loading from the area would likely be decreased. Due to compliance with flow control requirements, peak flow discharges would also be decreased. These changes would benefit fish and their habitat in May and Honey Creeks relative to current conditions. Since the Johns Creek watershed does not support anadromous salmonids, stormwater effects there are of secondary importance, but the pollutant loading and peak flow reductions described above for May and Honey Creeks would occur there as well. Biological Assessment 4-14 December 2014 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1CF00593A0 City of Renton Table 3. Summary of Impervious Surface and Stormwater Treatment. Note: PGIS = Pollutant -generating impervious surface. Indirect Effects The proposed action is intended to facilitate growth within the Planned Action Study Area. Projected growth is summarized in Table 4. Note that the projected growth for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would occur by 2013, while projected growth for the Planned Action Study Area would occur more slowly, over the period 2011-2030. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4-15 ICF00593,10 Geographic Area Johns May -Honey Planned Creek Creek ROWS Action Study Sunset Combined Parcels Parcels Area Terrace Total Area 1.84.75 13.91 56.74 255.40 13.06 268.46 (acres) Total Existing 105.62 6.95 48.61 161.17 4.73 165.90 Impervious Proposed 116.67 8.46 44.80 169.92 7.04 176.96 Area (acres) Percent Existing 57% 50% 86% 63% 36% 61.81)/o Impervious Proposed 63% 61% 79% 67% 54% 65.9% Total PCIS Existing 51.43 2.16 39.72 93.31 1.83 95.14 (acres) Proposed 36.58 2.15 37.67 76.40 2.43 78.83 Percent PGIS Existing 28% 16% 70% 37% 14% 3511/o Proposed 20% 15% 66% 30% 19% 29% Total Untreated Existing 46.87 1.97 39.72 88.56 1.83 90.39 PGIS (acres) Proposed 21.43 1.52 25.06 48.01 0 48.01 Percent Existing 25% 14% 70% 35% 14% 344/4 Untreated PGIS Proposed 12% 71% 44% 19% 0% 18% Flow Control Existing 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 BMPs (acres) Proposed 4.44 0.25 2.79 7.49 2.82 10.30 Effective Existing 105.62 6.95 48.61 161.17 4.73 165.90 Impervious Proposed 112.22 8.20 42.01 162.44 4.22 166.66 (acres) Percent Existing 57.24/0 49.9% 85.7% 63.1% 36.2% 61.8% Effective Proposed 60.7% 59.0% 74.0% 63.6% 32.3% 62.1% Impervious Note: PGIS = Pollutant -generating impervious surface. Indirect Effects The proposed action is intended to facilitate growth within the Planned Action Study Area. Projected growth is summarized in Table 4. Note that the projected growth for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would occur by 2013, while projected growth for the Planned Action Study Area would occur more slowly, over the period 2011-2030. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4-15 ICF00593,10 City of Renton Table 4. Summary of Land Capacity—Existing and Net Additional Growth above Existing Location Type of Land Use Existing' Net Growth Potential Sunset Terrace Dwelling units 110 479 Redevelopment Jobs 0 182 Planned Action Study Area (including Dwelling units 1,289 2,289 Sunset Terrace redevelopment) Population 2,978 5,789 Jobs 1,306 3,322 ' 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. lobs are based on transportation model estimates for 2006. The forecast growth could result in increased pollutant generation both within and outside of the Planned Action Study Area area, and a portion of these pollutants could be delivered to streams, affecting fish and their habitat. However these increases are not expected to result in environmental impacts proportional to the forecast growth in housing, jobs and population, for the following reasons: Redevelopment plans entail creation of a functional community within the Planned Action Study Area that includes housing, jobs, education, and retail services. This redevelopment strategy is intended to reduce residents' reliance on vehicles and commuting. This would in turn reduce vehicle -related impacts on stormwater and the environment. • Similarly, redevelopment plans are intended to support local pedestrian mobility and use of public transit rather than reliance on individual vehicles, again with beneficial consegences for stormwater. Existing housing and infrastructure in the area mostly dates to the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Redevelopment consistent with the planned action will result in more energy- efficient construction, better performance of infrastructure, superior stormwater detention and treatment, and widespread implementation of environmentally friendly technologies in the area. These measures may be expected to reduce per -capita impacts related to pollutant generation and runoff. For these reasons, incremental impacts attributable to population growth and urbanization would not result in harmful impacts to anadromous salmonids or their habitat in the action area. Effects from Interrelated and Interdependent Actions One potentially interrelated and interdependent actions is foreseeable within the action area. This is a planned upgrade to NE Sunset Boulevard, also known as SR 900. However, upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard are not necessary for the proposed action to occur. Also, the proposed upgrades are expected to occur regardless of whether the proposed action occurs, so the two actions are fully independent. NE Sunset Boulevard in the action area is not limited by capacity or by level of service. The proposed NE Sunset Boulevard improvements would not be funded by HUD and thus do not share a federal nexus with the proposed action of Sunset Terrace redevelopment and the associated Planned Biologicai Assessment 4-16 December 2010 Sunset Asea Community Planned Action ICF 00593, 10 City of Renton Action growth. Neither the Sunset Terrace redevelopment nor the SR 900 improvements depend on one another. Therefore the proposed work on NE Sunset Boulevard does not constitute an interrelated or interdependent action. Chapter 5 Conclusions The action area does not contain suitable habitat for Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, Puget Sound bull trout, or golden paintbrush. None of these species have been reported to occur in the action area, and the action area does not contain proposed or designated critical habitat for any of these species. Accordingly the proposed action would have no effect on Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, Puget Sound bull trout, or golden paintbrush. Within the action area, May Creek contains spawning, rearing, and migration habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon are known to currently occupy this habitat, and May Creek in the action area is designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. May Creek is not within the project area, but stormwater originating in the project area may be discharged to May Creek and its tributary Honey Creek. Therefore the Planned Action proposal has the potential to affect Chinook salmon by altering the volumes and pollutant loads in stormwater discharged to May and Honey Creeks. Note that the great majority of the action area, including the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, is not within the May or Honey Creek watershed: it is within the watershed of Johns Creek, which does not support anadromous salmonids. Potential impacts would be minimized by compliance with the general NPDES permit for construction projects and by constructing projects using treatment and flow control techniques required under City code, the 2009 King County Surface Water• Design Manual and Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Additionally, the proposed project also incorporates specific design measures to minimize stormwater impacts. The effect of these measures will be to reduce both pollutant -generating impervious surface and peak flow discharges within the project area. Because stormwater effects under the proposed action would be reduced compared to existing conditions, the proposed action may affect, is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Since the effects of stormwater discharge alter the physical attributes of the aquatic environment, they primarily accrue to habitat rather than to organisms, although stormwater discharges can also affect an organism's physiology and health. By the rationale described above, the proposed action would reduce stormwater effects to habitat compared to existing conditions. Thus the proposed action may affect, is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Within the action area, May Creek also provides migration habitat for Puget Sound steelhead, and May Creek in the action area is designated critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. By the same rationale described above for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and their designated critical habitat, the proposed action may affect, is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead or designated critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 5-17 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Chapter 6 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFW). The objective of this EFH assessment is to determine whether or not the proposed action(s) "may adversely affect" designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally -managed fisheries species within the proposed action area. It also describes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed action. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action is described in Chapter 1. Essential Fish Habitat Designations The action area includes designated EFH for Pacific salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999). There are two Pacific salmon species that could occur in the action area: Chinook salmon and coho salmon. Chinook salmon are known to occur in May Creek, and coho salmon are known to occur in May Creek, and also in the lowermost 0.32 miles of Honey Creek above its confluence with May Creek. A discussion of designated EFH and life histories is included in Amendment 14, Appendix A to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999). Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures Conservation measures incorporated into the proposed action to minimize potential effects on salmonids are described in Chapter 1. Conclusions The Proposed Project has the potential to affect designated EFH through the discharge of stormwater to Honey and May Creeks. Potential impacts from this activity include alteration of water quantity and quality, as well as geomorphic effects of altered now including channel changes, bank erosion, embedding of substrate, Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community planned Action 6 18 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton and alteration of spawning gravel quantity and quality. Due to conservation measures incorporated in project design, peak runoff from the project area, which is currently almost 62% impervious surface, would be reduced. Acreage of pollutant generating impervious surface would likewise be reduced. Accordingly, the proposed action would not adversely affect designated EFH for Pacific Salmon. Chapter 7 References City of Renton and King County. 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan, April. City of Renton. 2006. Monitoring Report, Gene Coulon Park Microbial Source Tracking Study. May. City of Renton. 2010. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 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. King County. 2009. Surface Water Design Manual. Seattle, WA: King County, 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. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species Of Concern in King County As Prepared By the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office [Revised August 26, 2010]. Available: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/KingO82610.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/, last updated November 3, 2010; accessed November 8, 2010. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010a. Priority Habitats and Species database. Electronic database files detailing priority habitats and species occurrences within 1 mile of the Planned Action Study Area. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010b. Salmonscape database. Electronic online database files detailing salmon occurrence in Washington State. Access: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/, accessed November 8, 2010. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. February. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009. 2008 Washington Water Quality Assessment. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.htm]. Accessed November 23, 2010. Biological Assessment 19 December 2010 Sunset Area community Planned Action ICF00593.10 City of Renton Appendix A Life History and Status of the Species Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) or Distinct Population Segment (DPS), if applicable: Puget Sound ESU General Life History Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is the largest of the pacific salmon. Also known as "king" salmon, adult Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into fresh water streams and rivers of their birth where they spawn and die. Among Chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. 1) A "stream -type" Chinook is found most commonly in headwater streams. Stream -type Chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months. 2) An 'ocean -type" Chinook is commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean -type Chinook typically migrate to sea within the first three months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in freshwater prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in coastal waters. Ocean -type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and late -fall runs, but summer and fall runs predominate (Healey 1991). The difference between these life history types is physical, with both genetic and morphological foundations. Adult female Chinook will prepare a spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel composition, water depth and velocity. Depending on the ESU, redds may be created in the spring or through the fall months. itedds will vary widely in size and in location within the stream or river. The adult female Chinook may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 "nesting pockets" within a single redd. After laying eggs in a redd, adult Chinook will guard the redd from 4 to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Stream flow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the survival of developing Chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile Chinook may spend from 3 months to 2 years in freshwater after emergence and before migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then into the ocean to feed and mature. Juvenile ocean -type Chinook tend to utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. Juvenile Chinook salmon feed primarily on aquatic insect larvae and terrestrial insects, typically in the near shore areas The following are the specific life history details for the Puget Sound ESU of Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Chinook salmon The range for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU includes the all marine, estuarine and river reaches accessible to listed Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound marine areas include South Sound, Hood Canal, and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer extent of the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan De Fuca to a straight line extending north from the west Biological Assessment 20 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 00593,10 City of Renton end of Freshwater Bay, inclusive. Excluded are areas above Tolt Dam (WA), Landshurg Diversion (WA), Alder Dam (WA), and Elwha Dam (WA) or above longstanding, natural impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). Adult Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into fresh water streams and rivers of their birth where they spawn and die. Among Chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. 1) A "stream -type" Chinook is found most commonly in headwater streams. Stream -type Chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months. 2) A "ocean -type" Chinook, which is commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean -type Chinook typically migrate to sea within the first three months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in freshwater prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in coastal waters. Ocean -type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and latefall runs, but summer and fall runs predominate (Healey 1991). The difference between these life history types is physical, with both genetic and morphological foundations. Adult female Chinook will prepare a spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel composition, water depth and velocity. Redds will vary widely in size and in location within the stream or river. The adult female Chinook may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 "nesting pockets" within a single redd. After laying eggs in a redd, adult Chinook will guard the redd from 4 to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Stream flow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the survival of developing Chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile Chinook may spend from 3 months to 2 years in freshwater after emergence and before migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then into the ocean to feed and mature. juvenile ocean -type Chinook tend to utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. Juvenile Chinook salmon feed primarily on aquatic insect larvae and terrestrial insects, typically in the near shore areas. Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatch and rear in streams and rivers flowing into Puget Sound, and the Dungeness River and its tributaries. Steelhead Trout General Life History The present spawning distribution of steelhead (Q. mykiss) extends from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia, east through Alaska, and south to southern California. The historical range of steelhead extended at least as far south as the Mexican border (Busby et al. 1996). Anadromous forms of Q. mykiss are called steelhead, and nonanadromous forms (freshwater resident forms) are called rainbow trout, steelhead exhibits perhaps the greatest diversity of life history patterns of any Pacific salmonid species. Individuals rear in freshwater between one and four years and remain at sea between one and four years. Other sources indicate that steelhead can spend up to 7 years in fresh water prior to smoltification and then spend up to 3 years in salt water prior to first spawning (Busby et al. 1996). In the Pacific Northwest, steelhead that enter freshwater systems between May and October are considered summer steelhead (stream -maturing type) and steelhead that enter fresh water between November and April are considered winter steelhead (ocean -maturing type). Summer steelhead Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 21 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and require several months to mature and spawn; whereas, winter steelhead enter fresh water with well-developed gonads and spawn shortly thereafter. Some river basins have both summer and winter runs, but some rivers only have one type. In rivers where the two types co-occur, they are often separated by a seasonal hydraulic harrier, such as a waterfall, Unlike the five Pacific salmon species, steelheads are iteroparous, they do not invariably die after spawning. Some significant post -spawning mortality occurs, however, a small number of steelhead adults migrate out of the river after spawning and return to spawn in subsequent years (Busby et al. 1996). The frequency of multiple spawnings is variable both within and among populations of steelhead. For North American steelhead populations north of Oregon, repeat spawning is relatively uncommon, and more than two spawning migrations are rare. In Oregon and California, the frequency of two spawning migrations is higher, but more than two spawning migrations are still unusual. Iteroparous steelhead are predominately female. Puget Sound Steelhead The following summary is taken from the NMFS listing notice for Puget Sound steelhead (72 FR 26722). Puget Sound steelhead includes more than 50 stocks of summer- and winter -run fish, the latter being the most widespread and numerous of the two run types. Hatchery steelhead production in Puget Sound is widespread and focused primarily on the propagation of winter -run fish derived from a stock of domesticated, mixed -origin steelhead (the Chambers Creek Hatchery stock] originally native to a small Puget Sound stream that is now extirpated from the wild. Hatchery summer -run steelhead are also produced in Puget Sound; these fish are derived from the Skamania River in the Columbia River Basin. The majority of hatchery stocks are not considered part of this distinct population segment (DPS) because they are more than moderately diverged from the local native populations (NMFS 2005). Resident 0. rnykiss occur within the range of Puget Sound steelhead but are not part of the DPS due to marked differences in physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral characteristics (71 FR 15666). References for Appendix A Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. Leirheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 281 p. Healey, M.C. 1991. The life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), Life history of Pacific salmon, p. 311-393. Univ. B.C. Press, Vancouver, B.C. NMFS. 2005. Status Review Update for Puget Sound Steelhead. Seattle, WA: National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center. July. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 22 ICF 00593.10 nommom�— 1CF INTERNATIONAL Memorandum Date: February 23, 2011 To: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, City of Renton Ce: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, ICF Dustin Atchison, PE, CH2MHill From: Christopher Earle, PhD, Senior Ecologist, ICF Subject: Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment On January 4, 2011, DeeAmi Kirkpatrick of Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sent an e-mail to Erika Conkling of the City of Renton containing a number of questions / comments about the biological assessment (BA), "Biological Assessment for Sunset Area Community Planned Action," submitted to NMFS in December, 2010. This memorandum presents those comments along with responses as prepared by members of the consultant team. Comment 1. On page 1-4, this proposal is identified as Alternative 3 in the draft EIS. What were the other alternatives proposed in the EIS, and why was this alternative selected? On page 4-14, this alternative is identified as Alternative 2. Please clarify ti -hick is correct. Response: The BA evaluates impacts of implementing Alternative 3. The final environmental impact statement (Final EIS), currently in preparation, details the preferred alternative, which closely resembles Alternative 3. Aspects of the proposed alternative relevant to ESA section 7 compliance are presented in the BA and the minor changes that have occurred since the BA was submitted are detailed in comment responses presented hereunder. The Draft EiS details all alternatives initially considered. (Note the Draft EIS was sent to NMFS during the 45 -day comment period in December 2010, and the following link is provided as a courtesy: hltEi',,"rerltorns_a.gos lbLIsiness!default.aspx'?id-2060) Comment 2. On page 1-4, technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are identified as being in the 2009 King County Surface Water° Design Manual, which was adopted by the City with amendments. What are the relevant 2009 King Countv requirements, and what amendments were made by the City prior to adoption? Response: Technical stormwater requirements for the Sunset Area Planned Action study area, as amended, are as follows: 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 504 � Olympia, WA 98501 � 360.357.4400 * 360.357.4573 fax r idi.com Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 2 of 10 "Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location" Stonnwater from the existing study area is generally collected by an existing storm drainage system and discharged to May Creek, Honey Creek and Johns Creek outside of the study area. The existing discharge points within the Planned Action study area will be maintained. "Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis" The proposed public infrastructure improvements within the study area will not increase the existing impervious area and therefore not alter the rate, volume, duration or location of discharges. New private and redevelopment projects would need to evaluate if offsite analysis is triggered by their developments. "Core Requirement #3: Flow Control" Although the study area includes portions of May and Honey Creek Basins, no proposed public infrastructure improvements will drain to these creeks May or Honey Creek Basins. New private and redevelopment projects within May or Honey Creek Basins would need to provide flow control to match durations from 50% of the 2 -year storm to the 50 -year storm with forested conditions as the assumed pre -development condition. The percent of impervious area within the Johns Creek sub -basin prior to 1985 was greater than 40 percent and therefore the pre -developed condition to be matched is the existing land cover condition, as allowed by the 2005 Ecology 5tormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. New private and redevelopment projects that are in the Johns Creek Sub -basin would need to provide flow control using existing site conditions as the pre -developed condition. Projects that have an increase of 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase in flow above the pre - developed condition have to provide flow control that matches the pre -developed (existing) runoff condition for the 2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year storm event return periods. Furthermore, Johns Creek west of I-405 is classified as a major receiving water body which does not require duration control. The basis for this determination is in the report "Enhanced Transportation Project Delivery Through Watershed Characterization", produced by the WSDOT Urban Corridors Office in collaboration with the Department of Ecology, Washington State 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 stonn drainage system by matching peak flows from the existing land coverage and to construct flow control BMPs where feasible. "Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System" New conveyance systems and existing conveyance systems where the project will change the flow characteristics of the site 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. The capacity of the existing conveyance system under future build -out condition is being analyzed for development of the drainage master plan for the Sunset Area_ Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 3 of 10 "Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control" All proposed projects that include land disturbing activity are required to provide erosion and sediment controls to prevent the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage facilities, water resources and adjacent properties. "Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations" The City of Renton assumes maintenance and operation of conveyance, flow control and water quality facilities located within public right-of-way or tracts. Drainage facilities located on private property, including Low Impact Development BMPs, are the responsibility of the property owner. "Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability" All persons constructing surface water facilities are required to provide financial guarantees to sufficiently cover the cost of correcting substandard construction work and to warrant for two years the satisfactory performance and maintenance of the newly constructed drainage facilities. "Core Requirement #8: Water Quality" All proposed projects that create or replace over 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. All projects where more than 50 percent of the runoff is generated from either commercial, industrial or multi- family land uses are required to provide "Enhanced Basic" water quality treatment (target 50% removal of zinc). Otherwise "Basic" water quality treatment is required (target 80% removal of total suspended solids)_ "Special Requirement #4: Source Controls" All commercial, industrial and multi -family projects undergoing drainage review are required to implement applicable source controls that prevent rainfall and runoff water from coming into contact with pollutants. "Special Requirement #5: Oil Controls" Projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high -use site must provide oil controls in addition to any other water quality controls required by the City drainage manual. "Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area" The north portion of the Sunset Area is located within a designated Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Zone. Proposed projects within this area are required to provide low -permeability or treatment liners on open flow control, water quality or conveyance systems if the underlying soils have an infiltration rate that exceeds 2.4 inches per hour to prevent potential contamination of the underlying aquifer. Comment 3. On page 1-5, redevelopment plans are described as integrating a stormivater palette of options that would support redevelopment and a lead by example approach that integrates Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 4 of 10 stormwater retrofits in public owned areas, and reduces barriers to green stormwater igfi-astructure for private development. What assurances do you have that these green stormwater infrastructure options will he implemented on public and private land? How, do requirements.for public and private stormwater infrastructure differ? Are measures to protect and restore vegetation and .soils, remove impervious surfaces, and consider site design to minimize stormwater effects, included in the palette of options ? Response: The minimum requirements for private and public property do not differ. All private and public property projects are required to meet the minimum requirements described above in the response to Comment 2. Implementation of green stormwater infrastructure projects will vary by site conditions, largely depending upon geotechnical considerations (i.e., the feasibility to infiltrate stormwater). A figure was developed for the Draft EIS summarizing conditions that affect infiltration feasibility (attached; Figure 3.3-2, 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 percent 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 (Green Connections, 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 listed above. Should this perforinance standard be changed due to feasibility considerations, consultation will be reinitiated. Comment 4. On page 1-5, it is also stated that public stormwater infrastructure would receive advanced capacity to accommodate private development and this capacity would serve as advanced mitigation for existing development and cis an incentive fur redevelopment by providing off-site stormwater mitigation. Please explain how this would work, and the certainty associated with this type of hifrastructure development taking place. Response: 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 Potential redevelopment, implementation of Green Connections projects (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 Peak Flow Control Standard. However, the requirement to match existing peak discharges would extend to the limits of the Sunset Area (rather than the specific development site) and existing peak discharges would be based on Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 5 of 10 current (2011) conditions not the conditions at the time of construction. Where private property developments would result in a total effective impervious area over the Sunset Area that exceeds current (2011) existing conditions, the Peak Flow Control Standard would need to be met on-site. Private property improvements are required to provide Flow Control BMPs where feasible. Comment 5. Page 1-5. When will the City adopt a Planned Action Ordinance, and with what assumptions and mitigation measures from the Sunset Area Community EIS will proposed projects creed to he consistent? Response: The City intends to adopt the Planned Action Ordinance after completion of the Final EIS and will incorporate mitigation measures from the Draft and Final EIS into the mitigation document (will become Ordinance Exhibit B). A draft version of the planned action ordinance was included in the Draft EIS published in December 2010, and a more detailed one will be included in the Final EIS expected to be published in March 2011. Mitigation includes compliance with adopted regulations as well as implementation of the green infrastructure described in response to comment 3 above. Comment 6. Page 1-6. Other components of the planned action are not subject to any adopted timeline, but will occur between 2011-2030. How will the Planned Action Ordinance be updated to ensure that proposed new- or redevelopment is implementing the most recent post construction stormwater management requirements that may be updated/revised between now and 1030? As well, hoiti° will changing requirements.for stormwater associated with construction activities be implemented? Response: The City has authority to amend the Planned Action Ordinance at any time. However, the City's current expectation is that the ordinance will be implemented as currently envisioned and will address development activities in the Renton Sunset area through at least 2030. All development actions occurring in the area will, of course, be subject to all applicable stormwater regulations. We do not anticipate "vesting' development to the current regulations in place today; we intend to require compliance with the regulations in effect at the time development occurs over the 20 year period. The past 20 years have seen repeated revisions of local, state and federal regulations applicable to municipal stormwater, and those revisions have generally been progressively more protective of water quality and of biological resources affected by water quality. It is reasonable to anticipate that further regulatory changes may occur in the future, but none are currently foreseeable. Comment 7. Page 1-6. It seems a lot of the impact avoidance and minimization measures rely on the implementation ofgreen stormiti°ater ir7jrastructure, which in turn relies on the certainty around implementing this type of infi-astructure, and the technical feasibility for these types of infrastructure to be effective. What success has the City had in implementing green stormwater infr'astr acture and/or infiltration facilities in this area in the past? Rhat soils and or geologic h#brrnation support successful use of this type of infrastructure? Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 6 of 10 Response: As noted above, the soils and geologic conditions supporting successful green stormwater infrastructure that requires infiltration are summarized in Figure 3.3-2 of the Draft EIS (attached).The effectiveness of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) practices for pollutant removal have been demonstrated in numerous studies. The table below presents a summary of the findings for several of these studies. Bioretention and permeable pavements represent the majority of GS1 practices that would be implemented for treating pollution -generating surfaces (dispersion is excluded as it is anticipated to be largely infeasible within this highly urbanized area). It should be noted that the primary pollutant removal process in permeable pavements is retention within the underlying soils (although numerous studies do indicate significant pollutant removal within the penneable pavement structure and base material itself). 'The aquifer protection zone requirements described above, Iimit the application of this practice to areas that have underlying soils that meet specific treatment capacity (e.g. cation exchange capacity). GSI Practices Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Hydrocarbons Metals Bioretention/Rain 7-12 mg/L effluent 31-99% removal- 81-99% Removal of Copper, Gardens regardless of Zinc, Lead and Cadmium.; influent' X90% Removal of Cu, Zn, and Pb typical4 Penneable 90-96% removal 97-98% removal 89-98% - Pb' Pavements 74-98% — Cd' 89-96% - Cu 72-98% - Zn' 1 Tornes, L. 2005. Effects of Rain Gardens on the Quality of Water in the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area of Minnesota, 2002-04. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5189, U.S. Geological Survey, Mounds View, Minnesota. 2 Davis, AP, et al. 2009. Bioretention Technology: Overview of Current Practice and Future Needs. Journal of Environmental Engineering -ASCE 135(3):109-117. 3 Muthanna, T.M., Viklander, M., Blecken, G., and Thorolfsson, S.T., 2007. Snowmelt Pollutant Removal in Bioretention Areas. Journal of Water Research 41:4061-4072. 4 Davis, A.P., Shokuhian, M., Sharma, H., & Minami, C. (2001 January/February). Laboratory study of biological retention for urban stormwater management. Water Environment Research 73:5-13. Also: Davis, A.P., Shokuhian, M., Sharma, H., Minami, C. & Winogradoff, D. (2003 January/February). Water quality improvement through bioretention: Lead, copper, and zinc removal, Water Environment Research 75:73-82. 5 Dierkes, C. Kuhlmann, L., Kandasamy, J., & Angelis, G. (2002, September). Pollution retention capability and maintenance of permeable pavements. In "Global Solutions for Urban Drainage", Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Urban Drainage. Portland OR. 6 Pratt, C.J., Newman, A.P., & Bond, P.C. (1999). Mineral oil bio -degradation within a permeable pavement: Long term observations. Water Science and Technology 39:103-109. Brown, C., Chu, A., van Duin, B. & Valeao, C. (2009). Characteristics of sediment removal in two types of permeable pavement. Water QuaL Res. J, Can. 44:59-70. Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Comment 8. Page 4-13. The Citv'.v stormwater management standards are focused on reducing potential pollution from impervious surfaces. What standards are these? If Ecolo&-v standards, how frequently do you expect enhanced water quality treatment will be required versus basic water quality treatment? Are water quality treatment requirements different for redeveloped properties versals newly developed properties? Response: These matters are addressed above in the response to comment 2. Comment 9. Page 4-13. The stormwater management code requires.flow control BMP.s where feasible. How is feasibility determined? Why are sites that ean`t_feasihly use dispersion or infiltration only required to provide flow control for 10 or 20 percent of the site? Under what circumstances would flow control be required to match existing peak flows within the Johns Creek Basin? Response: See responses to comment 2 (requirements) and comment 7 (feasibility) above. Note that Flow Control is required for all sites; the distinction is that projects that cannot feasibly implement full dispersion or infiltration would need to provide Flow Control BMPs over a portion of the site. Feasibility for the use of dispersion as a flow control BMP is based upon length of vegetated flow path, which due to the area being in an urban environment, the use of dispersion will likely not be feasible. Feasibility to use full infiltration as the flow control BMF is determined based upon the suitability of the underlying soils to infiltrate stormwater runoff. Applicants would have to demonstrate through a geotechnical report that the soils are not suitable for infiltration (see Appendix C of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual). Circumstances where this would occur are where infiltration is not feasible and the density of the site is such that it precludes the ability to fully disperse flows. It is anticipated that due to the density of the Sunset Area, full dispersion will be infeasible under most conditions. Full infiltration may be feasible on a case-by-case basis, but would need to be determined via site specific subsurface investigations and infiltration testing. For the purposes of the impacts analysis for the EIS and the BA, it is conservatively assumed that redevelopment projects will not be able to fully disperse or infiltrate site runoff. Comment 10, The BA describes a general plan_ for implementing green irrf•astructure in the study area over a 20 -year timcframc_ How marry prgjects are predicted to be constructed under the Planned Action Ordinance? Response: Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) improvements in portions of the study area would be implemented early in the 20 -year time frame. Specifically, GSI would be implemented within the Sunset Terrace site and NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) projects. Additionally, the City will construct the Harrington Avenue NE Green Connection Project (extending from Hillcrest Terrace to Highlands Elementary and Community Center) as a pilot or demonstration project early in the time frame as funds become available. The remaining Green Connections projects would be implemented over a longer timeframe as either frontage improvements associated with private redevelopment or public projects should additional funds become necessary or opportunity costs are reduced where the GSI can be constructed in conjunction with additional improvements within the right-of-way (e.g. utility improvements, overlays, etc.). Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Comment]]- Table 3 shows an increase in impervious area and increase in percent impervious in three watersheds, in the Study Area, and the Sunset Terrace area. The table also shows an increase in the acreage of flow control provided and a decrease in acreage of untreated PGIS. However, the percent of acreage.for° which flow control provided is only 3.8% over the combined geographic area. How do you know if this is enough to protect listed salmonids? Similarly, the percent of untreated PGIS is 18% and the level of water quality treatment is not specified (does it address for example, dissolved copper and zinc that are harmful to salmon at low levels), so how do you know this is enough to protect listed salmon: In addition, is there any requirement in the Planned Action Ordinance to ensure that these levels of floiv control and untreated PCIS are collectively being reached on an annual or some other regular hasis, so that these ultimate targets are reached at the end of the 20 year development period? Response: The proposed action and the planned action ordinance only address development and redevelopment activities. If these activities only occur on 3.8% of the acreage within the planned action study area, then it is unlikely that the proposed action will have measurable or substantial consequences for the future of anadromous salmonids within the action area. However, compliance with the stormwater detention and treatment standards discussed in the response to comment 2 provides high confidence that proposed action effects on anadromous salmonids, although small, would not result in degraded water quality or flow conditions relative to current conditions. The City has neither the resources nor the responsibility to perform the type of primary research required to demonstrate that compliance with existing stormwater standards are protective of anadromous salmonids. The City has adopted Surface Water Design Standards that are equivalent to the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington as required by the EPA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 11 Municipal Stormwater Permit for Western Washington that was developed and is administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. These standards, however, were established in cooperation with state and federal agencies required, under Section 7 of the ESA at the federal level and under EPA -approved water quality standards at the state level, to impose standards that are protective of water quality and of associated beneficial uses, including support of threatened and endangered species habitat. The City must presume that the state and federal agencies have complied with those requirements. Comment 12. Page 4-14 mentions that the Johns Creek watershed does not support anadromous salmonids. However, research by Tabor et al, (2006, attached) has documented that the mouth and at least 1500 feet upstream of the mouth of"John's Creek is very important rearing habitat. for juvenile Chinook salmon (gf'the 17 tributaries surveyed in Lake Washington, Johns Creek was by far the most used). This would seem to argue. fbr requiring the same flow control and reduced pollutant loading in this system. Response: Per the requirements described in the response to comment 2, above, the peak discharges from the Study Area will not increase over existing conditions. Although the analysis shows a potential increase to the total impervious area within the study area, the implementation of GSI 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 Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 9 of 10 impervious area directly connected to the downstream system. Therefore, minimal changes to runoff volume are anticipated_ Furthermore, per the study by WDOT and others (referenced above), Johns Creek at the point of discharge is effectively an area that is heavily influenced by Lake Washington (e.g. levels are controlled by Lake Washington) and is not sensitive to increased peak and duration of discharges as other free-flowing tributaries that drain to Lake Washington. The City adopted surface water design standard require water quality treatement for new and replaced pollution generating impervious surface for re -development projects that have improvements that are more than 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements including interior improvements. This will result in areas that are currently draining to Johns Creek without any water quality treatment to be treated following the redevelopment of areas within the Sunset Planned Action project. The outcome is that the storm water runoff discharged from the Planned Action area will be cleaner after the project than it currently is, which will be beneficial to Johns Creek and any anadromous fish that use Johns Creek. Comment 13_ Page 4-16. According to Table 4, the population in this planning area is expected to more than double (51 %) over the next 20 years_ However, incremental impacts attributable to population growth and urbanization and not expected to result in harmful effects to salmonids in large part because of'a reduction in vehicle trafe and enhanced stormwater treatment. What certainty exists that the expected reduction in vehicle traffic will occur? With the proposed increase in public transit, hotiv will this contribute to vehicle-rcicated impacts on stormwater? Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase by 9% during the 20 -year period as a result of the most intensive alternative 3; however trips are increasing less than the population increase. This is due to the nature of the planned redevelopment to mixed use supported by multiple modes. A recent literature review on the influence of mixed use developments on transit use and automobile trip reduction reveals evidence that this influence exists. In 2009, a reconnecting America study showed that in the six U.S. metropolitan areas examined—including Seattle—mixed use developments reduced traffic impacts relative to typical single-family suburban development. The traffic reduction was due to the availability of on-site activities; placement of the developments within walkable and transit accessible areas; and central locations that help reduce trip lengths (Ewing, et al. 2009). For residents living within a half -mile radius of transit, only 54 percent commute by car compared to 83 percent in the region (Reconnecting America 2004). In addition, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) weekday vehicle trip generation rate for residential developments—an industry standard—has been found to be significantly higher than the actual trips generated by residents of mixed use, transit -oriented developments (Cervero and Arrington 2008). Case studies from across the country have shown that transit -oriented developments generated about 47 percent less vehicle traffic than that estimated by the widely used ITE manual (3.55 trips per dwelling unit in transit -oriented developments, compared to 6.67 trips per dwelling unit according to ITE estimates). A reduction in automobile trips combined with the reduced sprawl created by compact mixed use development (such as that proposed in the Sunset Area Planned Action study area) is expected. Based on the assumption that pollution loadings from impervious surfaces are directly proportional to the increase in traffic (approximately 9% compared to the No Action Alternative) and that water quality treatment meets or exceeds the presumptive treatment levels for typical water quality BMPs Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment February 23, 2011 Page 10 of 10 (80% removal of TSS and 50% removal of heavy metals), the preferred alternative would result in reduction of approximately 27% of the annual TSS loading and 16% of the annual heavy metal loading to May and Johns Creeks. The preferred alternative under review currently (similar to Alternative 3) would reduce pollution generating impervious area within the right-of-way by approximately 1.3 acres (3%) and provide treatment for an additional 14.5 acres (38%) compared to the No Action Alternative. This analysis is considered to be conservative (under estimates potential pollutant reductions) as it ignores other potential pollution sources other than traffic which would remain constant irrespective of increased traffic (e.g. atmospheric deposition) and presumes minimum treatment efficiency of water quality BMPs. References Robert Cervero and G. B. Arrington. 2008. "Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit -Oriented Housing," Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 1-17; Access via internet: www.nctr.usf,edulipt/pdoPT11-3.pdf. Last accessed: February 7, 2011. Ewing, Reid, and Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, Robert Cervero, Lawrence Frank, Senait Kassa, and John Thomas. 2009. Trak Generated by Mixed -Use Developments - A Six -Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures. Access via internet: htt : /www.reconnectingainerica.org/public%show/trafficmixedusedevelol)ments2OO9. Last accessed: February 7, 2011. Reconnecting America. 2004. Hidden in Plain Sight: Capturing the Demand for Housing Near Transit. Accessed via internet: http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/display asset/hipsi. Last accessed: February 7, 2011. 1CF INTERNATIONAL Memorandum Date: April 5, 2011 To: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, City of Renton Ce: Lisa Grueter, Senior Planner, ICF Dustin Atchison, PE, CH2MHill From: Christopher Earle, PhD, Senior Ecologist, ICF Subject: Response to Additional Follow Up Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment On March 24, 2011, DeeAnn Kirkpatrick of Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sent an e-mail to Erika Conkling of the City of Renton containing follow-up questions regarding the City's February 23, 2011 responses to NMFS' earlier comments regarding the biological assessment (BA), 'Biological Assessment for Sunset Area Community Planned Action," submitted to NMFS in December, 2010. This memorandum presents those latest March 2011 comments along with responses as prepared by members of the consultant team. Comment 1. (In your response to NMFS comment 2). It is stated in Core Requirement #8 for water quality treatment that all projects where more than 50 % of the runoff is generated from commercial, industrial, or multi -family land uses are required to provide "Enhanced" water quality treatment which targets 50% removal of zinc. How frequently are the proposed projects expected to meet the 50% target that would require Enhanced treatment? Given that copper and zinc have been identified as causing adverse effects to listed salmon at extremely low levels (2.0 µg/L dissolved copper and 5.6 pg/L dissolved zinc), do you expect that this frequency of use of Enhanced treatment in combination with the other green stormwater infrastructure will protect listed salmon from adverse effects? Response to Comment 1: With the exception of approximately four lots that are single-family residential (required to provide basic water quality treatment), the vast majority of the Sunset Area is zoned as multi- family or commercial and therefore is expected to exceed the thresholds specified in the adopted storm water standards and require "Enhanced Basic Water Quality" treatment on all projects Proposed projects associated with the Planned Action are planned to treat stormwater through green stormwater infrastructure practices which provide "Enhanced Basic Water Quality Treatment". As noted in our prior response, these practices have been shown to remove 81% to 99% of copper, zinc, lead and cadmium. These practices represent the best available science for removing these pollutants runoff through the use of BMPs. The retrofitting of 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 504 . Olympia, WA 98501 � 366.357.4440 . 360.357.4573 fax o--- icPi.com Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment April 5, 2011 Page 2 of 6 existing pollution -generating surfaces with these practices under the planned action represents a significant increase in protection of listed salmon compared to the No Action Alternative. However, because the area that would be affected by the proposed project represents a small portion of the Johns Creek watershed, these beneficial effects would be damped by mixing with runoff from sources in the remainder of the watershed. It is therefore unlikely that the proposed project would result in a measurable change in water quality parameters within the portion of Johns Creek used by anadromous salmonids. Protecting listed salmon from adverse effects would require controlling copper and zinc sources throughout the Johns Creek watershed, indeed, throughout the Lake Washington watershed, since the juvenile salmon are entering Johns Creek from Lake Washington. Comment 2. (In your response to NMFS comment 3 and comment 9). Who will determine whether flow control BMPs for the site must target 10 or 20% of the site? Are there any written criteria to guide this determination, and how is runoff from the remaining 80 or 90% of the site managed, e.g., released without flow control or routed to a regional facility? All proposed projects must provide flow control facilities and flow control BMPs to mitigate for the impacts of the storm and surface water runoff from the proposed developments. All projects shall evaluate the feasibility to implement full dispersion or full infiltration of roof runoff (where feasible). In general, site-specific soil testing would be required to verify suitability of each site to infiltrate at the necessary rate. At sites where full dispersion or full infiltration is not feasible or applicable,flow control BMPs must be implemented on either 10% or 20% of the site. The criteria governing this requirement (10% vs. 20%) are specified in the adopted stormwater standards and not open to interpretation, and include the following: o Lots < 11,000 square feet: flow control BMPs are required for 10% of the site. o Lots > 11,000 and X22,000 square feet: flow control BMPs are required for 20% of the site. o Lots > 22,000 square feet: Impervious area is X45%: Due to the nature of the anticipated redevelopment, this situation would rarely occur. The requirements simply require the application of one or more Flow Control BMPs for all new impervious surfaces. • Impervious area is 45-65% of the site: Flow control BMPs are required for 20% of the site or 40% of the new impervious area, whichever is less. • Impervious Area is >65%: Flow control BMPs are required for 10% of the site or 20% of the new impervious area, whichever is less. The remaining site area (in addition to the new impervious surfaces mitigated through flow control BMPs) must still comply with the peak flow control standard, however, under the Planned Action, the site may take into account regional flow control provided by the proposed green connections and regional facility improvements. That is, provided the balance of flow control provided by the public infrastructure, flow control BMPs and site redevelopment is still in excess of the effective impervious area under existing conditions, then sites may discharge to the regional facility or conveyance system without providing on-site flow control facilities. However, if redevelopment and new impervious area over the study area exceeds the area Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment April 5, 2011 Page 3 of 6 mitigated by public infrastructure improvements, then sites must provide the additional flow control on-site. Comment 3. (In response to comment 3). It is stated that private and public property minimum requirements for stormwater do not differ. This is confusing as later in the paragraph it is stated that public infrastructure projects are planned to achieve an enhanced minimum performance standard for implementing Flow Control BMPs which would double the minimums for private development listed above. Does this mean that the public projects would target either 20 or 40% of the sites for Flow Control BMPs where infiltration /dispersion is not feasible? Again, what is the expected fate of the remaining SO or 60% of the site runoff? Response to Comment 3. • Yes, public projects would target a higher level of Flow Control BMPs where full infiltration or dispersion is not achievable. The Surface Water Master Plan provides a summary of the now control BMPs targeted for each public project based on what are considered reasonable estimates of what is feasible for each project. The remaining $0% or 60% of site runoff is required to comply with the Peak flow control standard applied at the scale of the entire study area rather than individual project limits. That is, the existing (2011) net effective impervious area over the entire study area constitutes a baseline condition. Public infrastructure projects in the study area would implement flow control that would reduce net effective impervious area to below baseline, thereby creating a "bank" of excess flow control. If an individual project does not result in increasing net effective impervious area to the point where baseline is exceeded (if the "bank" still has a positive balance), then that project would not be required to implement additional flow control. If an individual project would result in increasing net effective impervious area above baseline (if the "bank" would drop below zero), then that project would be required to provide additional flow control applied at the scale of the entire study area, rather than just at the scale of the project (the "bank" never becomes completely empty). By this mechanism, net effective impervious area at the scale of the study area would never increase relative to 2011 baseline conditions. Comment 4. (In response to Comment 4). What happens if the private property development results in total effective impervious area over the Sunset Area that exceeds current (2011) existing conditions, but flow control BMPs are not feasible on this site? Response to Comment 4: All proposed projects must provide flow control facilities and flow control BMPs to mitigate for the impacts of the storm and surface water runoff from the proposed developments. Flow control BMPs and flow control facilities are different approaches to flow control. Flow control BMPs are LID practices that rely on infiltration. Flow control facilities are the end of pipe solutions to infiltrate or detain stormwater. They are independent of each other. If BMPs are not feasible, that does not change the requirement to provide flow control; it simply means that engineered facilities will be required. As noted above, if the private property improvements result in a net increase in effective impervious area over the Sunset Area then the individual projects would be required to provide Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment April 5, 2011 Page 4 of 6 a flow control facility (likely a detention pond or vault] addressing flow control needs at the scale of the study area. The figures below demonstrate a hypothetical timeline of implementation of Flow Control strategies in the Sunset Study area. In the first figure, the preferred alternative (very similar to Alternative 3) with anticipated levels of flow control (Regional Detention, Green Connections and Flow Control BMPs) and change in impervious area over the planned action period is shown. In the second figure, the implementation of Flow Control BMPs is reduced (under a scenario where they are not feasible), indicating the point where On-site Flow Control would be required on-site to mitigate the net impervious area in the Sunset area. Preferred Alternative On-site Flow Control 15.0 eo e ti i� Flow Control RM Ps 1001W Regional Detention 5.0 Green Connections C0.0 r — _ _-- ■� 5unsetTerrace New Impervious E -5.0 Private Development d ° Newimpervious a w Total New Impervious 14.0 - - Total Mitigated z -15.0 Impervious Planned Action Period Net I mpe rvio us Are a Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment April 5, 2011 Page 5 of 6 Preferred Alternative 15.0 .r 10.0 5.0 0.0 oil �, -5.0 — Preferred Alternative -15.0 On-site Flow Control Required - _ _- Planned Action Period Preferred Alternative with Flow Control BMP implementation reduced by 50%. �■Irw On-site Flow Control � Now Control BMPs V -v -t- Regional Detention Green Connections ■www Sunset Terrace New Impervious Private Development New Impervious Total New Impervious Total Mitigated Impervious Netimpervious Area Comment S. (In response to Comment 5). Have the final EIS, detailed version of the Planned Action Ordinance, and Ordinance Exhibit B been completed? Does Ordinance Exhibit B differ from the information provided in the BA? If so, please provide it for review. Response to Comment 5: Yes, the final EIS contains a more detailed Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit B. The Exhibit commits to mitigation measures. It does not change information provided in the BA. The latest version of the proposed ordinance is available at the City's website: littp:l/retitoiiwa.gov/])tisiness/defatilt.as.px?id=2060. Comment 6. (In response to Comment 6). Not allowing projects to be vested to current regulations in place today is a positive step. One regulatory change that is expected to occur in the near future with the new Phase 11 Municipal Stormwater permits is the requirement to implement LID wherever feasible. Was the Sunset Community Planned Action Ordinance developed to align with this future requirement? If not, how will any gaps be addressed in the future? Response to Comment 6: • The public infrastructure improvements under the Planned Action embrace this new requirement by implementing LID wherever feasible, including reducing impervious area, maximizing stormwater infiltration where feasible and use of BMPs such as rain gardens and permeable pavements. The Planned Action ordinance does not change the requirements for Flow Control BMPs or water quality for individual projects. As new regulations regarding stormwater management and LID take effect, they would stilt apply to the Sunset Area. Response to Comments on Renton Sunset Biological Assessment April 5, 2011 Page 6of6 Comment 7. (In response to comment 7). Do you expect that the aquifer protection zone requirement applying to a large part of the north Sunset Area (Figure 3.3.2) will limit Green Stormwater Infrastructure throughout this area, or will the use of liners and shallow GSI practices still be feasible? Response to Comment 7: The primary impact of the aquifer protection zone on implementation of LID (AKA GSI) practices is on limiting the application of permeable pavements under traffic to areas that are not "excessively drained" (defined as X2.4 inches/hour and/or <S meq/L cation exchange capacity). Such soils are not anticipated to be abundant within the study area. Many other practices within the suite of GSI practices (particularly rain gardens, and permeable sidewalks) will not be limited by the aquifer protection zone requirements. Yes, liners or treatment layers can provide a feasible way to meet the aquifer protection requirements at sites where soils are excessively drained. Comment 8. Does the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace Public Housing Community fall under the recent Energy Independence and Security Act which requires stormwater runoff to be managed to maintain or restore predevelopment hydrology? Response to Comment 8: Although the project receives federal funding, Renton Housing Authority and the City of Renton are not federal agencies and therefore the infrastructure improvements under the Planned Action do not qualify as "Federal Facilities" to which the Energy Independence and Security Act would apply, gw.T av 4vy }+ * UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE -*— National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Northwest Region rEs0 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, Washington 98115 NMFS Tracking No.: May 6, 2011 2010/05983 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ryan Milkaric U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Seattle Federal Office building 909 First Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104-1000 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Infonnal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Project (HUC 1711001203, Lake Washington) Dear Ms. Conkling and Mr. Milkaric: This correspondence is in response to your request for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additionally, this letter serves to ineet the requirements for consultation under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Endangered Species Act The City of Renton submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action project on December 8, 2010. Additional information was provided on February 23, April 5, and April 29, 2011, The City will use funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and replacement sites. For the purposes of ESA, the City is acting as the designated non-federal representative for informal consultation. The City requested NMFS' concurrence with the following determinations: 1)"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshanytscha) salmon (PS Chinook), 2)"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for PS Chinook critical habitat, 3) "may affect not likely to adversely affect" for PS steelhead (O. nlykiss). PS Chinook was listed as threatened under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (50 CFR 223 and 224), and critical habitat was designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). PS steelhead was listed as threatened on March 29. 2006 (71 FR15666). The NMFS has not designated Critical habitat for PS steelhead. This consultation with the City is conducted under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR 402. The City's original project proposal included redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community (approximately 13 acres), as well as the related redevelopment actions in the larger Sunset Area Community neighborhood (approximately 255 acres), also called the Planned Action Study Area. Their proposal was to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action that would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use growth allowances, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process via adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Due to funding and permitting timelines, the City has limited their current project proposal to redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and the replacement housing sites near the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea (see Attachment A). Sunset Terrace is a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 two-story buildings. The housing units are over 50 years old and considered of substandard size and quality. The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) additionally owns properties in the subarea abutting Sunset Terrace where senior and affordable housing will be built, some of which will be replacement housing. Most replacement units would occur in the Sunset Terrace subarea, others would occur on City or RHA properties in the EIS study area, including Sunset Court Park, the existing King County library site, and existing parcels located near Hillcrest Terrace. The project action area includes the Sunset Terrace Housing site, the replacement sites within the Sunset Terrace redevelopment subarea and EIS study area, and downstream areas that are affected by construction activities and stormwater originating from these sites. No streams are present in the action area, but the area drains to Johns Creek. The creek is mostly a piped system that discharges into Lake Washington near the mouth of the Cedar River. The mouth of Johns Creek is influenced heavily by the seasonally controlled Lake Washington levels, and is not sensitive to increased peak and duration of stormwater discharges. The mouth of Johns Creek and about 1,500 feet upstream is a very important rearing area for juvenile PS Chinook salmon during their outmigation from the Cedar River in late February to mid-July (the most used tributary of 17 surveyed tributaries of Lake Washington). Adult Chinook are present in Lake Washington during their upstream fall migration to the Cedar River, but do not use Johns Creek. Adult and juvenile PS steelhead and coho (O. krsutch) salmon also rear and migrate through Lake Washington year round, but do not use Johns Creek. 3 Construction activities are not expected to increase stormwater volumes or velocities to Johns Creek or Lake Washington, or decrease water quality. During construction, stormwater and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to control runoff rates, and prevent sediment -laden water from entering conveyance systems that discharge to Johns Creek, and eventually Lake Washington. As a result of the redevelopment, the operation of the project will generate additional stormwater from additional impervious surfaces. Since the project is still in the conceptual phase, Renton cannot specify the development that will actually occur. For the purposes on this analysis, parcels within the potential land swap/replacement housing sites are anticipated to be redeveloped by others at the maximum intensity allowed by code (maximum allowable impervious area). It is unlikely that the replacement housing sites will be constructed at the maximum capacity unless they are purchased by the City. If the City does not purchase the properties, they will likely remain in their present use or be converted to open space. The NMFS analysis considered the worst case scenario in terms of estimating increases in impervious surfaces and thus stormwater runoff. Lower rates of development are expected to have fewer effects to listed species. The redevelopment projects could include a range of total increase in impervious surfaces of 36 to 47 percent. The area of pollution generating impervious surfaces would change from a range an increase of 21 percent to a decrease of 16 percent, and the area of untreated pollution generating impervious surfaces would decrease from 90 to 100 percent. All pollution generating surfaces will be treated via Plow Control BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development practices) and/or Enhanced Water Quality treatment. All runoff will match 2011 pre - development peak flows. The project will also include a sub -regional facility, located at Sunset Terrace, to treat and control peak flows from up to 2.6 acres to provide advance mitigation from the net additional impervious area projected over the Planned Action Study Area. Species Determination Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Steelhead NMFS analyzed the potential effects of the project on PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead and determined that the effects will be discountable and insignificant. Short-term construction -related effects are discountable for juvenile PS Chinook salmon, as BMPs are expected to prevent sediments from entering the man-made conveyance system which discharges to Johns Creek. As well, construction BMPs will prevent any changes in stormwater volumes and velocities to John's Creek so salmon will not be exposed to increased stormwater volumes and velocities. Short-term effects to PS Chinook adults and PS steelhead (adults and juveniles) are expected to be discountable as any changes to stormwater volumes, velocities, and water quality are not expected to affect Lake Washington's water quality or quantity. 4 NMFS expects the long-term effects of the project to juvenile PS Chinook salmon to be insignificant as stormwater volumes and velocities entering Johns Creek will be decreased by the new peak flow controls required as part of the housing projects. In addition, the mouth of the creek is not expected to be affected by changing peak flows, because of the influence of controlled lake levels. Stormwater quality will also be improved as the result of new stormwater treatment requirements. The combined use of Enhanced water quality treatment and LID methods for all the new pollution generating impervious surfaces is expected to avoid long-term exposure of juvenile PS Chinook salmon to metals and other pollutants in Johns Creek. Long- term effects to PS Chinook adults and PS steelhead (adults and juveniles) in Lake Washington are also expected to be insignificant due to the improvement in stormwater treatment and Controls. Because all potential adverse effects to PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead are discountable or insignificant, NMFS concurs with the City's effect determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for PS Chinook and PS steelhead. Critical Habitat Determination NMFS designated critical habitat for the PS Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). In the action area, Lake Washington is designated as critical habitat, but Johns Creek was excluded from critical habitat designation. Two of the six primary constituent elements of PS Chinook critical habitat: PCE -2 freshwater rearing sites, and PCE -3 freshwater migration corridors are in the action area of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment project. NMFS analyzed the potential effects of the project on PS Chinook PCEs and determined that the effects will be insignificant. The conservation values of PCEs 2 and 3 will not be adversely affected during construction. On site BMPs will prevent sediment from being discharged into conveyance systems that flow into Johns Creek, and eventually reach Lake Washington. Construction BMPs will also prevent any changes to stormwater quantities discharged to Lake Washington. In addition, the conservation values will not be adversely affected during project operation. Stormwater controls will be implemented for water quality and water quantity, reducing Johns Creek peak flows and minimizing discharge of pollutants. Therefore, adequate flows and water quality for adult and juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and migration will be maintained in Lake Washington. No project actions will obstruct migration corridors or increase predation. Thus, the long-term conservation value will be maintained for freshwater rearing and migration. Because adverse effects to critical habitat are expected to be insignificant, NMFS concurs with the City's determination that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" critical habitat for PS Chinook. This concludes informal consultation according to the regulations implementing the ESA, 50 CFR 402.10. The City must re-initiate the ESA consultation if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species in a way not previously considered, the action is 5 modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that was not previously considered, or a new species is listed that may be affected by the identified action. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Federal agencies are required, under section 305(b)(2) of the MSA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 600 Subpart K), to consult with NMFS regarding actions that are authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The MSA section 3 defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." If an action would adversely affect EFH, NMFS is required to provide the Federal action agency with EFH conservation recommendations (section 305(b)(4)(A)). This consultation is based, in part, on information provided by the City and descriptions of EFH for Pacific coast groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and Pacific salmon contained in the Fishery Management Plans developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The actions are described in the BA and additional information provided. The action area includes habitat, which has been designated as EFH for various life stages of Chinook and coho salmon. EFH Consen ation Recommendations: Because the conservation measures that the City included as part of the proposed action to address ESA/EFH concerns are adequate to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to the EFH of the species, conservation recommendations pursuant to MSA (section 305(b) (4) (A)) are not necessary. Since NMFS is not providing conservation recommendations at this time, no 30 -day response from the City is required (MSA section 305(b) (4) (B)). This concludes consultation under the MSA. if the proposed action is modified in a manner that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations, the City will need to reinitiate consultation in accordance with the implementing regulations for EFH at 50 CFR 600920(1). If you have questions regarding either the ESA or EFH consultation, please contact DeeAnn Kirkpatrick of the Washington State Habitat Office at (206) 526-4452, or by electronic mail at deeann.kirkpatri ck{u�noaa. gov. Sincerely, William W. Stelae, Jr. Regional Administrator Attachment ICF Sunset Terrace kedevetopmem Area and Land Swap/Replacement Housing Sites Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA Ets bc: F/NWR — PDF (Nickerson) WSHO — PDF (Chron) WSHO - File Copy WSHO — PDF (Kirkpatrick) WSHO — PDF (Sibley) MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis in Response to NMFS Comments TO: Erika Conkling, City of Renton COPIES: Lisa Grueter, Berk Christopher Earle, ICF International Roger Mason, CH2M Hill FROM: Dustin Atchison DATE: April 29, 2011 The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize land coverage changes, impacts and stormwater mitigation associated with RNA's redevelopment of Sunset Terrace as a part of the Sunset Area Planned Action_ The land coverage analysis is summarized to include potential changes from existing conditions both within the defined Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and potential Land Swap/ Replacement Housing Sites that may be impacted to replace housing at Sunset Terrace, see Attachment A. Table 1 summarizes the existing land coverage (impervious and pervious area), pollution -generating impervious area (PGIS), untreated PGIS and effective impervious area under existing conditions. These breakdowns are used as a basis of evaluating the potential impacts and benefits of the planned action on water quality and quantity. Table 1. Existing Land Cover Summary Draft EIS Alternative 3 Land coverage changes resulting from Alternative 3 from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are summarized to represent the potential most intensive impacts to the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area due to creation of the most housing units, see Figure 2-10 from the Draft EIS attached. Stormwater improvements associated with the Sunset Terrace SE MMFS RESPONSE_2011.04.28.1)OCX Total Total Total Total Total Untreated Area Impervious Pervious PCIS, PGIS, Effective (acres) Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) (acres) Impervious Potential Replacement Sites 3.46 1.63 1.43 0.69 0.69 1.63 Potential Sunset Terrace 12.64 4.73 7.91 1.83 1.83 4.73 Redevelopment Subarea' Total 15.70 6.36 9.34 2.52 2.52 6.36 Draft EIS Alternative 3 Land coverage changes resulting from Alternative 3 from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are summarized to represent the potential most intensive impacts to the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area due to creation of the most housing units, see Figure 2-10 from the Draft EIS attached. Stormwater improvements associated with the Sunset Terrace SE MMFS RESPONSE_2011.04.28.1)OCX SUMMARY OF SUNSET TERRACE LAND COVERAGE ANALYSIS IN RESPONSE TO NMFS COMMENTS redevelopment are assumed to include Flow Control BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development practices) to mitigate up to 40 percent of the proposed impervious area. With the exception of Sunset Court Park (which would remain a park) Parcels within the potential Iand swap/ replacement Dousing sites are anticipated to be redeveloped by others at the maximum intensity allowed by code (maximum allowable impervious area) and would meet the requirements for application of Flow Control BMPs for 10 to 20 percent of the site area depending on the lot size. Also included in Alternative 3, a sub -regional facility was proposed to treat up to 1.3 acres provide advance mitigation from the net additional impervious area projected over the Planned Action Study Area. Table 2. Land Cover Summary Alternative 3 Table 3. Change In Land Cover SummaryAltemative 3 Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGIS Area Untreated PGIS Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)l, Potential Replacement 0.65 (39.9%) -0.07 (-10.1 %) -0.43 (-62.3%) 0.51 (31.3%) Sites Potential Sunset Terrace 2.31 (126.2%) 0.6(32.8%) -1.83 (-100%) -0.51(-14.7%) Redevelopment Subarea Total 2.96 (46.5°/x) 0.53 (21.0%) -2.26 (-89.7%) -1.30 (-20.4%)' 1. Includes 1.3 acres of impervious area mitigated by the proposed sub -regional facility Final EIS Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative consists of less intense redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area to include fewer housing units and a new public park. To offset housing losses within this area, replacement housing would be constructed within potential replacement sites identified at Sunset Court Park, the existing Icing County library site and existing parcels located near Hillcrest Terrace along Kirkland Avenue, as shown in Attachment A. The estimated land coverage change from these improvements are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 below. Stormwater improvements associated with the Sunset Terrace redevelopment are assumed to include Flow Control BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development practices) SEAlNMFS RESPONSE_2011-04-2a.DOCX Total Total Total Total Pervious Total Untreated Area Impervious Area PGIS PGIS Effective (acres) Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Impervious Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.28 0.78 0.62 0.26 2.14 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 12.64 7.04 6.02 2.43 0 4.22 Total 15.70 9.32 6.80 3.05 0.26 6.36 Table 3. Change In Land Cover SummaryAltemative 3 Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGIS Area Untreated PGIS Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)l, Potential Replacement 0.65 (39.9%) -0.07 (-10.1 %) -0.43 (-62.3%) 0.51 (31.3%) Sites Potential Sunset Terrace 2.31 (126.2%) 0.6(32.8%) -1.83 (-100%) -0.51(-14.7%) Redevelopment Subarea Total 2.96 (46.5°/x) 0.53 (21.0%) -2.26 (-89.7%) -1.30 (-20.4%)' 1. Includes 1.3 acres of impervious area mitigated by the proposed sub -regional facility Final EIS Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative consists of less intense redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area to include fewer housing units and a new public park. To offset housing losses within this area, replacement housing would be constructed within potential replacement sites identified at Sunset Court Park, the existing Icing County library site and existing parcels located near Hillcrest Terrace along Kirkland Avenue, as shown in Attachment A. The estimated land coverage change from these improvements are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 below. Stormwater improvements associated with the Sunset Terrace redevelopment are assumed to include Flow Control BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development practices) SEAlNMFS RESPONSE_2011-04-2a.DOCX SUMMARY OF SUNSET TERRACE LAND COVERASE ANALYSIS IN RESPONSE TO NMFS COMMENTS to mitigate up to 40 percent of the proposed impervious area. Parcels within the potential land swap/ replacement housing sites (including Sunset Court Park) are anticipated to be redeveloped by RHA and others at the maximum intensity allowed by code (maximum allowable impervious area) and would meet the requirements for application of flow: Control PMPs for 10 to 20 percent of the site area depending on the Iot size. The preferred alternative also includes a sub -regional facility, located at Sunset Terrace, to treat up to 2.6 acres to provide advance mitigation from the net additional impervious area projected over the Planned Action Study Area. Table 4. Land Cover Summary-PreferredAtteroative Total Total Total Total Total Effective Area Impervious Pervious PGIS Untreated Impervious (acres) Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) PGIS (acres) (acres) Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.57 0.49 0.41 0 2.39 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 12.64 6.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66 Total 1.5.70 8.67 7.03 2.11 0 6.1S Table 5. Change in Land Cover Summary -Preferred Altemative 1. Includes 2.6 acres of impervious area mitigated by the proposed sub -regional facility SEAINMFS RESPONSE_2091_p4_2B.DOCX Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGISI Area Untreated PGISI Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Potential Replacement 0,94 (57.7%) -0.28 (40.5%) -0.69 (-100%) 0.76 (46.6%) Sites Potential Sunset Terrace 1.37 (29.0%) -0.13 (-7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) -1.07 (-22,6°0) Redevelopment Subarea Total 2.31(36.3%) -0.41 (-16.3%) -2.52 (-100%) -2.91 (-45.8%)i 1. Includes 2.6 acres of impervious area mitigated by the proposed sub -regional facility SEAINMFS RESPONSE_2091_p4_2B.DOCX �1 Land Swap/Housing Replacement Sites NEQ City Limits S, S Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset WS Terrace Redevelopment N o Soo NO Feet W&MOM ZiV 7 1 I 11 A : M : Ir gzlp PP - 3A6 p 61*1NE 11TpFd F -p -W rAr 'k 74 z fi it p., mu ­11, V N ► WT. 7- Q -NEj0THiPb Zk A Zvme NE 10TH-PLOi- 02 - SA CAR. 43F,- JLNJ&10TH1ST'_ UJ rye M LN _N 6 ! ,41- Z ■ q Z_ - N MOTH $T NE,,9TH,PL X , '-* e NE -9TH ST. j" 0 0 I AAM 0 NE 9TH ST X - 616. Z. L di. 0, ; W of �:T!q 'T ILE LZU.. Z i. l*>Z AE.8TH PL >: L11 -A; k- - _n 'Orm r '30F All , 1 1% 17 -,Tim 10 $'. . ". . t i ZIPif - a M ME "VE X, N At _1 it;WSW r 40.! jr V. do ON I'm CIR J*" 4k jj z Zf l in w Source.City of Renton; King CCurity..VA" Ni 11L Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Land Swap/Replacement Housing Sites 1CF Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS A-- TACHKENT A il'i °iY'P"'wF3 jo z f � xe S al lig. �' iJ'• a� = ' _ { ..,.., .. r 2 r I~jlitj 1zo kit A 4-E IIr1 il'i °iY'P"'wF3 jo z f � xe S al Record of Decision Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Introduction.,.... ... .................................................................................................................................. I Background.............................................................................................................................................1 Summary of Alternatives Considered in Reaching Decision................................................................... 2 PublicInvolvement............................................................................................................................... 12 Coordination with Other Agencies....................................................................................................... 13 FinalEIS Comments.............................................................................................................................. 14 Clarifications and Corrections.............................................................................................................. 14 Attachments.........................................................................................................................................15 Introduction The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directs the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ rules require agencies to prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) after preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) (Title 40 of the Code of the Federal Register part 1505.2). The purpose of a ROD is to explain why the agency has taken a particular course of action. A ROD must include the following elements; • An explanation of decision on a proposed action; • Factors considered in making a decision; • Alternatives considered and the environmentally preferred alternative; • Adopted mitigation measures or reasons why mitigation measures were not adopted; and • A monitoring and enforcement program for adopted mitigation measures. This ROD addresses the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and its relationship to neighborhood growth and revitalization. Growth in the broader planning study area is not part of the proposal addressed in the ROD, and could occur independent of the Sunset Terrace proposal. Background The City of Renton (City) is the Responsible Entity and lead agency for NEPA purposes. 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 S8, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA. Additionally, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action for the Sunset area which has had environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). Record of decision 1 The City has performed joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in cooperation with the Recipient, the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Accordingly, the City prepared a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze potential impacts of redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. Constructed in 1959, Sunset Terrace is the oldest multifamily public housing complex directly managed by RHA. It contains 100 dwelling units, The units, facilities, and infrastructure are antiquated and the project is dilapidated. The units are contained within 27 buildings, which are SO - 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). RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services, 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. There are three sites where land swaps or replacement housing for Sunset Terrace could occur located outside these boundaries, at the following locations: • the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street (Assessor Parcel Number [APN]: 7227802040); • vacant lots on Kirkland Avenue between NE 15th and NE 16th streets (APNs: 7227800200, 7227800185 and 7227800190.; and • Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE (APN: 7227801781) See Attachment A-1 for a study area map showing the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and land swap/replacement sites. The Sunset Terrace public housing community and the three land swap/replacement sites are part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood.; the neighborhood is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. See Attachment A-2 for a neighborhood map. Summary of Alternatives Considered in Reaching Decision The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and promote associated neighborhood growth and revitalization. RHA is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community; however, RHA would likely redevelop the property in partnership with other public and private non-profit and for-profit developers and agencies, The City is 1) responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood, 2) is the agency responsible for local permitting and environmental review, and 3) is the agency that would regulate public and private neighborhood redevelopment in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Record of Decision I May 2011 The City analyzed three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) as part of the Draft FIS to determine its Preferred Alternative, The Preferred Alternative is evaluated in the Final EIS. All four alternatives are described below. Alternative 1 (No Action). RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented by the City, resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to he 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 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 of 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 provides a moderate number of dwellings in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 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 leading to similar, slightly less neighborhood growth as Alternative 3, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. To determine future growth scenarios for the next 24 years, a land capacity analysis was prepared. 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, including two mostly vacant sites in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Alternative 2 assumes that about 32x/0 (68 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop, including all of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Alternative 3 assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop, including ail of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. • The Preferred Alternative assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop, including all of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and some nearby land swap/replacement sites. The number of dwelling units and jobs under each alternative is compared in Table 1. Alternative 1 provides the least growth and Alternative 3 the most growth, with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative in the middle. Record of Dec}sior1 I May 2011 Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity ---Net Additional Growth above Existing -2030 DwellingI Preferred Subarea Units/Jobs Alternative 1' Alternative 2' Alternative 3' Alternative Potential Sunset Dwelling units 168-1752 310 479 266 Terrace Jobs 493 164 182 79-1178 Redevelopment Other Subareas in Neighborhood 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 Dwelling units 206 296 518 592 South jobs 152-213 273 273 273 Total Study Area Dwelling units4 1,483- 1,658 2,506 2,339 Net Growth 1,490 Populations 3,430-3,442 3,830 5,789 5,403 Employment 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 1,247,444 - .Sl~ 1,259,9448 Jobs6 611-9147 2,165 3,3.30 3,154-3,1928 ' The EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. 2 The lower range represents proposed concepts on RNA's two vacant sites based on funding applications. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 3 The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA's two vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea. 4 Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square. The first building was constructed in Summer 2010, and the other is under construction to be completed in spring/summer 2011. I 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. Record of Decision 4 May 2011 Each alternative is qualitatively described in more detail below. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would continue the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications, with limited public investment in redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and in civic and infrastructure improvements in the broader area. 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. 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 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, 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. 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 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. 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. 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 Record of Decision May 2011 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. 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. 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. 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. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 provides for a high level of growth in the broader area, and also maintains the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community into a mixed -income, mixed-use development according to a master plan. 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," Record of Decision 6 May 2013 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 NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 2 would designate the study area as a Planned Action Ordinance, A "family village" in the Forth 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, hike 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 non -motorized transportation. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. 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. point -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. 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. Record of Decision I May 2011 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. 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. 1 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." See Attachment B for the Preferred Alternative in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. See Attachment B for the Sunset Terrace conceptual plan as well as variations considered similar to the preferred conceptual plan. The Preferred Alternative provides for growth in the Planned Action Study Area similar to but less than Alternative 3, while maintaining current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications. New growth in the neighborhood would be about 7% less than under Alternative 3. 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. 1 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). Record cf Decision May 2011 Natural stormwater infrastructure would he integrated into the design of streets, parks, and new development, similar to 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. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. This would include the 2.65 -acre central park at Sunset Terrace. clue 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. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives The latter two alternatives - Alternative 3 and the similar Preferred Alternative - represent the higher growth levels studied in the EIS and differ by about 7%; these two alternatives are considered for the purposes of the ROD and associated mitigation document (Attachment C) to be the "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives." The mitigation document in Attachment C is based on the range of growth considered in the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives. Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity— Selected Sunset Area Alternatives Dwelling Units/Jobs Dwelling units Population Employment SF lobs Net New Growth Preferred Alternative Neighbor- hood 2,339 5,403 1,247,444- 1,259,944 3,154-3,192 a Does not include approximately 90-100 units to be developed on land swap/housing replacement sites. The purpose of identifying two "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives" is to define a range of acceptable growth and design considering the conceptual nature of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans as well as the 20 -year time horizon of the broader neighborhood planned action. The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 with slightly lower growth and a reconfiguration of park space and road network; otherwise the two alternatives share greater public investment and associated beneficial impacts. The two alternatives are similar in terms of potential beneficial and adverse impacts and required mitigation measures. Record of Decision I May 2011 Each is described in terms of their beneficial impacts below. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative is considered the environmentally preferred alternative, best meeting NEPA's goals to reduce impacts on natural and cultural features. 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. Elements of the Preferred Alternative implement the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy developed by neighbors and businesses. The Preferred Alternative would enhance the Sunset Area Planned Action Study Area as a destination by creating a multi -modal NE Sunset Boulevard with landscaping, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities; enhancing neighborhood streets to serve as green connections for improved pedestrian environments as well as water quality; and redeveloping Sunset Terrace as a mixed use, mixed income development with attractive features for the broader Highlands community, including a relocated and larger library at Harrington Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard, a "central park," and public plaza. Public investments described above are intended to spur private reinvestment in the neighborhood that is integrated and managed according to City standards for design and environmental quality. The Preferred Alternative includes a range of housing styles - single family, townhomes, and flats - that would meet the needs of a range households. Housing would include a mix of public, affordable, and/or market rate units. Sunset Terrace redevelopment as well as the family village will be models and catalysts for private investment in housing at all income levels to serve a diverse population. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 closely resembles the Preferred Alternative in most respects - mixed use growth, multi -modal transportation investments, green infrastructure, and greater housing and job opportunities. Alternative 3 also produces regionally beneficial air quality and energy effects. The primary difference lies with the configuration of open space and loop -road system that disperses density differently at Sunset Terrace and neighboring sites. In order to achieve the mitigation measures for parks and recreation, more park and recreation space would be required off-site whereas the park and recreation features of the Preferred Alternative are visually conceptualized and proposed on-site at Sunset Terrace. Findings Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative have similar adverse and beneficial impacts and equivalent mitigation measures identified in Attachment C. The City of Renton finds by this environmental ROD, after considering the effects of the studied alternatives, and considering the written and oral comments offered by agencies and the public, that Record of Decision i0 May 2011 the requirements of NEPA have been satisfied, as noted herein, for redevelopment, services, and roadway and utility infrastructure within Sunset Terrace, the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, and the Planned Action Study Area. Mitigation measures incorporated in Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, and additional consultation and mitigation documented in this ROD, represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse environmental effects and would reduce effects to acceptable levels. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS are contained in Attachment C. No development applications have been submitted for Sunset Terrace at this time; the Preferred Alternative for Sunset Terrace is still conceptual and is undergoing more detailed planning and engineering. The City of Renton, as the local land use authority, will incorporate the mitigation measures identified herein into any approvals for subsequent development applications. As planning progresses from conceptual to more detailed building and construction plans, there may be minor variations from the initial concepts—including land uses, building footprints, circulation layouts, and other features. For example, Attachment B identifies minor variants of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans that are similar to the Preferred Alternative and within the range of Planned Action Alternatives. Future refined plans will be considered to be consistent with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 provided the features are in the range of the two alternatives and associated environmental analysis. The environmental decision is based on the conclusions of the EIS, and considerations of federal, state and City policies and RHA redevelopment goals. Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize Harm The Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 have been designed to be consistent with the Community Investment Strategy developed by neighbors and businesses, as well as to implement other goals and objectives of the proposal. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives will generate impacts to various elements of the built and natural environments. With the application of City -adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, and application of other federal and state requirements, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.3, this decision to proceed with Sunset Terrace and actions in the broader area will be implemented and mitigation measures imposed through appropriate conditions in any land use or related permits or approvals issued by the City of Renton and through conditions of federal funding. Significant impacts and associated mitigation measures identified in the EIS are contained in Attachment C. Monitoring. The City shall monitor mitigation measures in Attachment C through application of the measures to development permits and projects. This ROD shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Record of Decision 11 May 2011 Public Involvement This ROD completes the City's planning and environmental review process for NEPA purposes. This section describes the steps followed by the City to obtain public input and shape the environmental review process. A public participation plan was developed in August 2010 during initiation of the EIS process, and guided 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 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. Additional public comment opportunities occurred within a 45 -day Draft EIS comment period extending from December 17, 2010, to January 31, 2011. Following direct mail and posting of notices, RHA held a meeting for Sunset Terrace residents on January 4, 2011, at which more than 25 participants attended. After mailing postcards in English and Spanish, posting notices, and publishing notice in the City's local newspaper, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at Renton City Hall on January 5, 2011, at which eight persons spoke. During the 45 -day comment period 12 pieces of correspondence were received as documented in the Final EIS. The City held a Planning Commission public hearing on the SEPA Planned Action Ordinance on April 6, 2011 and three citizens spoke. The City will hold additional public meetings with the City Council as the SEPA Planned Action Ordinance is completed. The City's action on the Planned Action Ordinance is expected to be completed in early June 2011 prior to the release of funds by HUD; however, the NEPA and SEPA decisions are independent. In mid-May 2011, the City issued a Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds and published the notice in the newspaper and sent written notice to parties sent EIS notices. The EIS public outreach process was built on long-term community outreach efforts. Recent City efforts that contributed to the proposal and alternatives studied in the EIS are described below. • Highlands Task Force on Land Use and Zoning, 2006-2007 • Highlands Phase II Task Force, 2007-2008 • Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy, 2009 Additionally, 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 as well as January 4, 2011. Record of Decision 12 May 2011 Coordination with Other Agencies The 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. Federal and state agencies were notified of comment opportunities through the scoping process and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS. Two agencies were particularly consulted consistent with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and the Endangered Species Act (Section 7) as described below. In addition, consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the City received a letter of consistency from the State of Washington Department of Ecology (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464). National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of funded or approved undertakings that have the potential to impact any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), and the State Historic Preservation Officer, affected tribes, and other stakeholders an opportunity to comment. Although compliance with Section 106 is the responsibility of the lead federal agency, others can undertake the work necessary to comply. Pursuant to the HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise to apply HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. The Section 106 process is codified in 36 CFR 800 and consists of five basic steps: 1. Initiate process by coordinating with other environmental reviews, consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), identifying and consulting with interested parties, and identifying points in the process to seek input from the public and to notify the public of proposed actions. 2. Identify cultural resources and evaluate them for NRHP eligibility (the process for which is explained below), resulting in the identification of historic properties. 3. Assess effects of the project on historic properties. 4. Consult with the SHPO and interested parties regarding any adverse effects on historic properties; and, if necessary, develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of these properties (e,g., a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA]). 5. Proceed in accordance with the project MOA, if an MOA is developed. The City completed Section 106 consultation for Sunset Terrace redevelopment and all properties fronting NE Sunset Boulevard in the study area as follows: • The City sent a letter regarding potential Area of Potential Effects to the SHPO, i.e. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe on September 1, 2010; The City provided a copy of a Cultural Resources Survey Report and sent it to DAHP and the tribe. The City received an email and letter from DAHP, dated November 18, 2010, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions an eligibility; and Record of Decision 13 May 2011 • The City received a 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; • The City sent a letter requesting consultation along with technical report, February 18, 2011 to DAHP and the tribe; and • The City received correspondence from DAHP, dated February 24, 2011, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions on eligibility and no adverse impacts. The cultural resources surveys are included in the Draft and Final EIS and the Environmental Review Record. Letters of correspondence are included in Attachment D of this ROD. Endangered species Act 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 was prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in December 2010 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. The City and NMFS corresponded in January, February, and April 2011 on NMFS questions. The City received a letter of concurrence in May 2011. The Biological Assessment and NMFS memoranda are included in the Environmental Review Record. The NMFS letter of concurrence is included in Attachment E. Coastal Zone Management Act Since the Sunset Area lies within Washington State's coastal zone lying in King County, the City completed a form titled "Certification of Consistency with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program for Federally Funded Activities" and received a letter confirming the project's consistency in December 2010. The letter is included in Attachment F. Final EIS Comments In response to the Final EIS notice of availability, the federal Environmental Protection Agency prepared a letter affirming that it's Draft EIS comments were satisfactorily addressed, and together with some monitoring language proposed in the Planned Action Ordinance believed that the Draft and Final EIS and Planned Action Ordinance were well done and would serve to monitor the Sunset Area's sustainability. The letter is included in Attachment G together with consultant documents references in the letter. Clarifications and Corrections As a result of preparing a formal drainage master plan for the planning area, some refinements in water resources data are warranted in the EIS and BA. The resulting clarifications and corrections Record of Decision 14 May 2011 are included in Attachment H. There are no changes in overall conclusions regarding the alternatives, impacts or mitigation measures. Attachments Attachment A: Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area Attachment B: Sunset Terrace Preferred Alternative and Concept Variations Attachment C: Selected Sunset Area Alternatives Mitigation Measures Attachment D: DAHP Section 146 Consultation Correspondence Attachment E: Endangered Species Act Consultation, NMFS Attachment F: Coastal Zone Certification Attachment G: EPA Letter on Final EIS Attachment H: Clarifications and Corrections Record of Decision is May 2011 Attachment A: Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area Record of Decision Q Land Swap/Housing Replacement Sites ' NEk2.15T ST City Limits ST�ST Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment N T�ST�- w �:.���-..' ::fir• E 41 HSfi ` 1,000 q � Feel 11' � M - W, NEI, HISTlez r.• T In ft . �L,yy' wp PAR; ! r � w rG pPR�` y. # ,� • • �' j f 3F F .NE 1ITH P1, z-, ;*"- �"�.�i 4,, i .� � '� � .....• J NEt]1.T,H ST ;a' �, f �- �•a����+ ,•� cJ2�4' f ��'`y2 ,I� �, rJlii ,i ` L�.4."���e�� �:liF fir V4 W Mir, p 01 t N +u^C�`��1Tr "'MjTY0sr,471-. y.i of S z r NE40THIST4.t• iz t 1p s �:[ r� R i�r �111 D lv , t 4 r_..,k u2 r� p i` s•'i!!, i,' +,� ; T rczlc�l w j` i }�iz �. - �• '�1 1.. !CT ' NE -10TH ST' or h w ¢ NE?9THrPL' s tur t ? ur ! Z' 1' w w 2 F 0�r firth 'r �� �_�� ��11: fel..-Ai WbQaJ . `,,`P �� � ii1 , .f IC�' i .'W: � O I� � x 'T7 xoQ t ��rs4o,+� NENTH ST• NE."97HrST, o p i. .h��■EI��:.M6 6;. y�f�y11' yg''si.� °► -R_" ��it _ ]Ell.,Z.t�. T■I .t � r iW: LL,,., ?4 , rti Ar 2 i •►..:LtY'�i �i -rNErBTH7PLt- Qom7��-,J IZ .�"Owe,`lljr• PO ?i Olt; � !y .j i it r• T�'y�, - r/ ...+SIGi +e�' j� F. > ,K•`� [i: sr O ' ' Xla'�� A -; rk JL a 1•NE►7,�FIiST i`'rHSr . . jx +rte s', W_'T1d ''- S '* 14 i?�a.mfr:?„'iy41 r yk r w ..' Source City c* Ren an r. ng Ccu tty� 4 S ili�k ,.Z�}, •� i� . , .rd {n; a' i ` •NE�7�TFi'PL .n Attach. ICF Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Land Swap/Replacement Housing Sites Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS City Limits '"+ .� ���■•-y!�R�ir Planned Action Study Area subarea Imo, _� s NE 22ST ST Central t.•� . s ti a North iNE�24TH a s:" t South NEz19,T�HtSTij L ' ' �• Sunset Mixed Use F -+ i 2t4 �,, x . r d, IIE Potential Sunset K° W-+ NE�iBTH�Sr Terrace Redevelopment N c soo i,000 NE 15THrST�Lipi .. , Mme. Y 'LIJ - E 7 a NEt15THIPL :;i W a �► z� }_' jp 73_� C iJEl1'4TH ST_ i L�" ,CNE ]4THiST F z_ LL I� IF LTi NE�1'3T:H;PL' T �� - w fJ LU L . F. C, 'NE13;TH57 _ .; _ LU W . ? Ie- ` 4 NEpp�K 'e o�ij NE'1 ' Fi'$Lr I iyr rM ree.r ,L1� Z �y4Jay ru G"�311C L946� 6J R Fw _41 OL It Iva z lien Ell 0TH PLS.. 5 F2�....- SNE►14TH1Sr_• oE�i� 661 #4''v' ` vt •'O "'1� I w fq��"rZ a! NE407HiST �a h t- NEt9TWPr t, rIW W z 1 t._ w 3� Jnr 2- aye.. 1. ii yl W 7i L j4. R!'•!s€ 16 �'oi� 4y ��i�i�,' U d jt• rr=K.S_■Ri�a'rY F. iIT I!''jrrR�*LiiQ� NE;9TH ST firC��t x-&. 6r�!• z z �,lr`t�, *�y�r 1T 44 w i " • .r. _ _ R .�. fir ,; cc Z d*{.:.� 1 GgMWI PNErBTH PLy w. R r r;R �• . �'- iL=� .� RNE sri �� ,lir i; !,� a Alt. S7a +s at I. C jt� �y+rra �. z _C4,ir {a��tQ . t.� ar. t•► NEi87H!5T �I L6 r 7': t * �� 11 �i '96 IL 4.1 Tr„ = k Pli .� 1{rE s f 9i ! NE�77TH �ST� N !tc r ' } : .r 1 �ii,a �rH rte• .. w � '4F 77Z 67}�r4W T IR V LiMi i M 1 i� '. a !a`*�i3 y7ME �{- Source: City of Rentnn, King Cc,inty,'S'! ~rti.��'i`- ��`^�� `�'�i;°.'i�w�'. -:-�i t *.{'•�f y R9C1•.:� i '= ..•t J " ` ,t: .• .NE... If PL17 Attach. A-2 1CFPlanned Action Study Area . Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS Attachment B: Sunset Terrace Preferred Alternative and Concept Variations Record of decision May2o11 t 81 / � � Iii ' � f ��" V Y �• i i 3 ARL- tF.MP3 1= _„- �: ` I. ��•�. _.__. -_,_.' -'�. ... � � 1 J � �_ ,�9^d LL.l'�.d�..L...J. � _CELL "�15 �_ .: V�6 1^� W ' � p 4 c 1{ E # i FAA t � , ei��� � g�■ .iI � f t 81 / � � Iii ' � f ��" V Y �• i i 3 ARL- tF.MP3 1= _„- �: ` I. ��•�. _.__. -_,_.' -'�. ... � � 1 J � �_ ,�9^d LL.l'�.d�..L...J. � _CELL "�15 �_ .: V�6 1^� W I Z; � r1 I�! ! r • .,�. • i s} 4 L'! .r. ♦* •y li l — T ' rT '��i, 112. r7 Multifamily: Flats 0 Multifamily: Townhouses r Civic/Community Services ,I ! - Retail/Commercial/Mixed-Use Active park/open space Passive open space 0' 100' 200' 300' 400' N Passive open space: plaza Note: The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would Existing buildings to remain include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas. Figure 2-11 MI T H O N Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS cc ru LL G a 7 0 O a a t01i � m � � L _ U � N w C a � � a y L N � n a Q m n 7 O u m `a E E w y U o_ n o` O 7 — E v � U Li M D w 7 Y E U p C D N (P x A £ CO, o u @ `E V o v o u @ @ a a m o Q m a m E C o 0 m o m LL 7 @ w E c p y 7@ d m o7 " b 0 0 � � a V C 7 U U U 7 y Q � Vl Q _ � a @ � u C n @ U h N d Q Q C O U IIS 7 d C v� y Pi o m`w c m m rn c E o o E m 4 B E 46 m o a c c C ci C O y N 7 U is O N O N IA S z O H y d `o a` 9l ny' vc ca x LL) W y Qy m v) E° L E Ip N C C . U @ @ t y .a ,N 16 y O N H G1 B C F 0N� `1 O Mr r o @ a o Q o Y d¢ S a a ta ta ' a � p a � I a� 'x n a� O C 17 � t7 M P C S Ut O �, V7 N O S; O S O O co pp C O U o m i 0 C O O O o $_ o O C - O w N u] �V w'1 N O 10 N 0p Q N !D v o loo N n r r r H1 Ln Q O d a E W m m Q E g� _T E E u u c r v m ~ s 12 a z a d d d v C d @ o L o L N E m E Y a r 3 r 3 z z 3 r 3 o 61t Q m m m o o m ra m U U o � r H $o -H W m Y LL LL F LL LL LL L E Z T E T E T E T E T E T E T E y i y ``° N �^ n m m m m cc ru LL G a 7 0 O a a t01i � m � � L _ U � N w C a � � a y L N � n a Q m n 7 O u m `a E E w y U o_ n o` O 7 — E v � U Li M D w 7 Y E U p C D N (P x A £ CO, o u @ `E V o v o u @ @ a a m o Q m a m E C o 0 m o m LL 7 @ w E c p y 7@ d m o7 " b 0 0 � � a V C 7 U U U 7 y Q � Vl Q _ � a @ � u C n @ U h N d Q Q C O U IIS 7 d C v� y Pi o m`w c m m rn c E o o E m 4 B E 46 m o a c c C ci C O y N 7 U is O N O N IA S z O H y d `o a` 9l ny' vc ca x LL) W y Qy m v) E° L E Ip N C C . U @ @ t y .a ,N 16 y O N H G1 B C F 0N� `1 O Mr r o @ a o Q o Y d¢ S a a ta ta L' � h � H r Parking Diagram, NTS a I Parcel lines ill 40 Concept 1 Adjusted setbacks at library and building 10 • Adjusted library footprint • 10,000 sf footprint far Building 10 • On -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 25 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 49 stalls (31 at library; 18 at bldg 10) • Total parking provided: 74 stalls (asssumes 1 level of underground parking) • Parking required: Total: 101 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (56 stalls, assuming 30 units = 36stalls + 1 OK office = 20 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.4 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2110/11 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. M I T H U H ram, NTS Parcel lines GONG�7- — 2 9 40 Conce tt 2, Sunset Lane jog • Adjusted library footprint • New Building 10 configuration: 15,000 sf footprint • Shared access underground parking (one level) accessed from 10th Street • Plaza/3rd place/ drop off area • On -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 25 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 61 stalls (39 at library; 10 at plaza; 22 at bldg 10) • Total parking provided: 86 stalls (assumes 1 level underground parking) • Parking required: Total: 132 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (87 stalls, assuming 45 units = 54 stalls t 10K office = 20 stalls, 5K retail = 13 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.1 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2/10111 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively, M I T H U N Parking Diagram, NTS Parcel lines GO FT - 1� 1'._ Its M) Concept 3 Realigned Sunset Lane • Sunset Lane realigned north to accomodate 120' deep building and double loaded parking ga- rage • Adjusted library footprint • New Building 10 configuration: 15,000 sf footprint • Shared access underground parking (one level) accessed from 10th Street • Plaza/3rd place • On -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 23 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 116 stalls (shared parking garage podium) • Total parking provided: 136 stalls • Parking required: Total: 132 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (87 stalls, assuming 45 units = 54 stalls + 1 OK office = 20 stalls, 5K retail = 13 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.3 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2110111 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively, M I T H U N Attachment C: Selected Sunset Area Alternatives Mitigation Measures Record of Decision May 2011 Attachment C: Sunset Area Selected Alternatives EIS Mitigation Measures Table of Contents Attachment C: Sunset Area Selected Alternatives EIS Mitigation Measures ......................................... 1 Introductionand Purpose...................................................................................................................... 3 GeneralInterpretation........................................................................................................................... 3 Location.............................................................................. MitigationDocument............................................................................................................................. 4 1. Earth....................................................................................................................................4 2. Air Quality............................................................................................................ 3. Water Resources............................................................................................................... 12 4. Plants and Animals............................................................................................................ 15 5. Energy............................................................................................................................... 17 6_ Noise.................................................................................................................................19 7. Environmental Health....................................................................................................... 21 8. Land Use............................................................................................................................ 24 9. Socioeconomics................................................................................................................ 27 10. Housing........................................................................................................................ 11. Environmental Justice. ..... ....................................................................................... 31 12. Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................33 13. Historic/Cultural................................................................................................................36 14. Transportation.................................................................................................................. 38 15. Parks and Recreation........................................................................................................ 42 16. Public Services......... ...... ....................................................................................... ..... 45 17. Utilities.-... .................................................................................... .................... 51 AdvisoryNotes.................................................................................__...............................................56 Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery ........................................................................................................57 Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing ........................ 59 Water.................................................................................................................................................... 60 Overview................. ............................................................................................................... ___ 60 Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1......................................................................................................... 60 NewLibrary ......................................................................................................... New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library ........................................................................ 61 RHA's Piha Site...................................................................................................................... Attachment C 1 Mitigation Document Sunset Terrace Redevelopment..................................................................................................... 62 Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2......................................................................................................... 62 WaterMain Costs.......................................................................................................................... 63 WastewaterCollection......................................................................................................................... 63 Overview........................................................................................................................................ 63 DetailedDiscussion........................................................................................................................63 Table 6, Note: Tables are numbered beginning with Table 2 to to match the numbering of the Planned Action Ordinance Attachment B. Attachment C 2 Mitigation Document List of Tables Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts...................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures................................................................................................................... 5 Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts........................................................................................................... 6 Table S. Air Quality Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................ 9 Table 6, Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures........................................................................10 Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts............................................................................................12 Table 8. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts........................................................................................15 Table 9. Energy Significant Impacts ......................................... ....17 ................................................................... Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................................18 Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts...................................................................................................................19 Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................20 Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts........................................................................................................2] Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures...............................................................................22 Table15. Land Use Impacts.............................................................................................................•.....................24 Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................26 Table 17, Socioeconomics Impacts.....................................................................................................................27 Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures...........................................................................................28 Table19. Housing Impacts.....................................................................................................................................29 Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures...........................................................................................................30 Table 21. Environmental Justice Impacts........................................................................................................31 Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures...............................................................................33 Table23. Aesthetic Impacts...................................................................................................................................33 Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................35 Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts..................................................................................................................36 Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................37 Table27. Transportation Impacts......................................................................................................................38 Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................40 Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts..........................................................................................................42 Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures................................................................................44 Table 31. Public Services Impacts.......................................................................................................................45 Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................48 Table33. Utilities Impacts......................................................................................................................................51 Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................53 Note: Tables are numbered beginning with Table 2 to to match the numbering of the Planned Action Ordinance Attachment B. Attachment C 2 Mitigation Document Introduction and Purpose In order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA) and SEPA requirements, the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on December 17, 20 10 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on April 1, 2011. The Draft together with the Final EIS is referenced herein as the "EIS". The EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of the Planned Action area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts. The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the EIS. The mitigation measures shall apply to future development proposals which are consistent with the "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives" identified in the Record of Decision and which are located within the Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area (see ROD Attachment A). General Interpretation "Planned action applications" or "planned action projects" are those land use development or infrastructure proposals that are proposed consistent with "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives" identified in the Record of Decision. Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will," inclusion of that measure in project plans is mandatory. Where "should" or "would" appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc„ are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. 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 ISR] 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 the EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. See Attachment A of the ROD for maps. Attachment C I Mitigation Document Mitigation Document Based on the EIS, this Mitigation Document identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur as a result of development of planned action projects. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS are reiterated here for inclusion in proposed projects to mitigate related impacts. Additional project conditions maybe imposed on planned action projects based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to independent requirements of the City, state or federal requirements or review criteria. Any applicant for a project within the Planned Action area may propose alternative mitigation measures, if appropriate and/or as a result of changed circumstances, in order to allow equivalent substitute mitigation for identified impacts. Such modifications shall be evaluated by the City's NEPA and SEPA Responsible Official prior to any project approvals by the City. In combination, regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures identified in the EIS and documented in this Mitigation Document that are applied to any planned action proposal will adequately mitigate all significant environmental impacts associated with planned action proposals, except for those impacts that are identified as "significant unavoidable adverse impacts." Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the EIS for the proposed action are; (a) summary of significant environmental impacts (construction, operation, indirect and cumulative); (b) a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts; (c) mitigation measures established by this mitigation document for both the Planned Action Study Area as a whole as well as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea; and (d) a list of City policies/regulations on which mitigation measures are based. Advisory notes are included at the end of the document to list the federal, state, and local laws that act as mitigation measures. 1. Earth Significant Impacts Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Erosion could increase as a result of soil Same as Planned Action Study Area 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. Attachment C Mitigation Document Operations 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. 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. 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. 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 landslidin2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential For impacts. Same as Planned Action Study Area There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall apply to Mitigation measures shall be the same as the development throughout the Planned Action Planned Action Study Area, except that there are Study Area. no geologic hazard areas to avoid. Attachment C I Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction could require import and Similar to Planned Action Study Area. export of earth materials; however, The underlying glacial outwash soils with minimal planning and protection, have the highest potential for reuse the outwash soils in most of the study within the Planned Action Study Area area could be reused as backfill, and consequently the subarea. minimizing import and export Operations 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. 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. 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. 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 landslidin2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential For impacts. Same as Planned Action Study Area There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall apply to Mitigation measures shall be the same as the development throughout the Planned Action Planned Action Study Area, except that there are Study Area. no geologic hazard areas to avoid. Attachment C I Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea • Apply erosion -control best management practices CBMPs), as described in Appendix D of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual'. • Limit development in geologic hazard areas and their buffers, or require rigorous engineered design to reduce the hazard, as currently codified. Planned Action applicants shall identify in their applications the source of earth material to be used in construction and shall consider earth material reuse and provide information to the City regarding why earth material reuse is not feasible if it is not proposed. The City may condition the planned action application to provide for earth material reuse where feasible. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-5-050 International Building Code RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards 2, Air Quality Significant Impacts Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Dust from excavation and grading Same as Planned Action Study could cause temporary, localized Area increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Construction activities would likely Same as Planned Action Study require the use of diesel -powered, Area heavv trucks and smaller 1 City of Renton. 2010. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards. Attachment C I Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Emissions from Commercial Operations Emissions From Vehicle Travel 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. Some construction activities could Same as Planned Action Study cause odors detectible to some Area people in the vicinity of the activity, especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt Such odors would be short-term and localized. 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. 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. Tailpipe emissions from vehicles would be -the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with growth. The net increases in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) forecast as a result of Selected Sunset Area alternatives are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. This would not alter Puget Sound Regional Council's conclusion that future regional emissions will be less than the allowable emissions budgets of air quality maintenance plans. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area 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. Attachment C Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Air Quality Attainment Land use density and population Same as Planned Action Study Status would increase in the Planned Area. 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. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Study Area and Subarea Outdoor Air Toxics Selected Sunset Area alternatives are estimated to result in this alternative would result in an estimated 43,050 to 45,766 metric tons/year of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Planned Action Study Area. The Planned Action Study Area is in a mixed-use residential and commercial zone that does not include unusual sources of toxic air pollutants. The major arterial street through the Planned Action Study Area (NE Sunset Boulevard) does not carry an unusually high percentage of heavy-duty truck traffic. Thus, the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would not expose existing or future residents to disproportionately high concentrations of toxic air pollutants generated by local emission sources. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would result in an estimated 3,760 to 6,612 metric tons/year of GHG emissions. Impacts on outdoor air toxics would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Indoor Air Toxics See Potential Sunset Terrace RHA development would be Redevelopment Subarea 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 uali be and what is normally Attachment C Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Indirect and Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subarea, Study Area, and Region With the highest level of transit - oriented development in the study area of the studied alternatives, Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide the greatest regional GHG emission reductions, a net reduction of 3,907-4,164 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts achieved by simply complying with building codes. With the highest level of transit - oriented development in the subarea of the alternatives studied, Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide the greatest reduction in regional GHG emissions, a net reduction of 150-467 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described below are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. Mitigation Measures Table S. Air Quality Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Construction Emission Control The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the study area. The air quality control plans shall include BMPs to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment. The following BMPs shall be used to control fugitive dust. • Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways. • Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces. • Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets. • Cover soil piles when practical. • Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In addition to the mitigation measures for air quality described under the Planned Action Study Area, the following mitigation measures apply: . Should the phases of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur concurrently rather than in a phased and sequential manner, the City and RHA will consider adding the Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects - Model Contract Specifications or an equivalent approach? as additional mitigation measures. . The City and RHA and other public or private applicants within the subarea should explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes. For example, grant programs such as the Breath Easy Homes program could provide funding to foster construction methods that reduce dust, mold. z Northeast Diesel Collaborative. december 2010. Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, Model Contract Specification. Available: <http://www.northeastdiesel.org/pdf/NEDC-Construction-Contract-Spec.pdf.> Accessed: March 14, 2011. Attachment C Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall be used to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by tailpipe emissions. Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. Where feasible, Applicants shall schedule haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) to have the least effect on traffic and to minimize indirect increases in traffic related emissions. This shall be determined as part of traffic control plans required in Section 14 of this mitigation document. Burning of slash or demolition debris shall not be permitted without express approval from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction projects in the Planned Action Study Area. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Please see text and Table 6 below, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and air toxics concentrations in the homes, such as the following: o use of low-VOC [volatile organic compounds] building materials and coatings, o enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration, and o installation of dust -free floor materials and low -pile carpeting to reduce dust buildup. Planned Action applicants for residential developments shall provide information regarding the feasibility and applicability of indoor air quality measures. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible indoor air quality measures. The City shall require development applicants to consider the reduction measures shown in Table 6 for their projects, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and why other measures found in the table are not included or are not applicable. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible GHG reduction measures. Table 6. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Reduction Measures Comments Site Design Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings. Minimize building footprint. Design water efficient landscaping. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity, and enhances carbon sinks. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption, materials used, maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction emissions. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and upstream emissions from water management, Minimize energy use through building orientation. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Building Design and Operations Construct buildings according to City of Seattle The City of Seattle code is more stringent than energy code. the current City of Renton building code, Attachment C 10 Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Apply Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards (or equivalent) for design and operations. Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for public agency use. Incorporate on-site renewable energy production, including installation of photovoltaic cells or other solar options. Design street lights to use energy-efficient bulbs and fixtures. Construct "green roofs" and use high -albedo roofing materials. Install high -efficiency heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning (HVAC) systems. Eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC systems. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and off-site/indirect purchased electricity, water use, waste disposal. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Reduces purchased electricity. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Minimizes fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Reduces fugitive emissions. Compare refrigerant usage before/after to determine GHG reduction. Maximize interior day lighting through floor plates, Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and increased building perimeter and use of skylights, reduces purchased electrical energy celestories, and light wells. consumption. Incorporate energy efficiency technology such as Reduces fuel combustion and purchased super insulation motion sensors for lighting and electricity consumption. climate -control -efficient, directed exterior lighting. Use water -conserving fixtures that surpass building Reduces water consumption. code requirements. Reuse gray water and/or collect and reuse Reduces water consumption with its indirect rainwater. upstream electricity requirements. Use recycled building materials and products. Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly reduces transportation of materials, encourages recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal. Use building materials that are extracted and/or Reduces transportation of purchased materials. manufactured within the region. Use rapidly renewable building materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased materials, Conduct third -party building commissioning to Reduces fuel combustion and purchased ensure energy performance. electricity consumption. Track energy performance of building and develop Reduces fuel combustion and purchased strategy to maintain efficiency. electricity consumption. Transportation Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking Reduced parking discourages auto -dependent requirements and, where possible, seek reductions travel, encouraging alternative modes such as in parking supply through special permits or transit, walking, and biking. Reduces direct and waivers. indirect VMT. Develop and implement a marketing/information Reduces direct and indirect VMT. program that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit information. Attachment C 11 Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules, telecommuting, and/or flex time. Provide a guaranteed -ride -home program. Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Use traffic signalization and coordination to improve traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety. Apply advanced technology systems and management strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets. Develop shuttle systems around business district parking garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes. Reduces employee VMT. Reduces employee VMT. Reduces transportation emissions and VMT. Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing idling and maximizing transportation routes/systems for fuel efficiency. Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect VMT. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology 2008b VMT = vehicle miles travelled. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations I Water Resources Significant Impacts Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction impacts on water Same as Planned Action Study Area resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #5 for Erosion and Sediment Control in the Renton Stormwater Manual and compliance with Ecology's NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land -disturbing activity. Also see Section 1, Earth, above, Operations Water Quality and Land Implementation of the green All untreated pollution eneratin Attachment C 12 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Cover Indirect and Cumulative connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7-15.7 acres of untreated pollution - generating impervious area and approximately 3.1-6.6 acres of effective impervious area. Exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea the net change in pollutant generating surfaces is approximately 40-42 acres reduction. Exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 1.3 acres (0.8%) to 4.24 (2.6%) from existing conditions. Considering the reduction in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea as wll as the overall Planned Action Study Area, the net change in effective impervious area would be smaller at 0.75-3.17. The operations analysis above presents cumulative impacts in terms of total impervious surfaces and potential water quantity and quality impacts, as well as indirect impacts on receiving water bodies outside of the study area. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would implement a drainage master plan and mitigation would be provided in advance through the self -mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution -generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11%) to 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions. Same as the Planned Action Study area. In particular, the City proposes to construct a regional stormwater facility that would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space allowing water to be treated within a series of distributed of small integrated rain gardens along the edge of the proposed Sunset Terrace Park and connecting the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space. This will mitigate impacts in the subarea as well as portions of the larger Planned Action Study Area. Attachment C 13 Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None of the alternatives would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources, because the redevelopment would likely result in an improvement of runoff and recharge water quality. In addition, the net change in effective impervious area can be adequately mitigated through the self -mitigating features of the Selected Sunset Area alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described below. Mitigation Measures All of the alternatives would involve redevelopment and reduction of existing pollution -generating impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, per the requirements of the stormwater code, the redeveloped properties would be required to provide water quality treatment for all remaining pollution -generating impervious surfaces. The net reduction in untreated pollution -generating impervious surfaces throughout the study area is, therefore, considered to result in a net benefit to surface water quality. Each of the alternatives would result in a slight increase in the effective impervious area of the Planned Action Study Area. Self mitigating features of the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives are listed below: Under Alternative 3, mitigation would be provided in advance or incrementally through the self - mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Conceptual design and planning of the public stormwater infrastructure would be developed under a drainage master plan for the Study Area. It could be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the improvements, The extent and form of the public infrastructure projects would be refined through the drainage master plan development and further design. The goal under Alternative 3 would be to provide sufficient advance public infrastructure improvements to balance the anticipated increase in effective impervious area. This strategy would only require that future developments implement flow - control BMPs, but could eliminate on-site flow control through a development fee or similar funding structure to compensate for the off-site mitigation provided by the public infrastructure investment. The Preferred Alternative mitigation would be similar to Alternative 3. Harrington Avenue N E, including portions of NE 16th and NE 4th streets, has been identified as a high priority Green Connection project. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through -traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks. This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining green connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds), In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City will implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Locations of the regional facilities would include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball /softball field). A drainage master plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative, Attachment C 14 Mitigation Document Planned Actions shall implement the City's adopted Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan, and associated street frontage improvements, and be consistent with the City stormwater regulations in effect at the time of application, Planned Action applicants shall also demonstrate compliance with RMC 4-1-180 Charges for Equitable Share of Public Works Facilities, Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards 4. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Table 8. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Attachment c 15 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Individual redevelopment Same as Planned Action Study Area 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. Operations Redevelopment activities that Same as Planned Action Study Area 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 Attachment c 15 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Green connections and urban forestry plans offset to some degree by greater redevelopment, the net result is likely to be a reduction in habitat connectivity and a decline in total vegetated area, albeit with some improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Largely due to the absence of impacts on special -status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant. Indirect Selected Sunset Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Alternatives 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 Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. Cumulative No impact No impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur for plants and animals under any alternative. Mitigation Measures With implementation of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. Attachment C 16 Mitigation Document Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-4-230 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations S. Energy Significant Impacts Table 9. Energy Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction During construction, energy Same as Planned Action Study Area 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. Operations Energy Usage: Study Area and Subarea Indirect and Cumulative Energy Usage: Subarea, Study Area, and Region The annual energy usage is estimated at 255,845 to 275,529 million British thermal units (Btu). With high levels of transit - oriented and high-density development the Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the study area compared to the No Action Alternative: 26,383 to 29,194 million Btu. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The annual energy usage is estimated at 21,338 to 43,654 million British thermal units (Btu). With high levels of transit -oriented and high-density development the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the subarea compared to the No Action Alternative: 1,145 to 3,624 million Btu. 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 Attachment C 17 Mitigation Document 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, Mitigation Measures Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although the growth and development would In addition to the mitigation measures described for result in increased energy demand in the the Planned Action Study Area, according to the King Planned Action Study Area under all of the County proposed GHG reduction regulation, energy alternatives, expanding the beneficial transit- reductions can be provided with the implementation oriented development and high-density of the following basic requirements of the American housing development within the study area Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning would reduce regional energy usage. Engineers Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide Therefore, all alternatives would provide a for residential and non-residential building in the net benefit rather than adverse impact with subarea; regards to energy usage. However, to further 30% energy reduction for residential dwelling reduce energy consumption, the Cit shall that are SO% of average size; and 15% energy encourage future developers to implement additional trip -reduction measures and reduction for residential dwelling that are 7$% of energy conservation measures. For example, average size; and energy and GHG reductions can be achieved . 12% energy reduction for office, school, retail, through implementation of the following and public assembly buildings that are smaller energy conservation techniques or equivalent than 100,000 square feet in floor area. approaches. An energy reduction of 12% can be achieved by implementing sufficient strategies established by the Northwest Energy Star Homes program for multifamily residential buildings. The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010) is designed to help builders construct energy-efficient homes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to meet energy -efficiency guidelines set forth by the EPA. • An energy reduction of 10% would comply with Seattle Energy Code for non- residential buildings, See also Air Quality mitigation measures. The City shall require development applicants to consider trip -reduction measures and energy conservation, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and which ones are not included (based on that are part of Table 6 or Table 10). The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible trip reduction and energy Attachment C 18 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea conservation measures. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-5-051 Washington State Energy Code Adopted 6. Noise Significant Impacts Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Development in the study area would require demolition and construction activity, which would temporarily increase noise levels at residences close to the development site. This type of activity could cause annoyance and speech interference at outdoor locations adjacent to the construction sites, and could cause discernible noise. Operations Noise from New Commercial Operations Indirect and Cumulative 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 Same as Planned Action Study Area Noise from Increased For most residents adjacent to Development would result in Traffic: Proposal with roadways in the study area, noise increase from vehicles Future Traffic Levels increased traffic would result in traveling on NE Sunset the greatest increase in ambient Boulevard and local streets The noise levels, caused by moving estimated day -night noise levels traffic and vehicles idling at from NE Sunset Boulevard at intersections. Development the adjacent buildings indicates would result in noise increase they would be exposed to from vehicles traveling on NE "normally unacceptable" noise Sunset Boulevard and local levels exceeding U.S. streets. Department of Housing and Attachment C 19 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea 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 Selected Sunset Area Alternatives. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational traffic noise impacts are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted below. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT "substantial increase" impact threshold. Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed normally unacceptable under the HUD noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the adjacent street (NE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated in this subarea, if the noise control measures noted below are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria. Mitigation Measures Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Noise Mitigation measures described in the Planned To reduce construction noise at nearby Action Study Area would also apply to this receivers, the following mitigation measures subarea, shall be incorporated by Planned Action Site design approaches shall be incorporated to applicants into construction plans and reduce potential noise impacts including the contractor specifications. following. + 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. Concentrating park and open space uses are away from NE Sunset Boulevard. Where park and open space uses must be located near NE Sunset Boulevard, avoiding activities that require easily understood conversation (e.g., instructional classes), or other uses where quiet conditions are required for the primary function of the activity. • Turn off idling construction equipment. 0 Allowing for balconies on exterior facing units • Require contractors to rigorously maintain only if they do not open to a bedroom. all equipment. According to HUD noise guidebook, noise Attachment C 20 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Train construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement) near noise -sensitive areas. New Commercial Operation Noise The City shall require all prospective future developers to use low -noise mechanical equipment adequate to ensure compliance with the City's daytime and nighttime noise ordinance limits where commercial uses are abutting residential uses and where there is a potential to exceed noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City shall require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control measures. Compliance with the noise ordinance would ensure this potential impact would not be significant. Traffic Noise Mitigation Although traffic noise is exempt from City noise ordinance, based on site-specific considerations, the City may at its discretion require the new development to install double -pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under the Washington State Energy Code (RMC 4-5-040). Nexus Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea attenuation from various building materials are calculated using sound transmission class (STC) rating. Although the standard construction approaches can normally achieve the STC rating of more than 24 dBA as demonstrated in Final EIS Appendix E, the City shall require a STC rating of 30 dBA reduction for these first row residential dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows that the sound reduction achieved by different techniques maybe a little optirnistic3. . City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC Title 8 Chapter 7 Noise Level Regulations 7. Environmental Health Significant Impacts Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential construction impacts Existing subsurface 3 HUD noise guidebook, Chapter 4, page 33"... use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2.3 dB overstating that you may get with the STC rating system." Attachment C 21 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea include releasing existing contaminants to the environment by ground -disturbing or dewatering activities, encountering underground storage tanks (U STs) or leaking USTs, generating hazardous building materials that require special disposal, and accidentally releasing hazardous substances. 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. Indirect No impact 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) could be generated from demolition of the existing Sunset Terrace buildings. If there are lead-based paints or ACMs at the complex, appropriate permits and precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects. No impact No impact Cumulative No impact No impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are identified at the programmatic level throughout the Planned Study Area or for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for any of the studied alternatives. Contaminated sites would be avoided during project design when possible; implementing the mitigation approaches described below would minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. Mitigation Measures Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Since encountering unreported spills or unreported underground fuel tanks is a risk when performing construction, contractors shall be required to provide hazardous materials awareness training to all grading and excavation crews on how to identify any suspected contaminated soil or groundwater, and how to alert supervisors Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The construction and operation mitigation measures identified for the Planned Action Study Area are applicable to the subarea. Attachment C 22 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the event of suspected contaminated material. Signs of potential contaminated soil include stained soil, odors, oily sheen, or the presence of debris. Contractors shall be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)(WAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations. Contractors shall be required to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pian, BMPs, and other permit conditions to minimize the potential for a release of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, or surface water dui-ing construction. Contractors shall be required to follow careful construction practices to protect against hazardous materials spills from routine equipment operation during construction; prepare and maintain a current spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, and have an individual on site designated as an emergency coordinator; and understand and use proper hazardous materials storage and handling procedures and emergency procedures, including proper spill notification and response requirements. All asbestos -containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint will be identified in structures prior to demolition activities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35, If ACM or lead-based paint is identified, appropriately trained and licensed personnel will contain, remove, and properly dispose of the ACM and/or lead-based paint material according to federal and state regulations prior to demolition of the affected area. If warranted, contractors shall conduct additional studies to locate undocumented underground storage tank (USTs) and fuel lines before construction of specific development projects (areas of concern include current and former commercial and residential structures) and will permanently decommission and properly remove USTs from nroiect sites before Attachment C 23 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea commencing general construction activities. Prior to acquisition of known or potentially contaminated property, the City shall require appropriate due diligence be performed to identify the presence and extent of soil or groundwater contamination. This can help to prevent or manage liabilities for any long-term clean- up activities that might be ongoing during project operations. if contamination is discovered, the project proponent will comply with all state and federal regulations for contaminated sites. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC Title 4 Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards S. Land Use Significant Impacts Table 15. Land Use Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction The incremental nature of Same as Planned Action Study development over the planning Area period would minimize the number of nearby residents exposed to temporary construction impacts including dust emissions, noise, construction traffic, and sporadic interference with access to adjacent residences and businesses. Operations Land Use Patterns Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide more than 2,300 to 2,500 dwelling units and 1.2 to 1.3 million square feet of commercial space compared to existing conditions. Redevelopment would provide more commercial development Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide about 266-479 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. Attachment C 24 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea than residential development. This alternative would also provide more than two times as many residential dwellings as currently exist in the study area. Plans and Policies Indirect and Cumulative Selected Sunset Area Alternatives provide the greatest degree of consistency among the alternatives with the City Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies by implementing the development types envisioned in the City's land use and zoning designations within the study area. Anticipated growth would help the City meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. Public investments would need to be accounted for in amendments to the City's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements. 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. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Selected Sunset Area Alternatives provide 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, Redevelopment of the subarea under this alternative would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. 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. Attachment C 25 Mitigation Document Mitigation Measures Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Under all alternatives, the City shall require planned action applicants to implement appropriate construction mitigation measures, including but not limited to dust control and construction traffic management. The City should make efforts to minimize property acquisition that affects buildings as part of its refinement of study area streetscape designs while balancing Complete Streets principles. As part of the Planned Action Ordinance adoption process, the City should amend its Comprehensive Plan's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements to ensure that planned public investments and their funding sources are accounted for and programmed. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction mitigation would be the same as described under the Planned Action Study Area. The City and RHA should coordinate on future Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affects buildings is minimized. The City shall require construction plans tm. • Locate the majority of the most intensive non-residential development along or near NE Sunset Boulevard, where possible. • Implement proposed open space and landscape features to offset the proposed intensification of land uses on the site. • Provide new opportunities for public open space area. • As part of site design, emphasize transitions in density, with less intense densities where abutting lower -intensity zones. RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards Attachment C 26 Mitigation Document 9. Socioeconomics Significant Impacts Table 17. Socioeconomics Impacts Operations The higher number of dwelling Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction activities could The demolition of the Sunset temporarily increase congestion Terrace complex to allow for the and reduce parking, local access subarea redevelopment would for businesses and residents, and require the relocation of the access near the construction tenants. activities, which could negatively Moreover, the relocation of the affect businesses; however, tenants could affect some local businesses located close to businesses during construction, if construction activities could the tenants are relocated outside experience an increase in revenue of the immediate area, however, From spending by construction since the total number of workers. relocations represents a small under Alternative 3 include a portion of the overall population family village and a wider any impact would likely be small reconstruction of NE Sunset in scale. Operations The higher number of dwelling The Selected Sunset Area units and jobs would result in Alternatives would increase greater intensities in development dwelling units and jobs by 266 - and economic benefits. 479 net dwelling units and 79 - Improvements in the streetscape 117 jobs. The subarea would be along NE Sunset Boulevard and developed with new park, street, the other civic and infrastructure and civic improvements that improvements would make the would promote a healthy and study area more desirable to walkable neighborhood. investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. The facilities that would be added under Alternative 3 include a family village and a wider reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard. The family village would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services that would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. Indirect Construction spending would Increased spending is anticipated result in positive indirect effects with the mixture of affordable and on the economic elements of market -rate units, which would employment and income in the result in positive impacts on the study area and the regional businesses in the area as well as economy as businesses that local tax revenues. support the construction effort Attachment C 27 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea would likely see increased spending. The additional public and private investment and associated economic benefits would be greater due to the increased spending. cumulative Cumulative effects would be As the area changes and new positive with the addition of new housing is provided, no existing development that would continue public units would be lost and to enhance the area and continue improvements in the to improve the neighborhood neighborhood would likely vitality. continue as new developments are constructed. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Selected Sunset Area 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 Selected Sunset Area Alternatives, relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would result in short-term impacts, however, these impacts would be mitigated. The creation of new jobs and spending in the subarea during construction of new developments would result in short- term benefits. Mitigation Measures Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Mitigation measures to minimize dust, noise, aesthetics, and transportation impacts during construction are identified in Sections 2, 6, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Mitigation Document. These measures would address many of the construction -related impacts that could negatively affect the study area businesses. In addition, with the reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard, or with any new development, if access to businesses is affected, the following measures should be addressed by the City or WSDQT: • 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 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In addition to mitigation measures described For the Planned Action Study Area, the following mitigation measures apply: . Public housing tenants shall be provided relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. RHA should consider phased demolition and reconstruction to minimize the need to relocate all the residents at the same time, or the new affordable housing development could be constructed prior to demolition to provide opportunities to relocate tenants within the subarea. Attachment C 28 W igation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea to help affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction. Maintain access, as much as possible, to each business and, if access needs to be limited, coordinate with the affected businesses. Mitigation measures to address indirect impacts on housing affordability are addressed in Section 10 of this Mitigation Document. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 10. Housing Significant Impacts Table 19. Housing Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Operations Indirect Cumulative Construction of commercial, residential, and civic uses in the study area would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives assume 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings replaced at 299. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would add up to approximately 2,339 to 2,507 new dwellings. In the study area there is a potential for additional market rate dwellings as well as affordable and public dwellings. Most new units would be multifamily. 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. Growth in the studv area would Construction of residential and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect adjacent residents to the subject properties. In this subarea, 110 public housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. There would be a 1:1 replacement of public housing units on site and in the Planned Action Study Area. The number of units added would be 266-479 above existing dwellings, for a total of 376-589 units. About three quarters of the units would be affordable or public, and another approximate quarter would be market -rate dwelling units. 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 support of the new dwellings Attachment C 29 Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea be consistent with the City's to assist the City in meeting Comprehensive Plan and would growth targets is similar to the contribute to meeting growth Planned Action Study Area, targets for the City's next RHA has committed to replacement housing for Comprehensive Plan Update for the Sunset Terrace public housing units at a 1:1 the year 2031. ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Housing in the Planned Action Study Area would likely redevelop to some degree to take advantage of adopted plans and zoning. However, the alternatives would allow for the construction of new dwelling units to replace those that are eliminated. Lower-cost housing could be replaced with more costly housing. Implementation of City regulatory incentives and use of federal, state, and local housing funds and programs could reduce potential affordability impacts. Through its regular Comprehensive Plan review cycles, the City could monitor housing trends in the neighborhood and adapt measures to promote affordability. During construction and in the short-term, residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, relocation assistance mitigation measures for RHA units would mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures Attachment C 30 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-030(C) Construction mitigation would be as described identifies construction hours intended to address for the Planned Action Study Area, noise in sensitive time periods. See Section 6, RHA has committed to replacement housing for Noise, of this Mitigation Document regarding other the Sunset Terrace public housing units at a 1:1 noise mitigation measures for construction ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of periods. I units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement When federal funds are being used for a proposal, housing could occur on site and/or off site. displaced tenants shall be offered relocation During the time replacement housing is under assistance in compliance with the Uniform construction, Section 8 vouchers, or equivalent Relocation Assistance and Real Property measures, shall be used to relocate tenants. Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The City and RHA should apply for federal, state, and local funding programs described in Draft EIS Section 3.10, Housing, to promote new housing opportunities for low and very low-income housing. RHA should establish a local preference for rental assistance. For example, RHA could establish a priority list for Section 8 vouchers for displaced low-income tenants in the Planned Action Study Area (in addition to the relocation assistance to be provided by RHA to the Sunset Terrace residents). Attachment C 30 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Unit replacement and relocation assistance for the family village would be the same as described far the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General 11. Environmental Justice Significant Impacts Table 21. Environmental Justice Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Operations 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. Residential, commercial, and recreational development and civic and infrastructure improvements under Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live for all populations in the community, including minority and low-income populations. The family village would be beneficial for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, but these benefits could accrue to a greater degree for minority and low-income Donulations due to The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the proposed 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, Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would have a number of beneficial effects on minority and low- income populations in the subarea, including the redevelopment of the existing dwelling units, construction of additional units, transportation improvements, and the addition of other community facilities (i.e., senior day health, library, parks). These changes would result in improvements to public health and to the aesthetics of the area. These would all improve community cohesion for subarea residents. Attachment C 31 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Indirect Cumulative the close proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle. The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the study area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities would benefit all study area populations, but could benefit minority and low-income populations to a greater degree. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would increase the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low- income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations. 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 population s,which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the study area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Housing types and affordability would be more varied. New retail and commercial space wand provide new employment opportunities could be seen as more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or not have a their own vehicle and would, therefore, benefit more from the proximity. 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. There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to environmental justice. The Selected Sunset Area 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. Attachment C 32 Mitigation Document Mitigation Measures Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea There are no specific mitigation measures related Mitigation measures during construction include to environmental justice during construction or the need for replacement housing for the operation. During construction, mitigation residents of Sunset Terrace. It is likely that the measures related to noise, dust, traffic congestion, tenants would be relocated under a potential and visual quality shall be applicable to all Section 8 voucher strategy during construction, populations. These measures are described in See Section 9, Socioeconomics, of this Mitigation Sections 2, 6, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Document. Mitigation Document. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General 12. Aesthetics Significant Impacts Table 23. Aesthetic Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction The demolition of existing Same as Planned Action Study structures and construction of Area new buildings would expose nearby residents to visual impacts, including dust, the presence of construction equipment, stockpiles of construction materials, localized increases in vehicular traffic, and on-site construction activities. For each alternative, these activities would occur sporadically at various locations throughout the Planned Action Study Area, would be localized to the construction site, and would be temporary in nature. Operations Visual Character The extensive public investment The visual character of the under the Selected Sunset Area Potential Sunset Terrace Alternatives would result in Redevelopment Subarea would widespread changes to the visual change from its current state to a character of the Planned Action pedestrian -oriented community Study Area affecting about 40% of with a mix of residential, ground - Attachment C 33 Mitigation Document Height and Bulk Shade and Shadow The subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than under current conditions. The tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned Center Village. Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, shading effects would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see some of the most intense commercial and mixed- use development Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would range from one to four stories. The Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2 - story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. Dependent on final design, building may potentially shade sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times of the day. With the Preferred Alternative, the increased size of the central park, as well as the placement of 2 -story townhomes adjacent to the park, reduces the potential for adverse shading effects compared to Alternative 3. Indirect/ Cumulative While redevelopment of the Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea parcel acres. Private development floor commercial, and community would take full advantage of the uses linked by public spaces and current development regulations, landscaped pedestrian pathways. resulting in a transition to a The Preferred Alternative concept mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented would focus less residential neighborhood. development in the subarea than The application of adopted design Alternative 3, making room for a standards as new construction larger neighborhood park. gradually replaces older buildings would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. Height and Bulk Shade and Shadow The subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than under current conditions. The tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned Center Village. Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, shading effects would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see some of the most intense commercial and mixed- use development Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would range from one to four stories. The Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2 - story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. Dependent on final design, building may potentially shade sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times of the day. With the Preferred Alternative, the increased size of the central park, as well as the placement of 2 -story townhomes adjacent to the park, reduces the potential for adverse shading effects compared to Alternative 3. Indirect/ Cumulative While redevelopment of the Redevelopment of the Sunset public facilities discussed under Terrace housing facility would be the various alternatives would be a localized action, but additional a coherent effort, private private development is development throughout the anticipated to occur in response Attachment C 34 Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea In both the Planned Action Study Area and Potential See Planned Action Study Area 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 shall conform to the Renton Municipal Code design standards, including but not limited to the following: e Urban design standards contained in RMC 4-3- 100, . Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115, and e Lighting Standards contained in RMC 4-4-075. As described in RMC 4-3-100133, portions of the Planned Action Study Area do not currently lie within an established Urban Design District, most notably those properties north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE, where the family village proposed under the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would be located. To ensure that future redevelopment exhibits quality urban design, the City should consider either including this area in Design District D or creating a new design district for this purpose. Prior to the enactment of new design standards, the City may condition development north of NE 16th Street to meet Attachment C 35 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea study area would occur to this public investment, and piecemeal. Individual private each private development project developments are likely to be of would contribute to the overall higher density, greater height, and transformation of the area's a different architectural style than aesthetic character. existing development, and have the potential to create temporary aesthetic conflicts where they are located adjacent to older structures. Overtime, as more properties redevelop, the temporary conflicts would be less frequent and less noticeable. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea In both the Planned Action Study Area and Potential See Planned Action Study Area 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 shall conform to the Renton Municipal Code design standards, including but not limited to the following: e Urban design standards contained in RMC 4-3- 100, . Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115, and e Lighting Standards contained in RMC 4-4-075. As described in RMC 4-3-100133, portions of the Planned Action Study Area do not currently lie within an established Urban Design District, most notably those properties north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE, where the family village proposed under the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would be located. To ensure that future redevelopment exhibits quality urban design, the City should consider either including this area in Design District D or creating a new design district for this purpose. Prior to the enactment of new design standards, the City may condition development north of NE 16th Street to meet Attachment C 35 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Studv Area Subarea appropriate standards of Design District D in RMC 4- 3-100, Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site 13. Historic/Cultural Significant Impacts Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts Operations, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts Development could occur on or near parcels in the Planned Action Study Area that contain previously identified or unknown cultural resources. This development would likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, a detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project -specific basis. Future development in the subarea would have no impact any known National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low. Attachment C 36 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Typical project impacts that could No significant cultural resources disrupt or adversely affect are known to exist in the Potential cultural resources in the Planned Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Action Study Area include Subarea. demolition, removal, or substantial alteration without consideration of historic and archaeological sites and/or features. Operations, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts Development could occur on or near parcels in the Planned Action Study Area that contain previously identified or unknown cultural resources. This development would likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, a detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project -specific basis. Future development in the subarea would have no impact any known National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low. Attachment C 36 Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with any alterative could be significant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth in Draft EIS Section 4.13.2 as amended in the Final EIS would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could be taken. Mitigation Measures Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area • 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 (N RHP) or Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the project shall be required to undergo review to determine if the property is considered eligible for listing. • It is recommended that the City adopt a historic preservation ordinance that considers the identification and treatment of historic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR, or locally designated. Until such time an ordinance is 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 NRNP or WHR. For future projects that involve significant excavation in the study area the City must enter into consultation with Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to determine the likelihood of and recommendations for addressing potential archaeological resources. It may be necessary to complete archaeological testing prior to significant excavation in the study area, such as digging for footings or utilities. Archaeological project monitoring may be recommended for subsurface excavation and construction in high probability areas. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Since no native "A" horizon was identified at the Edmonds -Glenwood site and throughout the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, no further archaeological investigations are recommended for these areas. Although a buried, native "A" horizon was identified on RHA's Piha site (east of Harrington Avenue NE), the potential for an archaeological discovery is very low. The project should proceed with no further archaeological investigations. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground disturbing excavations, the contractor shall halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. If human skeletal remains are discovered, or if during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Draft BIS Appendix j and as amended by Final EIS Chapter 4 (and provided as Attachment 1 of this Exhibit 13). If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. 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 Attachment C 37 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Studv Area Subarea on the archaeological resource must be considered and, if needed, a study conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine whether the project would materially impact the archaeological resource. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. . Nan -site-specific mitigation could include developing an educational program, interpretive displays, and design guidelines that focus on compatible materials, and professional publications. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 14. Transportation Significant Impacts Table 27. Transportation Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential impacts that could result Same as Planned Action Study from construction activities Area include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes, and road closures. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction roadway improvements associated with the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times, and may force reroutes through local streets. Attachment C 38 Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Operations Traffic Operations At Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are predicted in both 2015 and 2030. At Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are expected in 2030. Transit At both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and would be conveniently located near residential or retail land uses. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture. Nonmotorized Selected Sunset Area Alternatives include improved nonmotorized facilities such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks. Design elements such as bike route signage, bike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included to promote bike ridership and safety. The Preferred Alternative includes a 5 -foot -wide eastbound bicycle lane, rather than bicycle lanes in both directions (as in Alternative 3). Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative includes special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Sustainability The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives score a minimum of 33 with a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, the alternatives meet the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 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. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Attachment C 39 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea certification. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives score most strongly in the "Access and Equity" section of the Greenroads evaluation, as improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users are important elements of this alternative. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives typically include higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving. Indirect and Cumulative Growth would increase in Same as Planned Action Study comparison to Comprehensive Area Plan land use estimates; however, the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives' operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City's current and planned roadway system and any operational deficiencies can be mitigated to meet City of Renton thresholds. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The alternatives are expected to contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic volumes within the study area, which could degrade some roadway operations. The increase in traffic volumes due to activities in the study area is considered unavoidable, but the roadway operation and LOS can be mitigated to meet applicable LOS standards. Mitigation Measures Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Operational Mitigation Planned Action applicants shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Planned Action applicants shall provide a traffic analysis estimating trips generated by their proposed development and demonstrate conformance with the Planned Action Ordinance trip No permanent mitigation measures are recommended within Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The intersection operations under action alternatives are expected to be within the LOS D threshold. During construction, mitigation measures are those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Flaggers, advance warning signage to alert motorists of detours or closures, and Attachment C 40 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea ranges and thresholds in Section 3(d) (4) as well as demonstrate conformance with the City's concurrency requirements in RMC 4-6-070. When demonstrated by an applicant's analysis that operational LOS standards reviewed in the EIS are exceeded at the following locations, intersection improvements shall be made by planned action applicants as appropriate to meet LOS 0 and in conformance with the City's street standards in RMC 4-6-060: . Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street: an additional southbound left -turn pocket and westbound right -turn pocket would improve operations to LOS E, while added pedestrian- and bicycle -oriented paths or multi -use trails to encourage mode shifts would likely improve operations to LOS D. . At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection; the eastbound and westbound approaches could be restriped to increase the number of lanes and, therefore, the capacity of the intersection. With implementation, this intersection would improve to LDS D. Construction Mitigation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to or during construction within the Planned Action Study Area. Prior to construction; a 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. reduced speed zones would likely benefit traffic operations. Attachment C 41 Mitigation Dmiment Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea 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 (WSD4T). o Encourage carpooling among construction workers to reduce traffic volume to and from the construction site. o Employ flaggers, as necessary, to direct traffic when vehicles or large equipment are entering or exiting the public road system to minimize risk of conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles. o Maintain at least one travel lane at all times, if possible. Use flaggers to manage alternating directions of traffic. If lane closures must occur, adequate signage for potential detours or possible delays should be posted. o Revisit traffic control plans as construction occurs. Revise traffic control plans to improve mobility or address safety issues if necessary. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards 15. Parks and Recreation Significant Impacts Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction could temporarily No parks and recreation facilities disrupt pedestrian access to exist in this subarea and no existing park properties. Active construction impacts are construction sites also represent anticipated. opportunities for creative play Attachment C 42 Mitigation Document Indirect Indirect impacts are expected to Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea and attractive adventure for spillover demand for active young people in the community, playfields for team sports in other Operations Although there is an increase in With Alternative 3, portions of community park acreage there Harrington Avenue NE right-of- ight-ofwould wouldcontinue to be a deficiency way within the subarea would be in neighborhood and community converted to 0.25 acres of passive park acreage in the Planned open space. Action Study Area. Deficiencies Under the Preferred Alternative, are less than for the Preferred Sunset Court Park would be Alternative than Alternative 3 relocated to the Sunset Terrace which has a similar population Subarea. Additionally, this park but less proposed park facilities. would be expanded from 0.5 acres Ballfield and sport court LOS to 2.65 acres and would have a standards are applied citywide; vacation of Harrington Avenue NF thus a lack of such facilities within similar to Alternative 3. This the Planned Action Study Area or increases the acreage in the Potential Sunset Terrace neighborhood park land for this Redevelopment Subarea does not subarea and the Planned Action indicate an LDS deficiency. Study Area. NE Sunset Boulevard would be Additionally, a library would be improved to include bike lanes, constructed in the subarea. intersection improvements, and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access between residential areas and park land Indirect Indirect impacts are expected to Facility deficiencies in this mostly fall on the City's regional subarea would also likely lead to and communitywide parks and spillover demand for active recreation facilities. For example, playfields for team sports in other as the population increases in the parts of Renton as well as in Planned Action Study Area, there surrounding communities. 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. Cumulative Increased demands for park and Same as Planned Action Study recreation facilities and services Area generated by the forecast population growth under each of the alternatives would add to those created by general population growth throughout the Renton community. Attachment C 43 Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under studied alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there would be an increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. With the application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea During construction, impacts adjacent to or in With the prevalence of public facilities in the parks within the Planned Action Study Area, such Planned Action Study Area as a whole, and the as an increase in noise, dust, and access addition of a central park and a library in the limitations, shall be mitigated as per a Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment construction mitigation plan developed by Subarea, there is opportunity to manage the Planned Action applicants and approved by the current facilities in a manner that maximizes City. their beneficial parks and recreation uses for Planned Action applicants shall pay a Parks and future population growth. The mitigation Recreation Impact fee as determined by the measures proposed for the Planned Action Study Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, Area shall apply to the Potential Sunset Terrace payable to the City as specified by t he Renton Redevelopment Subarea, Municipal Code. The following four mitigation measures would help improve the availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area. The City is initiating a parks, recreation, open space and natural resources plan for completion in 2011. That plan could identify alternative LDS 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, The City and Renton School District could develop a joint -use agreement for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. joint -use agreements between the City and Renton School District could also be used to, at least partially, address the LDS deficiencies in existing recreation facilities. Attachment C 44 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea + The City could add parks and recreation Facilities such as; o The City could convert current public properties no longer needed For their current uses to parks and recreation uses, such as the Highlands Library that is intending to move and expand off site. Draft EIS Figure 4,15-2 shows properties in public use. o The City could purchase private property for parks and recreation use. An efficient means would be to consider properties in the vicinity of existing parks and recreation facilities or where additional population growth would be greatest. Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows locations where future demand could be greater and where the City could focus acquisition efforts. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan 16. Public Services Significant Impacts Table 31. Public Services Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area 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. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Education 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. The McKnight Middle School expansion would occur similar to Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area No impact Attachment C 45 Mitigation Document of 1 Health Care Social Services Solid Waste Library Operations Planned Action Study Area other alternatives. In addition, changes would occur at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and the reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be part of a family village concept that would include recreation and housing. The expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. 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. There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to social services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. Construction at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as part of the family village redevelopment, would require relocation of the Friendly Kitchen weekly meal program that meets at that site. The Friendly Kitchen program would either be relocated permanently as a part of the redevelopment or may be accommodated as part of the range of social services provided at the family village. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would result in construction - related waste generation. When the library is relocated, library services may be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches, Police Applying the Renton Police Department staffing per population standard to the anticinated Dooulation increase Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing development would displace the existing on- site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on- site social service programs can be minimized or avoided. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Applying the Renton Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase would account for 1.0 to 1.8 of the Attachment C 46 Mitigation Document of Im Fire and Emergency Medical Services Education Health Care Social Services Planned Action Study Area would result in a need for an estimated 8.6 to 4.3 additional police officers to address increase in service calls related to growth. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area would result in the need for an additionall.2 tol.3 firefighter full- time equivalents (FTEs) compared to existing conditions to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Population growth would result in an increase in approximately 526 to S67 students in the Renton School District compared to existing conditions. The district's planned opening of Honey Dew Elementary, as well as construction of additions to McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School, would accommodate this increase in student population. New students within the study area would include a higher than average number of students speaking English as a second language, increasing demands on the district's English Language Learners Program. Increase in study area population would increase the need for hospital beds in the Valley Medical Center (VMC) service area by approximately 4.1 to 4.4 beds, based on the current ratio of hospital beds to district service area population. Additional population growth may also result in increased demand at VMC's nearby primary care and urgent care clinics. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives include major public investments, which could expand upon or enhance social services in the study area. Among the key components outside of Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea approximately 8.6 to 4.3 additional police officers to address population growth study area. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area to the population growth of in this subarea would result in the need for less than 0.14 to 0.2 of the 1.2 tol,3 firefighter FTEs needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Population growth would result in approximately 60 to 107 additional students compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that this additional increment of students would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements, including opening Honey Dew Elementary, expansion of McKnight Middle School, and redeveloping the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center which would provide additional student capacity in addition to early education programs that currently exist on the site. Based VMC's existing ratio of hospital beds to district population, the anticipated population increase would result in a small increase of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 hospital beds of the total assumed for the entire study area. The subarea's new affordable housing development for seniors would include enriched senior services on site, including eider day -health for off-site patients in a 1.2,500 -square -foot space on the northeastern vacant RHA narcel. Attachment C 47 Mitigation Document Solid Waste Library Services IndirectandCumulative Solid waste generation is expected to increase by around 129,689 to 139,000 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A portion of this waste stream would be diverted to recyclables. Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 1,940 to 2,079 square Feet of library space compared to existing conditions. All alternatives increase growth above existing conditions and would add to a citywide increase in demand for public services; however, the alternatives are accommodating an increment of growth already anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan at a citywide level, and planned growth to the year 2031 will be addressed in the City's 2014 Comprehensive Plan update.. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Additional community space at the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea. Solid waste generation from the subarea would increase by about 14,750 to 9,300 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling. Anticipated growth in the subarea would account for approximately 221-397 square feet of library facilities to meet the growth in demand. Same as Planned Action Study Area 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. Mitigation Measures Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police Police During construction, security measures shall be Mitigation measures described for the Planned Attachment C 48 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Subarea is development of The increased population of family village in the North affordable housing and, in Subarea. particular, affordable senior housing would increase the demand for social services, including senior services accessible to the subarea. Solid Waste Library Services IndirectandCumulative Solid waste generation is expected to increase by around 129,689 to 139,000 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A portion of this waste stream would be diverted to recyclables. Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 1,940 to 2,079 square Feet of library space compared to existing conditions. All alternatives increase growth above existing conditions and would add to a citywide increase in demand for public services; however, the alternatives are accommodating an increment of growth already anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan at a citywide level, and planned growth to the year 2031 will be addressed in the City's 2014 Comprehensive Plan update.. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Additional community space at the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea. Solid waste generation from the subarea would increase by about 14,750 to 9,300 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling. Anticipated growth in the subarea would account for approximately 221-397 square feet of library facilities to meet the growth in demand. Same as Planned Action Study Area 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. Mitigation Measures Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police Police During construction, security measures shall be Mitigation measures described for the Planned Attachment C 48 Mitigation Document Planned Action Studv Area implemented by developers to reduce potential criminal activity, including on-site security surveillance, lighting, and fencing to prevent public access. Such measures shall be detailed in a construction mitigation plan prepared by Planned Action applicants and approved by the City. Planned Action applicants shall design street layouts, open space, and recreation areas to promote visibility for residents and police. Street and sidewalk lighting would discourage theft and vandalism, and enhance security. Fire and Emergency MedicaI Services Developers will construct all new buildings in compliance with the International Fire Code and Renton Development Regulations (RMC Title 4), including provision of emergency egress routes and installation of fire extinguishing and smoke detection systems. All new buildings will comply with accessibility standard for people with disabilities, per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Planned Action applicants shall pay a Fire Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Education During renovation of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, the Renton School District shall provide temporary transportation or take other equivalent measures to ensure accessibility of the early education program to area children who attend the program. Since the school district typically plans for a shorter -term horizon than the 20 years envisioned For the Planned Action, the district will continue to monitor student generation rates into the future and adjust its facility planning accordingly. The district will continue to implement existing plans to expand permanent student capacity at area schools. In addition, the district may utilize portable classrooms or shift attendance boundaries to address student 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 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Mitigation measures described For the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Education No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Health Care No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Social Services RNA's provision of community space that could be used for social services or community meeting space for community organizations would serve as mitigation. See the discussion under the Planned Action Study Area. RHA should maintain a community meeting space within or near the subarea during construction phase of Sunset Terrace redevelopment that allows for on-site social service programs to continue to meet within the subarea. Solid Waste Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. Attachment C 49 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea new residential construction. This funding source can be used to help provide expanded school facilities needed to serve the growth anticipated under all alternatives (RMC 4-1-160). Health Care There are no mitigation measures needed or proposed for health care due to the negligible change in the number of beds. Social Services The City's planned improvements to the streetscape and transit facilities that make walking, bicycling, and taking transit more viable modes of transportation would improve accessibility of social services located outside the Planned Action Study Area to area residents. RHA, Renton School District, and the City should work together to relocate the Friendly Kitchen community feeding program when the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center campus, the current site of this program, is redeveloped as part of a family village. Relocation should occur at an accessible location nearby to maintain service to the existing community that relies upon the Friendly Kitchen services. If possible, Renton School District and RHA should incorporate space for the continuation of the Friendly Kitchen Program within the family village. RHA and the City should consider developing a community center facility as part of Sunset Terrace redevelopment or the family village development or at another location in the Planned Action Study Area. The center would provide an accessible on-site space for a comprehensive range of social services for residents in the Planned Action Study Area, focused on alleviating poverty, and addressing the needs of some of the more predominant demographic groups found within the Planned Action Study Area—seniors, individuals living with disabilities, those speaking English as a Second Language, and youth. Solid Waste The City shall require development applicants to consider recycling and reuse of building materials when redeveloping sites, and as part of their application explain what measures are included, The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible recycling and reuse measures. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing Attachment C 50 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea according to shifting trends in population growth. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement RMC Title IV Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 17. Utilities Significant Impacts Table 33. Utilities Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Where new construction occurs, Same as Planned Action Study it is anticipated that existing Area 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. Operations Attachment C 51 Mitigation Document Type of Impact Telecommunications Water Wastewater Planned Action Study Area 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. The increase in the average daily demand (ADD) is projected to be 0.56 to 0.59 million gallons per day within the Planned Action Study Area. The growth projected would increase the storage requirements for the Highlands 435 and 565 pressure zones and further increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone. In addition, the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire -flow requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The capacity of the existing water distribution system to meet these higher fire flows is inadequate if system improvements are not constructed. The increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.59 to 0.63 million gallons per day. This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area The increase in ADD for this subarea is 0.05 to 0.09 million gallons per day. The increase in the peak daily demand (PDD) for this subarea is 0.09 to 0.16 million gallons per day. The primary significant impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be related increased fire -flow requirements. These increased fire flow requirements are substantial and cannot be met by the existing distribution system serving the subarea. Water system pressure provided by the 435 pressure zone within the subarea is not adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems. New water mains extended from the higher - pressure 565 pressure zone system to service the subarea would need to be phased to accommodate growth. The increase in wastewater flow in this subarea is 0.05 to 0.10 million gallons per day. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within the Attachment C 52 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Action Study Area but it could subarea. increase surcharging that is currently experienced and observed within the Planned Action Study Area. Indirect and Cumulative Demands on utilities would Same as Planned Action Study increase as a result of cumulative Area 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. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts All studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and telecommunication services, Increased growth in the Planned Action Study Area has the potential to exacerbate existing water and wastewater system deficiencies. However, with application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area 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 convev the higher fire -flow Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire -flow requirements would require the new 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12 -inch -diameter main for development adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided in Attachment 2.Wastewater Collection The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City's Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Attachment C 53 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea requirements. The new water mains will be Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, looped for reliability and redundancy of service, the local sewers may need to be replaced with as required by City policies and water design upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater standards. The larger mains will be installed load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of within the dedicated right-of-way in a north -to- needed sewer system improvements is provided south and east -to -west grid -style water system, Attachment 2. Additional mains within the development sites will also be required to provide water to hydrants and water meters, and should be looped within the development site around buildings. To provide the water pressure requirements for multistory buildings and to support the pressure requirements for fire sprinkler systems, the new water mains will be connected to the higher -pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. The options to address fire flow within the Planned Action Study Area are further described below. The Highlands 565 pressure zone typically has enough pressure to meet the pressure needs for fire -flow requirements for the proposed development and redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area, but is limited in providing the fire -flow rate due to the size of the existing water mains that are generally smaller than 12 inches in diameter. The Highlands 435 pressure zone operates at lower pressures and has smaller -diameter pipes in this area of the pressure zone and, therefore, cannot meet both the pressure requirements and the fire -flow capacity (flow) requirements. The options developed to remedy fire -flow and pressure inadequacies are shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 and summarized below. A 12 -inch -diameter pipeline loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 was developed to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the existing Highlands 435 pressure zone. This 12 -inch -diameter loop was also extended north of NE 12th Street in the existing Highlands 565 pressure zone to improve the conveyance capacity throughout the Planned Action Study Area. This 12 -inch - diameter loop improvement builds on the City's recent extension of the Highlands 56S 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 Attachment C 54 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 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. Planned Action applicants shall implement improvements required for water service and fire Flow consistent with City standards in RMC Title 4 Chapter 6 and RMC 4-S-070 International Fire Code and Fire Prevention Regulations. Planned Action applicants shall also demonstrate compliance with RMC 4-1- 180 Charges for Equitable Share of Public Works Facilities. 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. Pursuant to RMC 4-6-040.6, any facility improvements identified by the current adopted long-range wastewater management plan (comprehensive sewer system plan) that are not installed or in the process of being installed must be constructed by the property owner(s) or developer(s) desiring service. Planned Action applicants shall also demonstrate compliance with RMC 4-1-180 Charges for Equitable Share of Public Works Facilities. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement Attachment C 55 Mitigation Document RMC Title IV Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards Advisory Notes The EIS identified potentially applicable federal, state, and local laws and rules that apply to Planned Actions and that can serve to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. It is assumed that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be applied. The primary set of applicable local regulations is the Renton Municipal Code. A list of specific requirements included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. Attachment C 56 Mitigation Document Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix !, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during Redevelopment of the Edmonds - Glenwood Lot, Harrington Lot, and Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex in Renton, Washington Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will be treated with dignity and respect. A. If any City of Renton employee or any of the contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has made an unanticipated discovery of human skeletal remains or cultural resources, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law. The City of Renton project manager will be contacted. B. The City of Renton project manager or the City of Renton representative will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery. At a minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30) feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriff s office, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains are forensic or non -forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non -forensic, the King County Coroner will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. DAHP will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American or Non -Native American. DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains. E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes Attachment C 57 Mitigation Document to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. CONTACT INFORMATION Erika Conkling, A1CP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-6578 Stephanie Kramer Assistant State Archaeologist Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 1063 Capitol Way South Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Phone: (360) 586-3083 King County Sheriffs Office Headquarters 516 Third Avenue, Room W-150 Seattle, WA 98104-2312 Phone: (206) 296-4155 (non -emergency) Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Attachment C 58 Mitigation Document Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing Attachment C 59 Mitigation Document Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire -flow requirements would require the new 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12 -inch -diameter main for development adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided below. Overview Renton fire and building codes mandate minimum fire flows, durations, and pressure prior to occupancy of new structures. in the case of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea these mandated flows dictate substantial upgrades to the water distribution system. When the fire flow required for a new development exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), the City also requires that the mains providing that fire flow be looped. Looped water mains provide more reliability and higher pressures under fire -flow conditions. City regulations also require installation of fire hydrants along all arterials such as NE Sunset Boulevard. Taken together these code requirements would lead to a series of new water mains connected to the 565 pressure zone and extended to the various redevelopment projects within the subarea. It is not possible to predict the precise timing and sequencing of these redevelopment projects. The following paragraphs illustrate one scenario of water main sequencing that could meet fire -flow requirements. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Edmonds -Glenwood redevelopment project consists of townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Fire -flow requirements for this project are expected to be in the range of 2,500 gpm. The existing water system in Glenwood Avenue NE cannot provide that amount of fire flow. A new 12 -inch -diameter water main would be required to be extended from Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street in the 565 pressure zone, south along Harrington Avenue NE, and continuing along Glenwood Avenue NE past and through the project site, about 800 feet of new pipe (Segment A on Figure 3.17-1). New Library A new library is proposed in the northeast quadrant of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE, If the fire -flow requirements for the new library are about 2,500 gpm or less, then the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard could meet that requirement. Attachment C 60 Mitigation Document New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library A new mixed-use community service/retail/residential structure is proposed adjacent to the new library between NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Sunset Lane NE. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of additional structure size and exposure (to the library) would mandate fire flows for this building in excess of 2,500 gpm. In that case, a looped system of mains from the 565 pressure zone would be required. This could be achieved by extending new mains from the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard northwesterly on both Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street to Sunset Lane NE. The loop could then be connected by installing a new 12 -inch - diameter main in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 10th Street. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could then be abandoned in place. This new loop would be about 700 feet in total length (Segment B on Figure 3.17-1). RHA's Piha Site Fire flows required for the PIHA site development have not been established. If the flow requirement is 2,500 gpm or less, then it could be met by extending a new 12 inch main in NE 10th Street past the site to Harrington Avenue NE. The extension could either be from NE Sunset Boulevard (if the project precedes the mixed use development adjacent to the library). Or it could be from Sunset Lane NE, if the project occurs after the mixed use development adjacent to the library. The length of pipe required from Sunset Boulevard would be about 500 feet; from Sunset Lane NE it would be about 350 feet. (Segment C on Figure 3.17-1) It is possible that required fire flows for the PIHA site would exceed 2,500 gpm. In that situation a looped main system would be necessary. There are multiple scenarios to meet the looping requirements. Those fire flow looping scenarios depend largely on the timing and sequencing of the PISA site project; i.e. does it precede or follow other redevelopment projects contemplated for the project area. Under one scenario, if the PIHA site development precedes construction of Phase H 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 Il 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. Attachment C 61 Mitigation Document A temporary route (which is not the preferred option) to provide 5,000 gpm to the same site would be to extend two parallel 12 -inch water lines in NE 10th Street from the existing 12 -inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE, along with a looped water main around the west and north side of the building, and a 12 -inch line in Sunset Lane NE connecting back to the second new 12 -inch main in NE 10th Street. (Segment P2 on Figure 3.17-1) Sunset Terrace Redevelopment It is reasonable to assume that the fire flows required for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would exceed 2,500 gpm, mandating installation of a looped system. In addition, Sunset Terrace abuts NE Sunset Boulevard, triggering the requirement to install hydrants every 400 feet along that arterial. It may be possible to phase the Sunset Terrace redevelopment in a manner that would allow early elements of the redevelopment to be constructed without looping the water mains (see Edmonds - Glenwood Phase 1, above). In any case, all mains serving the redevelopment would be extended from the 565 pressure zone. Initially, a new water main would be installed in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (about 750 feet). This presumes that the new main in Harrington Avenue NE discussed in the Mixed -Use Building section, above, has been installed. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could be abandoned in place (Segment D on Figure 3.17-1). Looping the system could be achieved by extending the main from the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE along the newly aligned NE 10th Street to Harrington Avenue NE (about 250 feet) (Segment E on Figure 3.17-1). This presumes that the water main extension in NE 10th Street to serve RHA's Piha site has already be installed. There are two ways to install the required fire hydrants along NE Sunset Boulevard. One option would he 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 Attachment C 62 Mitigation Document northwesterly in easements adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE from the northern -most fire hydrant lead installed for the Sunset Terrace project through the Phase 2 site. (A more expensive option would be to install this same section of pipe in the rights-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE.) These loops would also comprise more than 1,500 feet of new pipe (Segment N on Figure 3.17-1). Water Main Costs The cost of installation for new water mains is driven by a number of factors. Water mains installed in roads are more expensive than water mains installed within project or open space areas, because of the cost savings of avoiding conflicting utilities and restoring the road surface. New water main costs are also affected by whether they are stand-alone or part of a suite of infrastructure improvements. If the project is only installing a new water main, then all of the excavation, bedding, installation, and other costs are borne by that project. If the project involves installation of the other underground utilities such as sewers or storm sewers, the costs common to the project can be spread across each utility facility being installed. The cost of water mains is also affected by the project sponsor. If the project is being constructed by a private developer, new water mains are less expensive. If the project is sponsored by a government agency, numerous statutes make new water main projects more expensive. The City's recent experience with stand-alone water main projects in a major arterial indicate costs per foot of about $200 to $250. Applying these costs to the water main improvement described above would indicate costs in the range of $1 to 1,2 million. The improvements would be implemented with City and developer funding. Wastewater Collection Overview The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City's Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided below. Detailed Discussion Mitigation issues related to wastewater fall into three broad categories: upsizing, rehabilitation, and relocation. Wastewater flows (forecast for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) indicate that some existing sewer pipes must be replaced with larger pipes. One of those pipes is in Barrington Avenue NE. This sewer pipe would be replaced by the City as part of the overall Sunset Terrace redevelopment to accommodate forecast flows. Attachment c 63 Mitigation Oocumert 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. Attachment C 64 Mitigation Document Attachment C 65 Mitigation Document f � Private Rd Ij I�f I 1' �! i �y I? is z� HE 1W.P1 NE1I 1h St. 1 I � I _ _ NEi thplNy y yj F!�,C* HIE C n�arx nuu �rrrA rrrwf &iW9 P1 B !r `�P "� �2 n loo 200 300 400 �f li ____ 31iM5 fe et �^U ��^H � rziaM wxn Plps Figure 3.17-1 Fireflaw Phasing—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS Attachment C 65 Mitigation Document Attachment D: DAHP Section 146 Consultation Correspondence Record of Decision May2011 Denislraw - CitI Of t C� r ♦ .t r r ri }- Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Virginia Cross, Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Renton Sunset Area Community—Section 106 Consultation Dear Chairperson Cross, .The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) east of Interstate 5 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to Sunset Boulevard. With this letter, we would like to.initiate formal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CFR Part 800, and define the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The above. referenced project activities taken together are considered a single undertaking involving federal funding from the U. S..Department of Housing and Urban Pevelopment (HUD). HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. In accordance with specific'statutory authority and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, which includes lead agency responsibility. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment project would occur on approximately 8 -acres of.RHA owned property occupied by existing public housing units, known as Sunset Terrace, located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE; three acres of vacant land along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE; and additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE that RHA intends to purchase for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and the adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed- use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Existing public housing units on the property would be removed and replaced with new construction. The new construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units and integrated public amenities, such as anew recreation community center, a new public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted medians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the new development and the streets improvements. Renton City Hall 6 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 96057 • rentonwa,gov Page 2 of 2 As illustrated on the enclosed map, the City, of Renton proposes the APE.for the undertaking be defined as those parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopment, and all parcels that abut Sunset Boulevard between about Edmonds Avenue NE and Monroe Avenue NE. This area would encompass all the areas of proposed ground disturbance and potential effects to neighboring properties posed byroad and infrastructure improvements along Sunset Boulevard, The City of Renton has engaged the services of ICF International to conduct cultural resources studies of both archaeological and built environment resources for the undertaking. The fieldwork for these studies, including excavation of shovel test probes is expected to begin at the end of September 2010. At this time, we would invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE, and request the sharing of any information you might have on the project area. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties, and we will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the_generalpublic. This information will only be included in a technical report disseminated. amongst the project team, DAHP, and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Specific information on site location and/or traditional cultural properties will be withheld from the public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-6578. Sincerely, Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner . City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development cc: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects. Map Denis Law 1 Of Mayor r` 11 fJ�, f � Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservation -Officer Washington ]department of Archaeology and Historic.Preservation 1063 South Capitol Way, Ste. 106 Olympia, W.A 98504-8343 Subject: Renton Sunset Area Community- Section 106 Consultation Dear Dr. Brooks. The City of Renton and the Renton housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) east of interstate 5 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to Sunset Boulevard. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CFR Part 800, and define the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The above referenced project activities taken together are considered a single undertaking involving federal funding from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA; which includes Iead agency responsibility. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment project would occur on -approximately 8 -acres of RHA owned property occupied by existing public housing units, known as Sunset Terrace, located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE; three acres of vacant land along Edmonds Avenue NB, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE; and additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE that RHA intends to purchase for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and the adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed= use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Existing public housing units on the property would be removed and replaced with new construction..The new construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units and integrated public amenities, such as a new recreation/community center, a new public library, anew park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construcfiion of roundabouts, planted medians, bike -lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the new development and the streets improvements. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov. Page"2 of 2 As illustrated on the enclosed map, the City of Renton proposes the APE for the undertaldng be defined as those parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopments and all parcels that abut Sunset Boulevard between about Edmonds Avenue NE, and Monroe Avenue NE. This area would encompass all the areas of proposed ground disturbance and potential effects to neighboring properties posed by road and infrastructure iinprovenieints along Sunset Boulevard. The City of Renton has engaged the services of ICF International to conduct cultural resources studies of both archaeological and built environment resources for the undertaking. The fieldwork for these studies, including excavation of shovel test probes, is expected to begin at the end of.September 201.0. Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating as a consulting party to this undertaking and concurring with the defined APE would be greatly appreciated. We also are inviting comments on the proposed undertaking from the MuckleshootIndian Tribe. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-6578. Sincerely, Erika Conklirig, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects Map 00"" Denis Law City Of Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Muckieshoot Indian Tribe Cultural -Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Renton Sunset Area Community— Section 106 Consultation Dear Ms, Murphy: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) east of Interstate 5 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to Sunset Boulevard. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal cotisultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CFR Part 800, and define the Area -of Potential Effects (APE). The above referenced project activities taken -together are considered a single undertaking involving federal funding from the U. S. -Department of,Housing and Urban Development. (HUD). -HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. In accordance with specific statutory authority and [IUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making,.aind action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA and Section'106 of the NHPA, which includes lead agency responsibility. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment project would occur on approximately 8 -acres of RHA owned property occupied by existing public housing units, known as Sunset Terrace, located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE; three acres of vacant land along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE; and additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace.along Harrington Avenue NE that RHA intends to purchase for housing and associated service's. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and the adjacent properties with mixed -income, nlixed- use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Existingpublic housing units on -the property would be removed. and replaced with new construction..The new -construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units and integrated public amenities, such as a new recreation/.community center, a new public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted medians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the new development and the streets improvements. Renton CityHall . 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 o . rentonwa.gov Page 2 of 2 As illustrated on the enclosed map, the City of Renton proposes the APE for the undertaking be defined as those parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopment, and all parcels that abut Sunset Boulevard. between about Edmonds Avenue NE and Monroe Avenue NE. This.area would encompass all the areas of proposed ground disturbance and potential effects to neighboring properties posed by road and infrastructure improvements along Sunset Boulevard. The City of -Renton has engaged the services of ICV International to Conduct cultural resources studies of both archaeological and built environment resources for the undertaking. The fieldwork for these studies, including excavation of shovel test probes, is expected to begin at the end of September 2010, At this time, we would invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE, and request the sharing of anyinformation you might have on the project area. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties, and we will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. This information will only be included in a technical report disseminated amongst the project team, DAHP, and the Muckleshoot•Tribe! Specific information onsite location and/or traditional cultural properties will be withheld from the public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-6578. Please note we have also sent this same letter to Tribal Council Chairperson Virginia Cross. Sincerely, Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic- Development Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects Map _ J... �. r ■� Cit Limits L.� Y .n, � • ,NE�215Tx5T■= �•= r` - Parcels �� .,''NE 215T ST -- Area of Potential Effects `4 N&ZOTH'5T F O NEA 1 9TH!S, ` a saa �,oao L�Wr ��-11. .0NE 187H S7 ip Q]n.,a� ? �' _ur'�t ; 1.. A • _� �, • Z�``, l,ti jtiL 14E.17THIPL r y 1V� wUj _ .lEf'>I� lI1. [ �r ,�s-.'+ s I• '; i ,* y,._. S c' +s ` Y�7` •. >�. r ' �I�. !!++` S' ►``� m L_ i1MY Il •i �I A r- �. w ��� Y �. Y �Y �. i` trE•. "i}Y �L.. ' ' r.► It � ° INE:16TH ST ',, +l { ` '�' �F ►:�" ' } . -''. _., ` y% , • � 5 +4",r `i. , F NE.15TH.ST' �r 1 =JI•. v� ,-.yam+it'` `r„ `` Z !I JIG, -1 661 tu *iLJK 1!'.L.:' r•NEI4TWS7�"IziY fir'*jr tt� .1`: �'••�. &.. y 1 -ice _.: `• ca IYI-. NE,13THIPL, W " * `L .fan i °'5��.. ' aq " f. C� --�i ,; +�E�f �-'�" !? 'J NE137H'ST. •_ ,yi; tt Wt l W N E'r12TH ST - - y it rr� 1 jv W =, FP�y�+prf ++ L ,4k�Q oql ME 11TH,Pl�!_4 " N� s-u.rs z g !r , *+ 11I y. # NE 11TH 5Ui T III m 1�L_4 +i. �.iG } rEtl:NEr1UTHiPL--,� s.�. " NE`1OTAP. x h r r i �f1r t #t rij"" +Ni: ©•��7, t �'fiZ;.i _ 11 f. r y, ; �> 1f3� �',, '� ih � AANELIOTH3T��W r' l 17i�It 4r,��+i 1•_ � ,7�. F r��W f tz�w�,r R� Yr''• 'r .r .+ M w� •rte r• ;i� Jckw 4 ' t I h FIVE: H'PL.� r ; W f� zI�n Wry L'i>�ilw,r,�, }'ac L K s r . J, I W3si� 1 v i. Q - • i «" rL E :. . ttii- �Cl �'F. ' k rirf �3'l< �[ ' t �..I ., t I i `� N 97 1 5T ^� B` r"I L � - 1 ` CV; . I .o'{et -'-�1 �i orj i i.- rill K NE;9TH 57 _ -�y L{"tl .I. 3 • . ; a~# Ci^# rr-a*k • -XI ' n SFr _ 4f -•moi .7 H, �. `I �'' 1L• -.�,� li%a1r L—, +� - �'2[I� Q f r:• 9Q rs s -.z" �i1+1�i.. M ■ T iJ[ : a�I : i�a[tf Nom¢]' Z +� Y i N i� lk � Y r oY�Ss ' A rz �F� p` A' �, -f. i<49r, ! t r Z u 1 tgtN ti y,G s - O C W=.C1*c j� a 1! jtJl JY�1� Yi _. l 7#i ._ kzap, "z`:yk. „;,�F> `•, •* I �i�E`'6r�{ Lyx1 �*NFyy�yA ik'r �� ;>�► p' s _,;' r�TNEy711ST Ark .1 .t + ` r 7 AS rS s ice` �'Z ' ns 67+{ ClR a T' I.. 44 �, 61.t• -A _ n+� ' ' {-� •;. NE�7T "PL .. Area of Potential Effects 'CF Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS City of Renton Sunset EIS bur a Off' STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: FO Bax 48343 • Olympia, Washington 95504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 a Website: www.dahp.wa.gov November 18, 2010 Ms. Ericka Conkling City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091010 -31 -HUD -CDB G Property: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Re: Determined Eligible Dear Ms. Conkling: Thank you for contacting our office. I have reviewed the materials you provided to our office and we concur with your professional consultant's opinion that the Saint Vincent De Paul Superstore is eligible to the :National Register of Historic Places. We also concur that the remaining 47 historic -era properties are not eligible. I look forward to further consultation regarding your determination of effect, I would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4) and the survey report when it is available. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Russell Holter Project Compliance Reviewer (360)586-3533 russell_holter@dahp.wa.gov I-MCDARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION PrOed the Pal, Shope be Fulure Denis Law city, Q Mayor i 11 �t Jr Department of Community and -Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Novernber 22, 2010 Ms. Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservatibn Officer ATTN: Mr. Russell Holter Department -of Archaeology & Historic.Preservation. 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, WA 98501 Subject: Section 106 Review -Renton Sunset Area Community DAHP Log Number: 091010-31-HUD=CDBG Renton -File Number., LUA10-052 Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. Holter: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, lacated.in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (S..R' 900) east of Interstate 405 in the. city of Renton, Washington. The potentially federallyfunded activities would include redevelopment of.the Sunset Terrace public -housing coMplek at 970 Harrington:NE and its vicinity, including improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. . We previously notified you of.this undertaking in correspondence dated September 1, 201.0 and October 28, 2010; initiating consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as,amended, and to request concurrence on our determinations. of eligibility, respectively. You concurred with our findings on NRHP eligibility on November 18, 2010: ICF International is assisting the City in meeting there"uirements of Section 106 of the NHPA.- and has conducted a cultural.resources survey forthe undertaking. The.study comprised an archaeological investigation and a historic resources survey. A.copy wasprovided to you on October -28, 20.10. It recommends that the proposed undertaking would not adversely affect the NRHP-eligible historic property. located In.the undertaking's Area of Potential. Effects. Based on this finding, vve have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no adverse effect". ons historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we hereby request your concurrence .with our finding that the proposed project will have no adverse effect on historic properties. Renton City Hall • 'FOSS South Grady Way . Renton,Washington 96057 • rentonwa.gov STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4063 S. Capital Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: AO Bax 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586.3065 a Fax Number (360) 586-3067 a Website: www.dahp.we.gov November 30, 2010 Ms. Ericka Conkling City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091010-31-IUD-CDBG Property: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Re: NO Adverse Effect Dear Ms. Conkling: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The above referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer under provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and 36 CFR Part 800. My review is based upon documentation contained in your connnunication. I concur that the current project as proposed will have "NO ADVERSE EFFECT" on National Register eligible or listed historic and cultural resources. If additional information on the project becomes available, or if any archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, please halt work in the area of discovery and contact the appropriate Native American Tribes and DAHP for further consultation. Please note that DAHP requires that all historic property inventory and archaeological site forms be provided to our office in PDF format on a labeled CD along with an unbound paper copy. For further information please go to http://wwNv.dahp.wa.gov/documents/CR_ ReportPDF_Requirement.pdf. Thank you for the opportunity to review and co jnent. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, /"Russell Holter Project Compliance Reviewer (360) 586-3533 russell.holter@dahp.wa.gov �DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION i Pro?ect rte Pust, Shape the Fufure Denis Law Cit of,,, Mayor !..► lit C) ll j J [i fs r r Department of Community and Economic Development February 18, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Ms. Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer ATTN: Mr. Russell Holter Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, WA 98501 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15`h and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. bolter: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16u' streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ECF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and a historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA and hereby request your concurrence on the project APE and our finding that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties. Notice of the undertaking and copies of this documentation have also been provided to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Renton City Hali • 1055 South Grady Way o Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact meat (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Reikew Committee , 4eqq / Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Departrt 7tj " - Mark Peterson, Administrator Eire & Emergency Service Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department uV Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report Denis Law - ttY Of,, Mayor 1r �Y �a February 18, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Ms. Virginia Cross Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue 5E Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Cross: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations Include the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15" and NE 16" streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking, The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects JAPE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE and our finding that the undertaking would have no effect on historic properties. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. Such information will be withheld from any public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact meat (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Renton CityHall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Gregg Zimmerman, Ad ' istrator Public Works Departm t4-0( Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department � v� Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report cc: Denis Law pf.`� Mayor r CI, r I Department of Community and Economic Development February 18, 2011 Alex Pietsch,Administrator Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 151h and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Murphy: The City of Renton and the Renton housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton, These locations include The Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 150 and NE 16th streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey forthe undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing In the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE and our finding that the undertaking would have no effect on historic properties. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. Such Information will be withheld from any public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Renton City Hall + 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee . J Gregg Zimm rman, Administrator Public Works Departme Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department K—VUOL / V—� Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capital Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 * Website: wwmdahp.wa.gov February 24, 2011 Mr_ Gregg Zimmerman Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Multifamily/ Institutional Bldgs. Project Log No.: 022411 -06 -HUD Dear Mr. Zimmerman; Thank you for contacting our department. We have reviewed the professional archaeological survey report for the proposed Multifamily/ Institutional Buildings Project at 2902 NE 12'x' Street, 1 150 Harrington Ave. NE, and Kirkland Ave NE—NEI 5th and NE 16'h Streets, Renton, King County, Washington. We concur with the determination of No Historic Properties Affected. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribe's cultural committee or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured. and this department and the tribe's cultural committee notified. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 36CFR800.4, Should additional information become available. our assessment may be revised, including infonnation regarding historic properties that have not yet been identified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360)586-3080 email: rob_whitlamCdahp:wa.goov DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Roiect'he Past, 5hepe the FWve Attachment E: Endangered Species Act Consultation, NMFS Record of Decision May 2011 +ISE%T or tc 01# { +� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE �_- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration t"' f NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point Way N,E,, Bldg. 1 Seattle, Washington 98115 NMFS Tracking No.: May 6, 2011 2010/05983 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ryan Milkaric U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Seattle Federal Office building 909 First Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104-1000 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Project (HUC 1711001203, Lake Washington) Dear Ms. Conkling and Mr. Milkaric: This correspondence is in response to your request for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additionally, this letter serves to meet the requirements for consultation under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Endangered Species Act The City of Renton submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action project on December 8, 2010. Additional information was provided on February 23, April 5, and April 29, 2011. The City will use funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and replacement sites. For the purposes of ESA, the City is acting as the designated non-federal representative for informal consultation. The City requested NMFS' concurrence with the following determinations: ])"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawvtscha) salmon (PS Chinook), 2)"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for PS Chinook critical habitat, 3) "may affect not likely to adversely affect" for PS steelhead (O. n ykiss). PS Chinook was listed as threatened under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (50 CFR 223 and 224), and critical habitat was designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). PS steelhead was listed as threatened on March 29, 2006 (71 FRI 5666). The NMFS has not designated Critical habitat for PS steelhead. This consultation with the City is conducted under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR 402. The City's original project proposal included redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community (approximately 13 acres), as well as the related redevelopment actions in the larger Sunset Area Community neighborhood (approximately 255 acres), also called the Planned Action Study Area. Their proposal was to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action that would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use growth allowances, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process via adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Due to funding and permitting timelines, the City has limited their current project proposal to redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and the replacement housing sites near the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea (see Attachment A). Sunset Terrace is a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 two-story buildings. The housing units are over 50 years old and considered of substandard size and quality. The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) additionally owns properties in the subarea abutting Sunset Terrace where senior and affordable housing will be built, some of which will be replacement housing. Most replacement units would occur in the Sunset Terrace subarea, others would occur on City or RHA properties in the EIS study area, including Sunset Court Park, the existing King County library site, and existing parcels located near Hillcrest Terrace. The project action area includes the Sunset Terrace Housing site, the replacement sites within the Sunset Terrace redevelopment subarea and EIS study area, and downstream areas that are affected by construction activities and stormwater originating from these sites. No streams are present in the action area, but the area drains to Johns Creek. The creek is mostly a piped system that discharges into Lake Washington near the mouth of the Cedar River. The mouth of Johns Creek is influenced heavily by the seasonally controlled Lake Washington levels, and is not sensitive to increased peak and duration of stormwater discharges. The mouth of Johns Creek and about 1,500 feet upstream is a very important rearing area for juvenile PS Chinook salmon during their outmigation from the Cedar River in late February to mid-July (the most used tributary of 17 surveyed tributaries of Lake Washington). Adult Chinook are present in Lake Washington during their upstream fall migration to the Cedar River, but do not use Johns Creek. Adult and juvenile PS steelhead and coho (O. kisutch) salmon also rear and migrate through Lake Washington year round, but do not use Johns Creek. Construction activities are not expected to increase stormwater volumes or velocities to Johns Creek or Lake Washington, or decrease water quality. During construction, stormwater and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to control runoff rates, and prevent sediment -laden water from entering conveyance systems that discharge to Johns Creek, and eventually Lake Washington. As a result of the redevelopment, the operation of the project will generate additional stormwater from additional impervious surfaces. Since the project is still in the conceptual phase, Renton cannot specify the development that will actually occur. For the purposes on this analysis, parcels within the potential land swap/replacement housing sites are anticipated to be redeveloped by others at the maximum intensity allowed by code (maximum allowable impervious area). It is unlikely that the replacement housing sites will be constructed at the maximum capacity unless they are purchased by the City_ if the City does not purchase the properties, they will likely remain in their present use or be converted to open space. The NMFS analysis considered the worst case scenario in terms of estimating increases in impervious surfaces and thus stormwater runoff. Lower rates of development are expected to have fewer effects to listed species. The redevelopment projects could include a range of total increase in impervious surfaces of 36 to 47 percent. The area of pollution generating impervious surfaces would change from a range an increase of 21 percent to a decrease of 16 percent, and the area of untreated pollution generating impervious surfaces would decrease from 90 to 100 percent. All pollution generating surfaces will be treated via Flow Control BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development practices) and/or Enhanced Water Quality treatment. All runoff will match 2011 pre - development peak flows. The project will also include a sub -regional facility, located at Sunset Terrace, to treat and control peak flows from up to 2.6 acres to provide advance mitigation from the net additional impervious area projected over the Planned Action Study Area. Species Determination Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Steelhead NMFS analyzed the potential effects of the project on PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead and determined that the effects will be discountable and insignificant. Short-term construction -related effects are discountable for juvenile PS Chinook salmon, as BMPs are expected to prevent sediments from entering the man-made conveyance system which discharges to Johns Creek. As well, construction BMPs will prevent any changes in stormwater volumes and velocities to John's Creek so salmon will not be exposed to increased stormwater volumes and velocities. Short-term effects to PS Chinook adults and PS steelhead (adults and juveniles) are expected to be discountable as any changes to stormwater volumes, velocities, and water quality are not expected to affect Lake Washington's water quality or quantity. FJ NMFS expects the iong-term effects of the project to juvenile PS Chinook salmon to be insignificant as stormwater volumes and velocities entering Johns Creek will be decreased by the new peak flow controls required as part of the housing projects. In addition, the mouth of the creek is not expected to be affected by changing peak flows, because of the influence of controlled lake levels. Stormwater quality will also be improved as the result of new stormwater treatment requirements. The combined use of Enhanced water quality treatment and LID methods for all the new pollution generating impervious surfaces is expected to avoid long-term exposure of juvenile PS Chinook salmon to metals and other pollutants in Johns Creek. Long- term effects to PS Chinook adults and PS steelhead (adults and juveniles) in Lake Washington are also expected to be insignificant due to the improvement in stormwater treatment and controls. Because all potential adverse effects to PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead are discountable or insignificant, NMFS concurs with the City's effect determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for PS Chinook and PS steelhead. Critical Habitat Determination NMFS designated critical habitat for the PS Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). In the action area, Lake Washington is designated as critical habitat, but Johns Creek was excluded from critical habitat designation. Two of the six primary constituent elements of PS Chinook critical habitat; PCE -2 freshwater rearing sites, and PCE -3 freshwater migration corridors are in the action area of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment project. NMFS analyzed the potential effects of the project on PS Chinook PCEs and determined that the effects will be insignificant. The conservation values of PCEs 2 and 3 will not be adversely affected during construction. On site BMPs will prevent sediment from being discharged into conveyance systems that flow into Johns Creek, and eventually reach Lake Washington. Construction BMPs will also prevent any changes to stormwater quantities discharged to Lake Washington. In addition, the conservation values will not be adversely affected during project operation. Stormwater controls will be implemented for water quality and water quantity, reducing Johns Creek peak flows and minimizing discharge of pollutants. Therefore, adequate flows and water quality for adult and juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and migration will be maintained in Lake Washington. No project actions will obstruct migration corridors or increase predation. Thus, the long-term conservation value will be maintained for freshwater rearing and migration. Because adverse effects to critical habitat are expected to be insignificant, NMFS concurs with the City's determination that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" critical habitat for PS Chinook. This concludes informal consultation according to the regulations implementing the ESA, 50 CFR 402.10. The City must re-initiate the ESA consultation if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species in a way not previously considered, the action is 5 modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that was not previously considered, or a new species is listed that may be affected by the identified action - Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Federal agencies are required, under section 305(b)(2) of the MSA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 600 Subpart K), to consult with NMFS regarding actions that are authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The MSA section 3 defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." If an action would adversely affect EFH, NMFS is required to provide the Federal action agency with EFH conservation recommendations (section 305(b)(4)(A)). This consultation is based, in part, on information provided by the City and descriptions of EFH for Pacific coast groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and Pacific salmon contained in the Fishery Management Plans developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The actions are described in the BA and additional information provided. The action area includes habitat, which has been designated as EFH for various life stages of Chinook and coho salmon. EFH Conservation Recommendations: Because the conservation measures that the City included as part of the proposed action to address ESA/EFH concerns are adequate to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to the EFH of the species, conservation recommendations pursuant to MSA (section 305(b) (4) (A)) are not necessary. Since NMFS is not providing conservation recommendations at this time, no 30 -day response from the City is required (MSA section 305(b) (4) (B)). This concludes consultation under the MSA. If the proposed action is modified in a manner that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations, the City will need to reinitiate consultation in accordance with the implementing regulations for EFH at 50 CFR 600.920(1). If you have questions regarding either the ESA or EFH consultation, please contact DeeAnn Kirkpatrick of the Washington State Habitat Office at (206) 526-4452, or by electronic mail at deeann.kirkpatrick@noaa.gov. Sincerely, William W. Stelle, Jr. Regional Administrator Attachment ICF 5urtset lerraee %edeveCopmen, Area and Land 5wap/Repiacement tious ng S/tes Surtme: Area Communny Plann" Action Draft NLPA/SiPA LIS c , bc: F/NWR — PDF (Nickerson) WSHO — PDF (Chron) WSHO - File Copy WSHO — PDF (Kirkpatrick) WSHO — PDF (Sibley) Attachment F: Coastal Zone Certification Record of Decision May 2011 December 30, 2010 '3' e Ms. Erika Conkling City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 95057 RE: Federal Consistency — Sunset Area Community Planned Action Dear Ms. Conkling: The Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Programa received your request regarding the use of federal funds for the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization. The housing community is bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NEI Oth Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west, in Renton, King County, Washington. The Sunset Terrace community redevelopment is a project component of the Sunset Area Community Planned Action. After review of the Draft Envirournental Impact Statement for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, Ecology agrees that funding this project is consistent with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program,. Please note that this Consistency Determination is for the release of funds only. Any construction activities will be subject to ALL enforceable polices of the Coastal Zone Management Program, such as the State Water Quality Requirements. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Jessica Moore at (360) 407-7421. Sincerely, Brenden McFarland, Section Manager Environmental Review and Transportation Section Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program cc: Jessica Moore, Ecology Attachment G: EPA Letter on Fina{ EIS Record of Decision May 2011 '50Fosr , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 a 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 904 Seattle, WA 981 01-31 40 OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS, TRIBAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS April 29, 2011 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Comments on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action (Planned Action) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (EPA Project Number: 10 -051 -HUD) Dear Ms. Cankling: The EPA has reviewed the Sunset Area Community Planned Action FEIS and we are submitting comiinents -in'-accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Our January 31, 2011 DEIS comments focused on "Sustainability Features and the Environmentally Preferred Alternative" and "Monitoring". With regard to sustainability features and the environmentally preferred alternative, we suggested that the environmentally preferable alternative under NEPAL — for this Planned Action - would likely be the alternative which incorporates the maximum extent of implementable features consistent with quality urban design, sustainable urban redevelopment, and livability principles.2 EPA recommended the FEIS include an alternative which addresses 37 specific design elements and mitigation measures (e.g. "require future developers to pursue a specific energy conservation approach/ standards)"). We are very pleased to note that the FEIS's new preferred alternative addresses all of the design elements and mitigation measures recommended by EPA and is, therefore, fully responsive to our DEIS comments on sustainability features and the environmentally preferred alterative: The -following initlgation measures fioiii Planned Action Qrd1—d nde Exhibit B: Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Mitigation Measures (FEIS, Appendix E) are especially responsive to our recommendations: • fugitive dust Best Management Practices (BMPs); • indoor air quality and construction diesel emissions controls considerations; • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures; • reductions of existing pollution -generating impervious surfaces and development of a drainage master plan; ' htin:llcea.hss.dye.ea.•/nenalrees/AO/l-l4.HTM#6 http J/www. epa.Dov/smartgrowth/p:irtnersW.I#IivabOitv_prixicis7lcs • consideration of Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes strategies and Seattle Energy Code compliance for non-residential buildings; • hazardous materials training for all grading and excavation crews; • provide new opportunities for public open space and emphasize transitions in density; • helping affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction; • establishing a local preference for rental assistance; * added pedestrian, bicycle or multi -use trails at Edmonds Ave NE and NE IP Street; parks and recreation impact fees, joint -use agreement with the Renton School District, and, conversion of public and private property to open space based on availability and DEIS Figure 4.15-2. To increase the likelihood of full implementation of the proposed mitigation measures we recommended that the Planned Action Ordinance serve as a stand-alone document, incorporate specific targets and facilitate adaptive management. Exhibit B's 17 subject areas3, overall framework , as well as the mitigation measures themselves (see above), are responsive to our `stand-alone document' and `incorporate specific targets' recommendations. Our FEIS review generated questions regarding the EIS's and Planned Action Ordinance's ability to guide the measurement of sustainability, a key aspect of facilitating adaptive management. We submitted our questions via email to the City of Renton on April 11, 2011 and appreciate the city consultant's April 13, 2011 written response. We believe the proposals - contained in Attachment 1-1 of the April 13, 2411 response - to add sub -parts C5, D6 and, C to Section 4 of the Planned Action Ordinance would help guide the measurement of sustainability in the Sunset Area and would facilitate meaningful adaptive management. Incorporation of these proposed, or similar, sub -parts would be fully responsive to our overall scoping; DEIS and FEIS recommendations that the EIS and Planned Action Ordinance strive to measure performance of livability efforts and facilitate adaptive management. Altogether, we believe the City of Renton has developed a Planned Action that should achieve the FEIS's predicted long-term benefits - neighborhood revitalization, increased opportunities for healthy active lifestyles and local employment, net stormwater treatment improvements, increased aesthetic appeal, and, reductions in regional energy use and GHG emissions. We support full implementation of this Planned Action and look forward learning from the City of Renton's efforts to redevelop the Sunset Area into a healthy, livable, affordable, viable -and green community, 3 earth, air quality, water resources, plants and animals, energy, noise, environmental health, land use, socioeconon-ies; housing, environmental justice, aesthetics, historictcultural, transportation, parks and recreation, public services, and, utilities. summary of significant environmental impacts, summary of unavoidable adverse impacts, mitigation measures, and, list of City policies/ regulations on which mitigation measures are based s "...evaluate overall sustainability of the Sunset Area Planned Action -consistent with ... review of Goals and Objectives.and L.EED-ND qualitative evaluation, or an equivalent approach" ...conduct a Greenroads evaluation or its equivalent at the time the NB Sunset Boulevard design is at 30% design level and 60% design level" 7 review consistency with FEIS predictions for: (1) Vehicle Miles Travelled, (2) resulting greenhouse gas emissions, and, (3) changes in effective impervious area 2 Thank you for this opportunity to comment and if you have any questions you may contact me at (206) 553-1601, or you may contact Erik Peterson of my staff at (206) 553-6382 or by electronic mail at Retersan.erik@epa. ov. Sincerely, Christine B. Reichgott, Unit Manager Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit 3 2- G � r X O M v Q L CSC Q LZ G r.- v � rr d� 67 O ,..� U W v +�CL Q'' v 3 es3 w q v E A 0 v' �^' ¢ en E cd 4 W O •may � � � �•� CLQ,, � P"�`" `� P. � � y� p� Ln M ¢ = 0.) 5 i CA � w ¢ W' rn ¢� o G o to 3 o Q �� U G y w ycu o� o �bca c [ U D U O d ' vi 71 to a Q U 3 Cd cu •Sl ¢ ¢L6 cd Ln .� C■ mea 0 0 A •a a W N v t o�11 m r. r. aLnu, U a c 3 Ln .Q v u� LL] ai o CJ > y a a W-qCd �] p ca � ce U amLn i c > ° ' • C°_cz ca vO � Cd v pcuvi •� y Q � j , � ' O . � O �, �cl � •�, ,y Q � c� v, U L 3 p Ly 4.. U y.. .b sc B z o o a� o o p e O O Cd 0 LLl C.7 p O. 03 7 > y a I cC Vl LL] UO _ N L 7.61. 0 y .O/ L.G. Vj N Ln G cl CL v co U y ft1 Ln v ees d] U 'C3 U o i�+7 CN 42 M U � ' � U +� � � '�,�,, E"r .� CG •a-. ¢� iS. � y +�,, m ,� , F" a� C BYO � ¢� U G] � rcti O v O ca '0N Q �; 'vy U 61 U. ti U 'a ai d d N °�° ❑ a3 -01 W W) '- ' r+Y fi N �• d W G� u 0 H C 0 C u A a W N M o y Lro Ac o o o p O s� e� U •� S h +C O p cUC [A M cl 37 c� °� �— o y GSR ;>Cy] O a �, o . " oa y` O?y ��° �a �� C O Un \ C c C to G F U o a .n �, > y � �+ ro cn U cj CC 'O = cC w i C_ Ctl cd cOn G Un C's�. cn U te+ y eti ❑ cd co .L� 63 a y_ 03 C +- v' as o 0 Q 00 = v vv, y\C aU bA I cc E cs +, `n Q y �� � -j (u Q v C cab y E'� v i�� C7 3 n 3 oO > > �j •.N � • '� � ' EE � y+ U � � � Irl i/j � � � � N Ld L� � r� aG3+ L' f1r �r '� .� Q ea .? -v 'o o 'y_ U va ca lu U U ❑ uC 3 .? �} Z 'L3 ai •p u> .= U ca a� F^ �, Cd CL r �„ C y a) W tw1YC Q -C F Eca r� C7 CL, uW C ^ b vCi y ca tD Cu C. r- bA C t' p, 6? O C O U a p YC C T '� S C C. Q *� ca b id ca d) O C `� cti y (� — 'QCLut cd N C �+ >y LA LA ti, N a W, toW 0. pQ',aQ v- 4, C C 0> C a +m Q W � .� O ; 4= > Q. O SSC U w+ cd a 0 '_ U C C. z cCn cCC mo L' y Li � O A7 R ❑ to V rA A W M It aQi C/i C Ln cl z o '1:! a �~ � �. -, tn IV•1 � V +` �:k. U V � � 1� Q% � Q �� j1 O DA Q ^ Cn T. Q% ��" yu sd a cd y vs = .� © U t 'O �'i+ i IV, Q N v o= v L 3 =� �,¢ W U I am o Im 3 � ami c 'S >- O = v o �••{ »� W v `" coo� v , ¢ o -2 ani � I a�Ei 'b � � :� '' � a i �' ai � ay � y '� ��W o �s•�c �-°' � � SEH 0. C t L s c o c g �s a `� :•° c oa s v-`0 a'0 0CL Q44- a M � � � C • � , rri � O y � ���.nn -O , d p � �"��' � -O y�j q�p • d G �My�yr 0 Uw U ../hf {� \ I.. +I U d K v y U bC cn U GC �. a W Q �. ,� S 4q o ca LA 4Z. cz EA m tit M'•i .C?., Gl L" [ti ,7"t y3 r • err czj °�' o y ,XLU 4 = �, v u --a = = d) C > ?C to * . v = y y 4^. 0 sV. ro k O �- of ; G C V 4 p E " q U W O y N v t �+ U w Q 0 j •C • " _. Q �` Y ami o o w O a 4 cn CL 5 � n$• M" Zi O N cy v y . ._� V) O G 4 Gi O bl] L G O GL U N' Q v, U O E LE vn U n V z F- OL U LA cG w L.. mm. L p V C a ro s U '� _ •° a W 'L � o 3 s v U v a a yr X ,°, C O p �^ '� � � Q It Q .� rA R v °- i C, v .�, > L 7, V u C!) v X O C p a a7 V G= L C -r- u — = N NCOO w cC c'i . ° w Q ulco LA CA tm w 0 " °' ofi -p ami 'n O' U _ an v U v•° c c W` is v car --°v_ tb ami ys�_�/ ,Q cl o a /o M ags VJ O '�+ L U � � � •C is L lCi Is, 'y, U � � L .> � � � U rL � '� �` � CCL w c' a v a= Q „❑ V) ti .FA 0 H ro z CL to U a In co co a a. ' to 0 CL it U t�u '- C C coO N «, U Q v JP . v� a � � � � � � � a � • �_ n; o � c� vim, c� c� -a coa, o '- 3 S M > Ln v, ' o c w co -C M3 C a caCt a a U 41 V) � I y p sn O C `n pcl L i-, ., t ' . S.n i." Q U Q- p it ice-. LL ca o C:) ,� an a� ❑ y v n o T. EZ 'v a ��'. o ' � y a ';fix. ; 7z o Fz fir.. ' 7 cd • L ca 0. '� _ Q�: �. I��. Q F. v v O N ea CL '� 'I tz un rA CZ H_,;:,'�•�=a ., w a M ¢ szLA Z C_ coS o v o 0 0 0 A z ATTACHMENT 1-2. COMPARISON LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES AND SUNSET AREA EIS SECTION 2.6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (Livability Principle (Sunset Area Goals and objectives • Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health. • Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. • Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable. • Create a Great Street on NE' Sunset Boulevard, as described in the cls. Implement the City Complete Streets policy for the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and the Sunset Area green connections. 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. • The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes. • 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.' • Enhance economic competitiveness. • The neighborhood is an attractive Improve economic competitiveness place to live and conduct ' There are more specific affordability goals for Sunset Terrace itself in Section 2.6 of the EIS. 1 Livability Principle through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets. • Support existing communities. Target federal funding toward existing communities —through strategies like transit oriented, mixed-use development, and land recycling—to increase community revitalization and the efficiency cf public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes. 2 Sunset Area Goals and Objectives business. • Through designation of a Planned Action and infrastructure investments, support and stimulate public and private development. • Through designation of a Planned Action and infrastructure investments, support and stimulate public and private development. • Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan. 111 Plan ,6esignates tU46 . ` Ltd area es mix4d use :'Center ` , J.1lagp land eiae concept) • 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. • 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 Livability Principle Sunset Area Goals and objectives environment. • Coordinate and leverage federal • Through designation of a Planned policies and investment. Align Action and infrastructure federal policies and funding to investments, support and remove barriers to collaboration, stimulate public and private leverage funding, and increase development. the accountability and • Ensure that the Planned Action effectiveness of all levels of covers environmental review of government to plan for future Sunset Area roadway, drainage, growth, including making smart parks and recreation, and other energy choices such as locally infrastructure improvements, and generated renewable energy. analyze impacts of anticipated private development in addition to Sunset Terrace. • 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. * Value communities and • The Highlands is a destination neighborhoods. Enhance the unique for the rest of the city and characteristics of all beyond. communities by investing in • Neighborhood places are healthy, safe, and walkable interconnected and walkable. neighborhoods —rural, urban, or suburban. • The neighborhood feels safe and secure. • Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a way that preserves quality of life. • The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity. • Build on previous City, RHA, and Renton School District efforts Livability Principle Sunset Area Goals and Objectives and current projects. Leverage relationships and partner with existing community outreach activities and resources_ • Encourage low -impact stormwater management methods and areawide solutions as part of a master drainage plan to support development. • Engage the community in a transparent process using available outreach opportunities and tools successfully used in prior planning efforts. • 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. Attachment H: Clarifications and Corrections Record of Decision May 2011 Clarifications and Corrections to Draft and Final EIS and Biological Assessment This appendix includes Draft EIS, Final EIS, and Biological Assessment clarifications or corrections based on City or consultant review of the information. The clarifications or corrections are organized in the same order as the EIS or Biological Assessment sections and by page numbers. The clarifications or corrections do not change the relative impacts of the EIS alternatives or the overall analysis conclusions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-1 May 2011 ROD, AppencIN H L (3) CL m LA W m 9 m L D Jj W a 0 Wk u m a is ra W. as > L �, , v ca E- ca o4 c L v c c X v o c° v E d �, m m iu A 'A c u o d F c v a o 'x u � u y m m d q• H O c G �0 d? v °-, .c E C u v E Q v c" c Q ac o' qv m c a v e �v =� E i m" a N v n cn P VI m p M ww - a 3 v G i c 0. Co a m v u v m t 'Q ca 'I Q o <u d '•� d Q a3 y d m ap m w. r9 C w In C o Q yr 4- cn C h CL v GGi i+ F' E C c O H y O K C ,G O dd E 0°um h �', k c M o.0 e K z c v E c°? as as �°., v u? v v a� c v c v o v a c ac r� v m v rd n. cin o° m o. a¢ m °: i m� o ovo M� H a adc .� p X ca 3 LO p b4 0V y. d 4., m u ro Y a o •� .p m C pcu a o •� c F � v o a d m Nr. v c v v n .E c m sa 7 v 4 E E c u v m a se a.+ a 'v A" -� a .Ad+ O� ai was F a c y A w X Ld•• avr m a'.n c ? CL V/ a y ,� iy m a 4�6 ._ to 3 N L L r 7 a CQ w P7 d v v m 'B fS O U cc a ami c ai Q a d O �,,, mw m N y `m w c U p a� G. �' y, C q a+ O y W b sa w �n •= v c E` c o +°�' G vy �7 awc�o Ho0.^ ��awGa�—Ca d cf] O OU i m L ❑. 41 L L �p .--I 7 G. aq v Q t6 �9 K' QI F [7. a6 r� 'ji W ?� a Fes, aJ y' tc Ci Q O E0 6' Vi {p v v1 °L' O C K 0 7S -� C '� 'G [^�„ 4: h 'a C D O '^ C N F m w ,~, ,� rt .Z m P A c `u +�+ ° ry v s F- v> } Q y 'x .x N E y W t~c z d N rt y 'a [h y '7 �.Vm. ,� DO ++ W rC CD L p m T CL) C� ayi a cn aC cn Q a tw .. 3 w c u au Ln co v u v. m m o o u c °' C ami c N 'a (U p D � C y T• i.. �+ L... �-. � h u 6.= y c Q E c c v z d Cr L v a m a v m° C v c u o :� b y a^ y c a cy ar a a v q a$ m av au�oaGti`aa�����}aavp mm v Her,cu 3 vC o b v, Z,V 07 -0 Q Ci m W v p C v A b bM 'O C C� D> O iC, a F ao c y c y m a a� o c c v w p •� +� d v �•w' N a mcu C m " R (� i�-� •M1' u o 'E v a a a d CW v i a u E +� � Qi Q v yd, C 4: O. 4� R a y cLi Ln w� V 0. cn oG Ln FA• c a. ado cv. a d i o. m rts u v d m� .� R .4 a o y `q a v ° c `a Q1 c v p °..' E 3 v C m e 0.i Qui �• 3 Ql Q y y 0. •= a.+ p W N m r G a y O s c G Q y ao a y o E y c o C6 u o v d L a L" w a m y d cd, v y K u ¢ C ?� Fes- a4 '•' �-' G G ?. •b C m >�J O u q '.� tC o top ^�, '4 7 v r. d m G L G a+ a a+ y,y d p L W rtl y d = c 0. ++ u i b A -0 0. Of: �, C C b m d a a to c A= 0 v E c a d g e v a vae a o a,A E E o c M. r d y F v a aq... 3 0. cn d F ti v L m n v F �c C+; v m E m •Lt p a x OC �r d rC¢ V a a� m a a ..q v_ �o a 0 �0: ¢ N C u � G v m L E � L Q V N N i C Q C c� v a3 A. sn o4 cn o x c a as v C W ?, c as a T ::i _i c• "'.., cLM v. v C cm U y cC w C �- �' y a ¢. d �: y ��_- a. F- x a 3. 1 -� y cn v L m c c a� . �a a� u. _ r v 1 V C � Ctl L 47 O tq rd by O C ; y >V iV, k B o C a cn owC n ai u C w c _ m ra 'C v C ], ,u 11-d Aa ca m Q m m w H O u h F ++ C cu '3 + C, '�O m q)C y W ca G fC y d, 0.U—' GJ L. C C GJ .p v qy X h 4T O icu caw GD .Om >p D7 x 4 ft, C V m a x.+ m Ln L 41 (Q C ",' L L,} O` = '0 U U 61 aj m m N b d wc wcn 3 F av m mate'�Q u X07 � � � coo,Nw � C 4 CJ L C O C GJ p d Ln cn ro H adi T `0 m p V S= G y O p G C7 O y Q O CL � E L d N p tv K a >tv Cp. V) V) G c Q O � V b d �' �•� c G cc M K 7 E x E s O x U ro G p N G w m a a Draft EIS Chapters 3.3 and 4.3, Water Resources Amend Table 3.3-1, Existing Land Cover Summary as follows: Table 3.3-1. Existing Land Cover Summary Amend Table 4,3-2, Change in Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative, and the paragraph below on the Planned Action Study Area as follows: Table 4.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative Total Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGISI Area Untreated PGIS1 Total Impervious Total Total Total Effective 3.75(2.3%) Area Area Pervious PGIS1 Untreated Imperviou z Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. (acres) (acres) Area (acres) (acres) PG1S1(acres) s Planned Action Study 255.40 161.17 94.23 4-$ 9$.-44s8.10 161.17 Area zM Potential Sunset 13.06 4.73 8.33 1.83 1.83 4.73 Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Total 268.46 165.90 102.56 94-4-49 40-.3489.93 165.90 AJU } Pollution -generating impervious area Amend Table 4,3-2, Change in Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative, and the paragraph below on the Planned Action Study Area as follows: Table 4.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative Planned Action Study Area Under the No Action Alternative, new and redevelopment projects would still occur, but at an anticipated lower rate than under the action alternatives. All new and redevelopment projects would be required to provide "enhanced basic water quality treatment" or "basic water quality treatment," if single family, per the City's adopted stormwater code. In addition, all redevelopment projects would he required to provide flow -control BMPs, where feasible, such as rain gardens, cisterns, permeable pavements, and other infiltration and flow -reduction techniques. No roadway improvement projects are planned within the Planned Action Study Area under the No Action Alternative; therefore, no change is assumed in resulting impervious Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 May 2011 RDD, Appendix H Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGISI Area Untreated PGIS1 Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Planned Action Study Area 5.76(6.5%) -6.51(-7.00J- -1�l U_1371Y�j- r_7nn.> >.Jnor ,n 4. t �� 3.75(2.3%) Potential Sunset Terrace 1.76 (96.2%) Redevelopment Subarea 0.5(273%) 0(0%) 1.54 (32.6%) 1 Pollution -generating impervious area z Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. 3 All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. Planned Action Study Area Under the No Action Alternative, new and redevelopment projects would still occur, but at an anticipated lower rate than under the action alternatives. All new and redevelopment projects would be required to provide "enhanced basic water quality treatment" or "basic water quality treatment," if single family, per the City's adopted stormwater code. In addition, all redevelopment projects would he required to provide flow -control BMPs, where feasible, such as rain gardens, cisterns, permeable pavements, and other infiltration and flow -reduction techniques. No roadway improvement projects are planned within the Planned Action Study Area under the No Action Alternative; therefore, no change is assumed in resulting impervious Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 May 2011 RDD, Appendix H City of Renton Chapter 4- Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS area, pollution -generating impervious area, or stormwater BMPs within NE Sunset Boulevard or other local streets' rights-of-way. 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 E+66;, acres (7.-40%) from existing conditions due to non -roadway -related projects. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 3.75 acres (2.3°1x) from existing conditions. Under the No Action Alternative, additional flow control would be required on site, per the code, to match the peak runoff from existing conditions. Where feasible, this impact could be reduced through full infiltration within the site. However, where full infiltration or dispersion is not feasible, no further mitigation would be required by the existing code. Amend Table 4.3-4, Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 2, as follows: Table 4.3-4. Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 2 Page 4.3-5, second full paragraph, amend as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40.S I 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-5 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGISt Area Untreated PCIS} Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Planned Action Study 1:i.R5 - 4.i},i}.t� (- Area 6.96(7.9%) 11.9cX 1-1-4-.J+ 1* 1 45,5 :1 "'-r0, ice 1 4? 0.95(0.6%) Potential Sunset Terrace 188 (102.7%) 0.13(7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) 0.56 (11.8%) Redevelopment Subarea t Pollution -generating impervious area 2 Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. 3 All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. Page 4.3-5, second full paragraph, amend as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40.S I 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-5 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft Els Amend Table 4.3-6, Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 3, as follows: Table 4.3-6. Change in Land Cover Summary --Alternative 3 Project Area Planned Action Study Area Net Change in Impervious Area (acres) 8.7S(9,9%) Net Change in PCIS' Area (acres) - I b.4b Ir Net Change in Untreated PGISt -40.09 Net Change in Effective Impervious Area (acres), 1.26 (0.8%) Potential Sunset Terrace 2.31 0.6 (32.B%) -1.83 (-100°!0) -0.51 (-10.7%) Redevelopment Subarea (126.2%) t Pollution -generating impervious area z Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. } All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. Page 4.3-7, second full paragraph, first sentence amend as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40.-F,,-.1 -acres (46%) from existing conditions. Final EIS Chapter 3.3, Water Resources Amend Table 3.3-1, Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative, as follows: Table 3.3-1. Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative 5unset Area Community Planned Action May 2011 ROD, Appendix H H-6 Total Total Total Total Impervious Pervious Total Untreated Effective Area Area Area PGIS' PG1S1 Imperviou (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) s(acres) Planned Action Study 255.4448 Area 1 174.40 81.8442 76.44 46.26 165.41 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 12.64 61 6.54 1.7 0 3.66 1 PCIS = pollution -generating impervious area. 5unset Area Community Planned Action May 2011 ROD, Appendix H H-6 City of Renton Chapter 4, Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Amend Table 3.3-2, Change in Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative, as follows: Table 3.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary ---Preferred Alternative Potential Sunset Terrace 1.37 -0.13 (-7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) -1.07 (-22.6%)4 Redevelopment Subarea 0`.,044.14%) I PG1S = pollution -generating impervious area. z 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. Amend page 3-13, second full paragraph, as follows: 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 A-211.24 acres (42,6%) from existing conditions .Jn.r..a.co � h)mcd net -effective mt)ervious area it crc �.�e �tf_:�.2 acres fll_1_94% if Chnsidel1 ail h.�rtiolls of the l?la,lti.e ti A,rti.n�� 5tu.t,ly Ili ea_inrlu4liiik tlle' Pulentia1 Sunset Tl ri Ice RCdevell�iei7t Suu<�are21. Chapter 3.4, Plants and Animals Amend Section 3.4.1.2, Aquatic Habitat and Fish, pages 3-18 and 3-19, paragraph below bulleted list, as follows; 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 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. Tile 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 -1 X8_2% under the Preferred Alternative, the Sunset Area Community Planned Acfron 7 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGISI Area Untreated PCIS' Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)z Planned Action Stud 13.23 y -16.41 41.84 (-47.5%) 4.24 (2.b%)' Area [ i,11t� ) (_17,7 1€ .f,%) Potential Sunset Terrace 1.37 -0.13 (-7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) -1.07 (-22.6%)4 Redevelopment Subarea 0`.,044.14%) I PG1S = pollution -generating impervious area. z 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. Amend page 3-13, second full paragraph, as follows: 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 A-211.24 acres (42,6%) from existing conditions .Jn.r..a.co � h)mcd net -effective mt)ervious area it crc �.�e �tf_:�.2 acres fll_1_94% if Chnsidel1 ail h.�rtiolls of the l?la,lti.e ti A,rti.n�� 5tu.t,ly Ili ea_inrlu4liiik tlle' Pulentia1 Sunset Tl ri Ice RCdevell�iei7t Suu<�are21. Chapter 3.4, Plants and Animals Amend Section 3.4.1.2, Aquatic Habitat and Fish, pages 3-18 and 3-19, paragraph below bulleted list, as follows; 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 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. Tile 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 -1 X8_2% under the Preferred Alternative, the Sunset Area Community Planned Acfron 7 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H CAy of Renton Chapter a, Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS net increase in effective impervious area would be only 2.6%, and there would be substantial reductions in pollutant -generating impervious surface (4-8-617.7% 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. Chapter 5, Section 5.3, Responses to Comments Amend page 5-13, last row of table, Response to Comment 13-10: 13-10 Quantitative Mitigation Measures, Adaptive Management: The comment is noted. Please see response to comment 4413-1. Biological Assessment Amend Table 2 of the Biological Assessment prepared in December 2010 as follows: Table 2. Existing Land Cover Summary Amend Table 3 of the Biological Assessment prepared in December 2010 as follows: Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-8 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Total Total Area Impervious Total PGIS1 Area Untreated PGISt Project Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) (acres) Planned Action Study Area 255.40 161.17 93192.86 88.__%i0 (excluding Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) Potential Sunset Terrace 13.06 4.73 1.83 1.83 Redevelopment Subarea I Pollution -generating impervious surface Amend Table 3 of the Biological Assessment prepared in December 2010 as follows: Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-8 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H City of Renton Chapter A. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft DS Table 3. Summary of Impervious Surface and Stormwater Treatment. Note: PGIS = Pollutant -generating impervious surface. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 9 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Geographic Area Johns May -Honey Planned Creek Creek ROWS Action Sunset Combined Parcels Parcels Study Area Terrace Total Area 184.75 13.91 56.74 255.40 13.06 268,46 (acres) Total Existing 105.62 6.95 48.61 161.17 4.73 16590 Impervious Proposed 116.67 8.46 44.80 169.92 7.04 176.96 Area (acres) Percent Existing 57% 50% 8611/b 63% 36% 61.8% Impervious Proposed 63% 61% 79% 67% 54% 65.9% Total PGIS Existing 51,43 2.16 39,7427 �1�u2_,i�, 1.83 1j_1_69 (acres) Proposed 36.58 2.15 37.67 76.40 2.43 78.83 Percent PGIS Existing 28% 16% _�LB69% 3 °10 14% 35% Proposed 20% 15% 66% 30% 19% 29% Total Untreated Existing 46.87 1.97 39.q4�L7 88."12 1.83 90.39 PGIS (acres) Proposed 21.43 1.52 25.06 48.01 0 48.01 Percent Existing 25% 14% X69% 35% 1411/o 34% Untreated PGIS Proposed 12% 11% 44% 19% 0% 18% Flow Control Existing 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 BMPs (acres) Proposed 4.44 0,25 2.79 7.49 2.82 10.30 Effective Existing 105,62 6.95 48.61 161.17 4.73 165.90 Impervious Proposed 112.22 8.20 42.01 162.44 4.22 166.66 (acres) Percent Existing 57.20/c 49.9% 85.7% 63.1% 36.2% 61.8% Effective Proposed 60.7% 59.00/c 74.0% 63.6% 32.3% 62.1% Impervious Note: PGIS = Pollutant -generating impervious surface. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 9 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Denis Law Cityof Mayor 1. ritoo .,e� Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch,Administrator Virginia Cross, Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Renton Sunset Area Community — Section 106 Consultation Dear Chairperson Cross: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known.as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of Sunset'Boulevard (SR 900) east of Interstate 5 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to Sunset Boulevard. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CFR Part 800, and define the Area of Potential Effects CAPE). The above referenced project activities taken together are considered a single undertaking involving federal funding from the U. S -Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section IOC of the NHPA. In accordance with specific'statutory authority and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, -decision-making, and action'that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, which includes lead agency responsibility. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment project would occur on approximately 8 -acres of.RHA owned property occupied by existing public housing units, known as Sunset Terrace, located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE; three acres of vacant land along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE; and additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE that RHA intends to purchase for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and the adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed- use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Existing public housing units on the .property would be removed and replaced with new construction. The new construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units and integrated public amenities, such as anew recreation/community center, anew public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted medians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated -into the new development and the streets improvements. Renton City Hail • 1055 South Grady Way • Fienton,Washington 98057 a' rentonwa.gov Page 2 of 2 As illustrated on the enclosed map, the City of Renton proposes the APE for the undertaking be defined as those parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopment, and all parcels that abut Sunset Boulevard between about Edmonds Avenue NE and Monroe Avenue NE. This area would encompass all the areas of proposed ground disturbance and potential effects to neighboring properties posed by road and infrastructure improvements along Sunset Boulevard, The City of Renton has engaged the services of IGF International to.conduct cultural resources studies of both archaeological and built environment resources for the undertaking. The fieldwork for these studies, including excavation of shovel test probes, is expected to begin at the end of September 2014. At this time, we would invite you to comment on aur determination of the undertaking`s proposed APE, and request the sharing of any information you might have on the project area. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties, and we will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general puhlic. This information will only be included in a technical' report disseminated amongst the project team, DAHP, and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Specific information on site location and/or traditional cultural properties will be withheld from the public documentation prepared for the undertalang. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-6578. Sincerely, Erika Conitling, A1CP, Senior Planner . City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development cc. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects.Map Denis Law Ci of Mayor `i . _ 1R _� �� - U." Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Allyson Brooks, PhD . State Historic Preservation Officer' Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 South Capitol Way, Ste. 106_ Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Subject: . Renton Sunset Area Community- Section 106 Consultation Dear Dr. Brooks: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (5R 900) east of Interstate 5 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to Sunset Boulevard. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CFR Part 800, and define the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The above referenced project activities taken together are considered a single undertaking involving federal funding from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision -makings and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA and Section 1.06 of the NHPA, whicli includes lead agency responsibility. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment project would occur on approximately 8 -acres of RHA owned property occupied by existing public housing units, known as Sunset Terrace, located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE; three acres of vacant land along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE; and additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE that RHA intends to purchase for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and the adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed- use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Existing public housing units on the property would be removed and replaced with new construction. The new construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing" units and integrated public amenities, such as a new recreation/community center, a new public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted medians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated_ into the new development and the streets improvements. Renton CityHall • 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov. Page 2 of 2 As illustrated on the enclosed map, the City of Renton proposes the APE for the undertaking be defined as those parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopment, and all parcels that abut Sunset Boulevard between about Edmonds Avenue NE. and Monroe Avenue NE, This area would encompass all the areas of proposed ground disturbance and potential effects to neighboring properties posed by road and infrastructure improvements along Sunset Boulevard. The City of Renton has engaged the services of ICF International to conduct cultural resources studies of both archaeological and built environment resources for the undertaking. The fieldwork for these studies, including excavation of shovel test probes, is expected to begin at the end of September 2010. Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating as a consulting patty to this undertaking and concurring with the defined APE would be greatly appreciated. We also are inviting comments on the proposed undertaking from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-6578. Sincerely, V Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development. Enclosure; Asea of Potential Effects Map . Denis Law - Ci of Mayor r ri Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Renton Sunset Area Community— Section 106 Consultation Dear Ms, Murphy: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (SR 900)' east of Interstate 5 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to Sunset Boulevard. With this letter, we would like toinitiateformal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1.966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CFR Part 800, and define the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The above referenced project activities taken -together are considered a single undertaking involving federal funding from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is the Iead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision -malting and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under N8PA and Section 106 of the NHPA, which includes lead agency responsibility. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment project would occur on approximately 8 -acres of RHA owned property occupied by existing public housing units, known as Sunset Terrace, located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE; three acres of vacant lard along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE; and additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE that RHA intends to purchase for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and the adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed- use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Existing public housing units onthe property would be removed, and replaced with new construction. The new.construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units and integrated public amenities, such as a new recreation/community center, a mew public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted inedians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the new development and the streets improvements. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washin 9ton 98057 ..rentonwa.gov Page 2 of 2 As illustrated on the enclosed map, the City of Renton proposes the APE for the undertaking be defined as those parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopment, and all parcels that abut Sunset Boulevard .between about Edmonds Avenue NE and Monroe Avenue NE. This.area would encompass all the areas of proposed ground disturbance and potential effects to neighboring properties posed byroad and infrastructure improvements along Sunset Boulevard. . The City of.Renton has engaged the services of ICF International to conduct cultural resources studies of both archaeological and built environment resources for the undertaking. The.fieldwork for these studies, including excavation of shovel test probes, is expected to begin at the end of September 2010. At this time, we would invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE, and request the.sharing of any.information you might have on the project area. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties, and we will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. This information will only -be included in a technical report disseminated amongst the project team, DAHP, and the Muckleshoot.Tribe. Specific information on site location and/or traditional cultural properties will be withheld from the public documentation prepared for the undertaking: Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-5578. Please note we have also sent this same letter to Tribal Council Chairperson Virginia Cross. Sincerely, Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner City -of Renton Departmerit of Community and Economic Development Enclosure; Area of Potential Effects Map- (' City Limits Parcels I Area of Potential Effects NE"Z1STST� NE ZIST ST 1L F : LW . l a�. •„..� � S'i � �- _ -. � -� �'� ..r f�1�` yrs.. Z NErZQTHST r ' �� Wr s. NE'49TH=5TH y�xr t Ak I1►..r l a�A,� .Val.11`ii I !.:r' �l4. I,' A. WO �iV �Wf —CLQ'j fjl,-i ”' / fY ay�a#�,"�'tJ K` �' 4,1�' •R• 7 PIZ PuwA'Q � ca1 ISN i6T,H-STd * •cN iPt. ,_� i 1 ,R Ik - .� ILgr rrS �' fy W. Wr w Al' 46-7 l 4'« Z' ilf - ZI'i x • !!LA ` x.71, M_ -W it r ata. r f� NE 1'4T,H ST:' ' l 't f ' W^ nz —� �}}! • ,NE.13TH'PL. r } r 9 ,,L,nc t ...a c..— * / Y _ 't ` �- ., •.. X 13 tl t 13TH'SS `JwZ A r' ♦ s �G _ _ -.piiEr`2 �H 51(a4 . ' ..I i @z �� LU�JiliiL�.-a "7�q M �'k rat., �� ■CI �w r {f..1 a -� _`L N s rtifs - _ • Y -� �'�`.. 14,.••T'�W- r' V'!'— E 9TH'P.L. s wZy__ - z, do z, I J� STH5T _ t � c � ,t� � (...,._, in t. Z Luy :I [)A�1�4rkr �.,s" I. i—I } 7F',t'-yf'W.�� Lao Lg� 'a ?``'rF 'r k.': •�� IL*fes i`h',IYr 6 a ?, I� •,1} E .•t. 'Zir w tJ fiTMST W i �+,n # '} err .a°� � �'i a���-�► r�l�• r � +�,�. x � i� rt 17;Sl �p1rM rn 'O'p FrAp Fi At+�' Area of Potential Effects 1CFSunset Area Planned Action/EIS City of Renton Sunset EIS 4 IF jt lG -- jL W w • ("��� * .rte 4-7 s tr-y'NEPT,HtAL ~" W ;F r. ��6 rtifs - _ • Y -� �'�`.. 14,.••T'�W- r' V'!'— E 9TH'P.L. s wZy__ - z, do z, I J� STH5T _ t � c � ,t� � (...,._, in t. Z Luy :I [)A�1�4rkr �.,s" I. i—I } 7F',t'-yf'W.�� Lao Lg� 'a ?``'rF 'r k.': •�� IL*fes i`h',IYr 6 a ?, I� •,1} E .•t. 'Zir w tJ fiTMST W i �+,n # '} err .a°� � �'i a���-�► r�l�• r � +�,�. x � i� rt 17;Sl �p1rM rn 'O'p FrAp Fi At+�' Area of Potential Effects 1CFSunset Area Planned Action/EIS City of Renton Sunset EIS STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 - Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 - Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (380) 588-3085 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 - Website: www.dahp.wa.gov November 18, 2010 Ms. Ericka Conkling City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 95057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091010-31-HUD-CDBG Property: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Re: Deternuned Eligible Dear Ms_ Conkling: Thank you for contacting our office. 1 have reviewed the materials you provided to our office and we concur with your professional consultant's opinion that the Saint Vincent De Paul Superstore is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places_ We also concur that the remaining 47 historic -era properties are not eligible. 1 look forward to further consultation regarding your determination of effect. I would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4) and the survey report when it is available. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, r Russell Halter Project Compliance Reviewer (360) 586-3533 russell.holter@dahp.wa.gov DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Proled the Pal, Shape the Fulve Denis Law City.,Of Mayor r.�- w Gtr Ut . 1 Jr Department of"Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator November 22, 2010 Ms. Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer ATTN: Mr. Russell Holter Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation. 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, WA 98501 "Subject. Section 106 Review-RentonSun set Area Community DAHP Log Number: 091010-31-HUD-CDSG Renton File Number: LUA10-052 Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. Holter: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing a.series of activities to revitalize an area known'as the Sunset Area Community, located.in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (S.R' 900) east of Interstate 405 in the city of Renton, Washington. The potentially federally funded activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public. housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, -including improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. . We previously notified you of.this undertaking in correspondence dated September 1, 201.O.and October 28, 2010' initiating consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act iNHPA), as amended, and to request concurrence:on our -determinations of eligibility, respectively. You concurred with our findings on NRNP eligibility on November 18, 2010. ICF International is'assisting the City in meeting the requirements of Section 106a.of the NHPA- r and has conducted a culturalyesources survey forth& undertaking. The.study comprised an archaeological investigation and a historic resources'survey. A copy was provided to you on October -28, 201.0. It recommends that the proposed undertaking would not adversely affect the NRNP -eligible historic property located in the undertakings Area of Potential. Effects. Based on this finning, i ve have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have."no adverse effect"_ on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we hereby request yoLrt concurrence .with our finding that the proposed project will have no adverse effect on historic properties, Renton City Hall • 9455 South Grady Way 0 Renton, Washington 98057 41 rentonwa.gov STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington D8504-8343 (360) 586-3065 a Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov November 30, 2010 Ms. Ericka Conkling City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091010-31-14UD-CDBG Property: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Re: NO Adverse Effect Dear Ms. Conkling: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The above referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer under provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act o€1966 (as amended) and 36 CFR Part 800. My review is based upon documentation contained in your communication. I concur that the current project as proposed will have "NO ADVERSE EFFECT" on National Register eligible or listed historic and cultural resources. If additional information on the project becomes available, or if any archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, please halt work in the area of discovery and contact the appropriate Native American Tribes and DAHP for further consultation. Please note that DAHP requires that all historic property inventory and archaeological site forms be provided to our office in PDF format on a labeled CD along with an unbound paper copy. For further information please go to http://www.dahp.wa.gov/documents/CR—ReportPDF - f. Requirement.pd Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment, If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, /Russell Holter / Project Compliance Reviewer (360) 586-3533 russell.holter@dahp.wa.gov DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protect the Past, Shope the Future Denis Laws Of Mayor 4 fit, r.� s Department of Community and Economic Development February 1$, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Ms. Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer ATTN. Mr, Russell Holter Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, WA 98501 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16t'streets Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. Holter. The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 3.104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 151h and NE 16th streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICE International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and a historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE, With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA and hereby request your concurrence on the project APE and our finding that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties. Notice of the undertaking and copies of this documentation have also been provided to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Renton City Hall + 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact meat (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Refr ew Committee A eqq Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Depart t Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department UV Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report Denis Law - f�lty of, o Mayor �Y Department of Community and Economic Development February 1$, 2011 Alex Pietsch,Administrator Ms. Virginia Cross Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Cross: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15`h and NE 16th streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE and our finding that the undertaking would have no effect on historic properties. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. Such information will be withheld from any public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact meat (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Renton CityHall • 1055 South Grady Way a Renton, Washington 98057 9 rentonwa.gov Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee S Gregg Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Ad ' istrator Public Works Departm t Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report cc: Renis Law City of. • Mayo: *} s J Department of Community and Economic Development February 18, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Murphy: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include The Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15'h and NE 10 streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey forthe undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE and our finding that the undertaking would have no effect on historic properties. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. Such information will be withheld from any public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Menton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee 4 ,5�4 Gregg Zimmzrrmran, Administrator Public Works Departme 7 Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department � -"j 0 ->- Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department K4U , V—� Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report FTA Tt o�, O £ �{n d, 4n2 0 1889 d STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov February 24, 2011 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Multifamily/ Institutional Bldgs. Project Log No.: 022411 -06 -HUD Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Thank you for contacting our department_ We have reviewed the professional archaeological survey report for the proposed Multifamily/ Institutional Buildings Project at 2902 NE 12`t' Street, 1150 Harrington Ave. NE, and Kirkland Ave NE—NEI 5th and NE 16" Streets, Renton, King County, Washington. We concur with the determination of No Historic Properties Affected. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribe's cultural committee or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this department and the tribe's cultural committee notified. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 36CFR800.4. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised, including information regarding historic properties that have not yet been identified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D_ State Archaeologist (360)586-3080 email: rob.wh1tlamC'dahp.wa.20v �IaEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1. PTote: the Post, Shope the Future ps# J.NT 0 v [pod UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, Washington 98115 NMFS Tracking No_: May 6, 2011 2010/05983 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ryan Milkaric U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Seattle Federal Office building 909 First Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104-1000 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Project (HUC 1711001203, Lake Washington) Dear Ms. Conkling and Mr. Milkaric: This correspondence is in response to your request for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additionally, this letter serves to meet the requirements for consultation under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Endangered Species Act The City of Renton submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action project on December 8, 2010. Additional information was provided on February 23, April 5, and April 29, 2011. The City will use funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and replacement sites. For the purposes of ESA, the City is acting as the designated non-federal representative for informal consultation_ 2 The City requested NMFS' concurrence with the following determinations: 1)"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon (PS Chinook), 2)"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for PS Chinook critical habitat, 3) "may affect not likely to adversely affect" for PS steelhead (O. mykiss). PS Chinook was listed as threatened under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (50 CFR 223 and 224), and critical habitat was designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). PS steelhead was listed as threatened on March 29, 2006 (7 ] FR15666). The NMFS has not designated Critical habitat for PS steelhead. This consultation with the City is conducted under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR 402. The City's original project proposal included redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community (approximately 13 acres), as well as the related redevelopment actions in the larger Sunset Area Community neighborhood (approximately 255 acres), also called the Planned Action Study Area. Their proposal was to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action that would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use growth allowances, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process via adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Due to funding and permitting timelines, the City has limited their current project proposal to redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and the replacement housing sites near the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea (see Attachment A). Sunset Terrace is a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 two-story buildings. The housing units are over 50 years old and considered of substandard size and quality. The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) additionally owns properties in the subarea abutting Sunset Terrace where senior and affordable housing will be built, some of which will be replacement housing. Most replacement units would occur in the Sunset Terrace subarea, others would occur on City or RHA properties in the EIS study area, including Sunset Court Park, the existing King County library site, and existing parcels located near Hillcrest Terrace. The project action area includes the Sunset Terrace Housing site, the replacement sites within the Sunset Terrace redevelopment subarea and EIS study area, and downstream areas that are affected by construction activities and stormwater originating from these sites. No streams are present in the action area, but the area drains to Johns Creek. The creek is mostly a piped system that discharges into Lake Washington near the mouth of the Cedar River. The mouth of Johns Creek is influenced heavily by the seasonally controlled Lake Washington levels, and is not sensitive to increased peak and duration of stormwater discharges. The mouth of Johns Creek and about 1,500 feet upstream is a very important rearing area for juvenile PS Chinook salmon during their outmigation from the Cedar River in late February to mid-July (the most used tributary of 17 surveyed tributaries of Lake Washington). Adult Chinook are present in Lake Washington during their upstream fall migration to the Cedar River, but do not use Johns Creek. Adult and juvenile PS steelhead and coho (O. kisutch) salmon also rear and migrate through Lake Washington year round, but do not use Johns Creek. Construction activities are not expected to increase stormwater volumes or velocities to Johns Creek or Lake Washington, or decrease water quality. During construction, stormwater and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to control runoff rates, and prevent sediment -laden water from entering conveyance systems that discharge to Johns Creek, and eventually Lake Washington. As a result of the redevelopment, the operation of the project will generate additional stormwater from additional impervious surfaces. Since the project is still in the conceptual phase, Renton cannot specify the development that will actually occur. For the purposes on this analysis, parcels within the potential land swap/replacement housing sites are anticipated to be redeveloped by others at the maximum intensity allowed by code (maximum allowable impervious area). It is unlikely that the replacement housing sites will be constructed at the maximum capacity unless they are purchased by the City. If the City does not purchase the properties, they will likely remain in their present use or be converted to open space. The NMFS analysis considered the worst case scenario in terms of estimating increases in impervious surfaces and thus stormwater runoff. Lower rates of development are expected to have fewer effects to listed species. The redevelopment projects could include a range of total increase in impervious surfaces of 36 to 47 percent. The area of pollution generating impervious surfaces would change from a range an increase of 21 percent to a decrease of 16 percent, and the area of untreated pollution generating impervious surfaces would decrease from 40 to 100 percent. All pollution generating surfaces will be treated via Flow Control BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development practices) and/or Enhanced Water Quality treatment. All runoff will match 2011 pre - development peak flows. The project will also include a sub -regional facility, located at Sunset Terrace, to treat and control peak flows from up to 2.6 acres to provide advance mitigation from the net additional impervious area projected over the Planned Action Study Area. Species Determination Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Steelhead NMFS analyzed the potential effects of the project on PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead and determined that the effects will be discountable and insignificant. Short-term construction -related effects are discountable for juvenile PS Chinook salmon, as BMPs are expected to prevent sediments from entering the man-made conveyance system which discharges to Johns Creek. As well, construction BMPs will prevent any changes in stormwater volumes and velocities to John's Creek so salmon will not be exposed to increased stormwater volumes and velocities. Short-term effects to P5 Chinook adults and PS Steelhead (adults and juveniles) are expected to be discountable as any changes to stormwater volumes, velocities, and water quality are not expected to affect Lake Washington's water quality or quantity. 4 NMFS expects the long-term effects of the project to juvenile PS Chinook salmon to be insignificant as stormwater volumes and velocities entering Johns Creek will be decreased by the new peak flow controls required as part of the housing projects. In addition, the mouth of the creek is not expected to be affected by changing peak flows, because of the influence of controlled lake levels. Stormwater quality will also be improved as the result of new stormwater treatment requirements. The combined use of Enhanced water quality treatment and LID methods for all the new pollution generating impervious surfaces is expected to avoid long-term exposure of juvenile PS Chinook salmon to metals and other pollutants in Johns Creek. Long- term effects to PS Chinook adults and PS steelhead (adults and juveniles) in Lake Washington are also expected to be insignificant due to the improvement in stormwater treatment and controls. Because all potential adverse effects to PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead are discountable or insignificant, NMFS concurs with the City's effect determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for PS Chinook and PS steelhead. Critical Habitat Determination NMFS designated critical habitat for the PS Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). In the action area, Lake Washington is designated as critical habitat, but Johns Creek was excluded from critical habitat designation. Two of the six primary constituent elements of PS Chinook critical habitat; PCE -2 freshwater rearing sites, and PCE -3 freshwater migration corridors are in the action area of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment project. NMFS analyzed the potential effects of the project on PS Chinook PCEs and determined that the effects will be insignificant. The conservation values of PCEs 2 and 3 will not be adversely affected during construction. On site BMPs will prevent sediment from being discharged into conveyance systems that flow into Johns Creek, and eventually reach Lake Washington. Construction BMPs will also prevent any changes to stormwater quantities discharged to Lake Washington. In addition, the conservation values will not be adversely affected during project operation. Stormwater controls will be implemented for water quality and water quantity, reducing Johns Creek peak flows and minimizing discharge of pollutants. Therefore, adequate flows and water quality for adult and juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and migration will be maintained in Lake Washington. No project actions will obstruct migration corridors or increase predation. Thus, the long-term conservation value will be maintained for freshwater rearing and migration. Because adverse effects to critical habitat are expected to be insignificant, NMFS concurs with the City's determination that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" critical habitat for PS Chinook. This concludes informal consultation according to the regulations implementing the ESA, 50 CFR 402.10. The City must re-initiate the ESA consultation if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species in a way not previously considered, the action is 5 modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that was not previously considered, or a new species is listed that may be affected by the identified action. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Federal agencies are required, under section 305(b)(2) of the MSA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 600 Subpart K), to consult with NMFS regarding actions that are authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The MSA section 3 defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." If an action would adversely affect EFH, NMFS is required to provide the Federal action agency with EFH conservation recommendations (section 305(b)(4)(A)). This consultation is based, in part, on information provided by the City and descriptions of EFH for Pacific coast groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and Pacific salmon contained in the Fishery Management Plans developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The actions are described in the BA and additional information provided. The action area includes habitat, which has been designated as EFH for various life stages of Chinook and coho salmon. EFH Conservation Recommendations: Because the conservation measures that the City included as part of the proposed action to address ESA/EFH concerns are adequate to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to the EFH of the species, conservation recommendations pursuant to MSA (section 305(b) (4) (A)) are not necessary. Since NMFS is not providing conservation recommendations at this time, no 30 -day response from the City is required (MSA section 305(b) (4) (B)). This concludes consultation under the MSA. If the proposed action is -modified in a manner that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations, the City will need to reinitiate consultation in accordance with the implementing regulations for EFH at 50 CFR 600920(1). If you have questions regarding either the ESA or EFH consultation, please contact DeeAnn Kirkpatrick of the Washington State Habitat Office at (206) 526-4452, or by electronic mail at deeann.kirkpatrick@noaa.gov. Sincerely, William W. Stelle, Jr. Regional Administrator Attachment ICF Sunset lerracre Redevelopment Arne and Land Swapj"acement Housing sites Sunset Area fommunq Planned Action draft NEPjVSEPA EIS r , I y.—, be: F/NWR-- PDF (Nickerson) WSHO — PDF (Clu•on) WSHO - File Copy WSHO — PDF (Kirkpatrick) WSHO — PDF (Sibley) December 30, 2010 Ms. Erika Conkling City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE; Federal Consistency — Sunset Area Community Planned Action Dear Ms. Conkling: The Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program received your request regarding the use of federal funds for the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public lousing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization, The housing community is bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NEI Oth Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west, in Renton, Ding County, Washington. The Sunset Terrace community redevelopment is a project component of the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, After review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, Ecology agrees that funding this project is consistent with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Progr=L. Please rote that this Consistency Determination is for the release of funds only. Any construction activities will be subject to ALL enforceable polices of the Coastal Zone Management Program, such as the State Water Quality Requirements. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Jessica Moore at (360) 407-7421. Sincerely, Brenden McFarland, Section Manager Environmental Review and Transportation Section Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program cc: Jessica. Moore, Ecology �sr�rFs. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 A o 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 V Seattle, WA 98101-3140 OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS, TRIBALAND PUBLIC AFFAIRS April 29, 2011 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Comments on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action (Planned Action) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) {EPA Project Number: 10 -051 -HUD) Dear Ms. Conkling: The EPA has reviewed the Sunset Area Community Planned Action FEIS and we are submitting comments -in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Our January 31, 2011 DEIS comments focused on "Sustainability Features and the Environmentally Preferred Alternative" and "Monitoring". With regard to sustainability features and the environmentally preferred alternative, we suggested that the environmentally preferable alternative under NEPA – for this Planned Action - would likely be the alternative which incorporates the maximum extent of implementable features consistent with quality urban design, sustainable urban redevelopment, and livability principles. EPA recommended the FEIS include an alternative which addresses 37 specific design elements and mitigation measures (e.g. "require future developers to pursue a specific energy conservation approach/ standards)"). We are very pleased to note that the FEIS's new preferred alternative addresses all of the design elements and mitigation measures recommended by EPA and is, therefore, fully responsive to our DEIS comments on sustainability features and the environmentally preferred alternative. The following nvtigatiori rneasures from Planned Action DM—it arice-Ezhibit-B: - . _ Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Mitigation Measures (FEIS, Appendix E) are especially responsive to our recommendations: • fugitive dust Best Management Practices (BMPs); • indoor air quality and construction diesel emissions controls considerations; • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures; + reductions of existing pollution -generating impervious surfaces and development of a drainage master plats; http://cera.hss.d9e.gov/n+�pafre sl40/t-1Q.HTM#5 http://www.epa.pov/.smartgrowth/pEu-tnersWp/#IivabilitvpL-n • consideration of Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes strategies and Seattle Energy Code compliance for non-residential buildings; • hazardous materials training for all grading and excavation. crews; • provide new opportunities for public open space and emphasize transitions in density; • helping affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction; • establishing a local preference for rental assistance; • added pedestrian, bicycle or multi -use trails at Edmonds Ave NE and NE I P Street; 6 parks and recreation impact fees, joint -use agreement with the Renton School District, and, conversion of public and private property to open space based on availability and DEIS Figure 4.15-2. To increase the likelihood of full implementation of the proposed mitigation measures we recommended that the Planned Action Ordinance serve as a stand-alone document, incorporate specific targets and facilitate adaptive management. Exhibit S's 17 subject areas;, overall framework , as well as the mitigation measures themselves (see above), are responsive to our `stand-alone document' and `incorporate specific targets' recommendations. Our FEIS review generated questions regarding the EIS's and Planned Action Ordinance's ability to guide the measurement of sustainability, a key aspect of facilitating adaptive management. We submitted our questions via email to the City of Renton on April 11, 2011 and appreciate the city consultant's April 13, 2011 written response. We believe the proposals - contained in Attachment 1-1 of the April 13, 2011 response - to add sub -parts CS D6 and, E7 to Section 4 of the Planned Action Ordinance would help guide the measurement of sustainability in the Sunset Area and would facilitate meaningful adaptive management. Incorporation of these proposed, or similar, sub -parts would be fully responsive to our overall scoping; DEIS and FEIS recommendations that the EIS and Planned Action Ordinance strive to measure performance of livability efforts and facilitate adaptive management. Altogether, we believe the City of Renton has developed a Planned Action that should achieve the FEIS's predicted long-term benefits - neighborhood revitalization, increased opportunities for healthy active lifestyles and local employment, net stormwater treatment improvements, increased aesthetic appeal, and, reductions in regional energy use and GHG emissions. We support full implementation of this Planned Action and look forward.learning from the City of Renton's efforts to redevelop the Sunset Area into a healthy, livable, affordable, _ - viable -and green community, earth, air quality, water resources, plants and animals, energy, noise, environmental ,health, land use, socioeconomics; housing, environmental justice, aesthetics, historictcultural, transportation, parks and recreation, public services, and, utilities, summary of significant environmental impacts, summary of unavoidable adverse impacts, mitigation measures, and, list of City policiesl regulations on which mitigation measures are based s "...evaluate overall sustainability of the Sunset Area Planned Action -consistent with -,.review of Goals and Objectives.and LEED-ND qualitative evaluation, or an equivalent approach" 6 11 ...conduct a Greenroads evaluation or its equivalent at the time the NE Sunset Boulevard design is at 30% design level and 60% design level" 7 review consistency with FEIS predictions for: (1) Vehicle Miles Travelled, (2) resulting greenhouse gas emissions, and, (3) changes in effective impervious area 2 Thank you for this opportunity to comment and if you have any questions you may contact me at (206) 553-1601, or you may contact Erik Peterson of my staff at (206) 553-6382 or by electronic mail at peterson,erik_@epa.gov. Sincerely, Christine B. Reichgott, Unit Manager Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit 3 Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Date of Notice: May 13, 2011 Name of Responsible Entity: City of Renton, Washington Address: 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Contact and Telephone: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division (425) 430-6578 On or about May 23, 2011 the City of Renton will authorize the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) to submit a request to the Department of Housing and Urban: Development (HUD) for the release of funding for projects assisted under section 9 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437x) to undertake redevelopment of RHA's Sunset Terrace public housing community and additional properties owned or purchased by RHA for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans 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 either on-site at Sunset Terrace or off-site at locations within the City's EIS Study Area. The project will require relocation of all existing residents and RHA is developing a relocation plan. 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. Public amenities would be integrated with the development and could include a community gathering space; civic facilities; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure. The activities proposed comprise a project for which the City of Renton initiated and prepared a SEPA/NEPA EIS. A public EIS scoping process on the project occurred from August 13 to October 18, 2010, The City of Renton issued a Draft EIS on December 17, 2010. Following a formal comment period which ended on January 31, 2011, the City issued a Final EIS on April 1, 2011. An Environmental Review Record (ERR) that documents the environmental determinations for this project is on file at the City of Renton, Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. The public may review and obtain copies of the ERR at this location Monday through Friday between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Record of Decision The City hereby provides notice of its Record of Decision (ROD) for the Renton Sunset Area Community EIS. The ROD documents the City's consideration and conclusions with respect to environmental impacts and mitigation measures for various elements of the environment, as required by NEPA. The ROD does not constitute approval of development of the proposal. The ROD is also considered part of the ERR. Copies of the ROD are available at the City's website: www.sunsetarea.rentonwa.gov. Public Comments Any individual, group, or agency may submit comments on the ERR to the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development. All comments received by May 20, 2011 will be considered by the City of Renton prior to authorizing submission of a request for release of funds. Copies of the ERR are available upon request by contacting Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, at the contact information provided above. Release of Funds The City of Renton certifies to HUD that the Renton Environmental Review Committee, the body designated by the Chief Executive Officer to function as the NEPA Responsible Entity (RE), consents to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts if an action is brought to enforce responsibilities in relation to the environmental review process and that these responsibilities have been satisfied. HUD's approval of the certification satisfies its responsibilities under NEPA and related laws and authorities, and allows the Renton Housing Authority to use Program funds. Objections to Release of Funds HUD will accept objections to its release of funds and the City of Renton's certification for a period of fifteen (15) days following the anticipated submission date or its actual receipt of the request (whichever is later) only if they are on one of the following bases: (a) the certification was not executed by the Certifying Officer of the City of Renton; (b) the City of Renton has omitted a step or failed to make a decision or finding required by HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 58; (c) the grant recipient has committed funds or incurred costs not authorized by 24 CFR Part 58 before approval of a release of funds by HUD; or (d) another Federal agency acting pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1504 has submitted a written finding that the project is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of environmental quality. Objections must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the required procedures (24 CFR Part 58) and shall be addressed to Ryan E. Mielcarek, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region X Seattle Office, 909 1st Ave., Suite 200, Seattle WA 98104-1000. The Seattle Region X office is open between 9:00 am -- 5:00 pm. Potential objectors should contact HUD to verify the actual last day of the objection period. Responsible Entity Certifying Officer City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Ickh Gregg Zlmmer a A En trat r Qat Public Works Dep rtment Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Com rn unity Services Department Date ;ofDecisi : May 9, 2011 M rk Peter n, Ad inistrator bafe Fire & Emergency rvices Alex Netsch, Adm istrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development Signature Sheet for Certifying Officer of Responsible Entity for Request for Release of Funds and Certification Project: Sunset Area Community Planned Action - Sunset Terrace Public Housing Redevelopment Responsible Entity Certifying Officer City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) DATE: May 23, 2011 SIGNATURES: Greg Zi er n, Adminis ator Public W ks epartment Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department V�, (;*,� zw- - M11 ark Pe ­Terson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services Alex Pi tsch, Admink rator Department of Community & Economic Development 1 Request for Release of Funds U.S. Department of Housing OMB No. 2506-0087 and Urban Development (exp. 313112011) and Certification Office of Community Planning and Development This form is to be used by Responsible Entities and Recipients (as defined in 24 CFR 582) when requesting the release of funds, and requesting the authority to use such funds, for HUD programs identified by statutes that provide forthe assumption of the environmental review responsibility by units of general local government and States. Public reporting burden forthis collection of information is estimated to average 36 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collection displays a valid QMB control number. Part 1. Program Description and Request for Release of Funds (to be completed by Responsible Entity) 1. Program Title(s) 2. HUD/State identification Number 13, Recipient IdenIftabon Number Section 9 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 i wA011 (optional) U.S.C. 1437x}, 8 4. OMB catalog Number(s) 6. For information about this request, contact (name ii phone number) tlttark Gropper, phone: 425-226-1850, Ext. 223 8. HUD or State Agency and office unit to receive request E= Seattle Region X Office 909 1st Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, SPA 96104-1000 S. Name and address of responsible entity City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 96057 7, Name and address of recipient (if different than responsible entity) Renton Housing Authority PO Sox 2316 Renton, WA 98056 The recipients) of assistance under the program(s) listed above requests the release of funds and removal of environmental grant conditions governing the use of the assistance for the following 9. Program Activity(iss)/Prolect Names) 1D. Location (street address, city, county, Stale) Sunset Area Community Planned Action - Sunset Sunset Terrace Terrace Public Housing Redevelopment 970 Harrington NE Renton, King, WA 96056 11. Program Acdvlty/Project Description The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) proposes to.undertake redevelopment of MA's Sunset Terrace public housing community and additional properties owned or purchased by RHA for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans 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 unite either on-site at Sunset Terrace or off-site at locations within the City's EIS Study Area. The project will require relocation of all existing residents and RRA is developing a relocation plan. 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. Public amenities would be integrated with the development and could include a community gathering space; civic facilities; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial apace; and green infrastructure. Previous editions are obsolete form HUD -7015.15 (1199) Part 2. Environmental Certification (to be entity) With reference to the above Program Activity(ics)/Project(s),1, the undersigned officer of the responsible entity, certify that: 1. The responsible entity has fully carried out its responsibilities for environmental review, decision-making and action pertaining to the project(s) named above. 2. The responsible entity has assumed responsibility for and complied with and will continue to comply with, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the environmental procedures, permit requirements and statutory obligations of the laws cited in 24 GFR 58.5; and also agrees to comply with the authorities in 24 CFR 58.6 and applicable State and local laws_ 3. After considering the type and degree of environmental effects identified by the environmental review completed for the proposed project described in Part 1 of this request, I have found that the proposal Z; did F] did not require the preparation and dissemination_ of an environmental impact statement. 4. The responsible entity has disseminated and/orpublished in the manner prescribed by 24 CFR 58.43 and 58.55 a notice to the public in accordance with 24 CFR 58.70 and as evidenced by the attached copy (copies) or evidence, of posting and mailing procedure. 5. The dates for all statutory and regulatory time periods for review, comment or other action are in compliance with procedures and requirements of 24 CFR Part 58. 6. In accordance with 24 CFR 58.71(b), the responsible entity will advise the recipient (if different from the responsible entity) of any special environmental conditions that must be adhered to in carrying out the project_ As the duly designated certifying official of the responsible entity, I also certify that 7. 1 am authorized to and do consent to assume the status of Federal official under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and each provision of law designated in the 24 CFR 58.5 list of NEPA-related authorities insofar as the provisions of these laws apply to the HUD responsibilities for environmental review, decision-making and action that have been assumed by the responsible entity. 8. 1 am authorized to and do accept, on behalf of the recipient personally, the jurisdiction of the Federal courts for the enforcement of all these responsibilities, in my capacity as certifying officer of the responsible entity. Signature of Certifying Officer of the Responsible Entity i Title of Certifying Officer � �{.JL� � t L 1r.� t�� ks �� �✓�'Ws e r1 � lid• rr► t n t S-}r��{,� �- Date sinned , mm Address of Ce g cer f City o£ Rent n,f055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Part 3. To be completed when the Recipient is not the Responsible Entity The recipient requests the release of funds for the programs and activities identified in Part 1 and agrees to abide by the special conditions, procedures and requirements of the environmental review and to advise the responsible entity of any proposed change in the scope of the project or any change in environmental conditions in accordance with 24 CFR 58.71(b). Signature of Authorized Officer of the Recipient Title of Authori ed Office X, r Date signed ; , /'l Warning: HU wilt p ecuie' t /aims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or d4owl 3802) 'Zoo ISM (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010,1012; 31 U.S.C. 3728, Previous editions are obsolete form HUD -7015.15 (1199) Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010/Notices 57051 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1932— DR; Docket ID FEMA -2014-00021 Kansas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Kansas (FEMA -1932 --DR), dated August 10, 2010, and related determinations. DATES: Effective Date., September 7, 2010, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that Pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J. Doran 111, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster. This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster. The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentiallv Declared Disaster Assistance— Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator. Federal Emergency Management Agencv. IFR Doc. 2610-23332 Filed 9-16-1 e; 8:45 ami BILLING CODE 9111-23-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -0443-N-01] Notice of intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sunset Area Community, City of Renton, WA AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gives notice to the public, agencies, and Indian tribes that the Citv of Renton, WA, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood revitalization. Pursuant to the authority granted by section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C, 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under section 9 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g), the City of Renton has assumed responsibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321) in accordance with 24 CFA 58.1 and 58,4, and as the lead agency for compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21 Q, will perform the joint environmental review. This notice is in accordance with regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. All interested Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, groups, and the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. If you are an agency with jurisdiction by law over natural or other public resources affected by the project, the Citv of Renton needs to know what environmental information germane to your statutory responsibilities should be included in the EIS. ADDRESSES: Comments relating to the scope of the EIS are requested and will be. accepted by the contact person listed below until October 18, 2010. Any person or agency interested in receiving a notice and wishing to make comment on the Draft EIS should contact the persons listed below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The primary contact is 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), or e-mail: econklingCrentonwo.gov. An alternative contact is Mark Santos -Johnson, Senior Economic Development Specialist, City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development, 425-430-6584 (voice), msantos7ohi7sonCrel7tonwa,gov, available at the same address and fax number listed above, Public Participation: The public will be invited to participate in the review of the Draft EIS, Release of the Draft EIS will be announced through public mailings as well as the local news media, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Project Name and Description The primary proposal is redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community, a Renton Housing Authority property of approximately 100 existing units in 50 - year old, two story structures, located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue on approximately eight acres. The Renton Housing Authority also owns another approximately 3 acres of vacant land along Edmonds Avenue, NE,, Glenwood Avenue, NE., and Sunset Lane, NE., and intends to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunsot Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE. for housing and associated services. Sunset Terrace was developed in approximately 1960 though the rest of the neighborhood largely developed between the 1940s and 1970s. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed-use residential and commercial space and public amenities. It is expected that with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by Renton Housing Authority, that up to 200 additional new affordable housing units and potentially 300 new moderate income to market rate housing units could be created. There would be a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and may include the following: a community gathering space or "Third Place"; a new recreation/ community center; a new library; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and/or green infrastructure. As a result of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the neighborhood will be catalyzed. Supporting both Sunset Terrace and neighborhood redevelopment will be civic investments including: planned or anticipated upgrades to Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) and other local streets, stormwater drainage systems, parks and recreation facilities, 57052 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 180/Friday, September 17, 2010/Notices education facilities, and a new public library. The Sunset Area contains many public amenities and public]- parcels creating significant opportunities for partnership and integration of civil infrastructure improvements. The City of Renton has already undertaken significant effort to prioritize strategies for public investment in the Sunset Area through the 'work of the recently approved Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the neighborhood as a whole and determine what future land use redevelopment is possible and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be. made in order to make this a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses and property owners. The EIS will address the primary proposal of the Sunset Terrace area redevelopment as well as evaluate secondary proposals such as neighborhood redevelopment and supporting services and infrastructure improvements. The City of Renton is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would not require future SEPA threshold determinations or EISs when future projects are consistent with EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. Allernatives to the Proposed Action: The alternatives to be considered by the lead agency will include the proposed action, a no action alternative, and a redevelopment alternative to the proposed action. The redevelopment alternative will be finalized after conclusion of the scoping comment period. It may address alternative land use mixes, infrastructure options, or other features. Probable Environmental Effects The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: aesthetics; air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions; earth; energy; environmental health; environmental justice; historic/ cultural resources; housing; land use; noise; parks and recreation; plants and animals; public services, including public education, safety, health, and social services; socioeconomics, including demographic, employment, and displacement; transportation; utilities, including wastewater, stormwater, water supply, telecommunication, natural gas, power, electrical; and water resources, including groundwater and surface water. Lead Agency This EIS will he a joint National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document intended to satisfy requirements of federal and state environmental statutes. In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise to apply HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. Questions may be directed to the individuals named in this notice under the heading "For Further Information Contact." Dated: August 23, 2010. Mercedes Marquez, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. IFR Doc. 2010-23161 Filed 9-16-10; 6:95 amt BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -5375-N-361 Federal Property Suitable as Facillties To Assist the Homeless AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless, DATES: Effective Date: September 17, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech -impaired (2021 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88 -2503 -OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week, Dated: September 9, 2010, Mark R. Johnston, DeputvAssisfant Secretary for Special Needs. [FR Doi:. 2010-22918 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 421047-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (Docket No. FR -5442-N-011 Notice of Single Family Loan Sale (SFLS 2010) AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for HousiDg—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Notice of sale of mortgage loans. SUMMARY: This notice announces HUD's intention to sell certain unsubsidized single family mortgage loans, without Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance, in a competitive, sealed bid sale (SFLS 2010). This notice also generally describes the bidding process for the sale and certain persons who are ineligible to bid. DATES: The Bidder's Information Package (BIP) was made available to qualified bidders on August 31, 2010. Bids for the loans must be submitted on the bid date, which is currently scheduled for September 22, 2010. HUD anticipates that award(s) will be made on or about September 22, 2010 (Award Date). ADDRESSES: To become a qualified bidder and receive the BIP, prospective bidders must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. Both documents will be available on the HUD Web site at http:// t4Tm,.,hud.gov/offices/hsg/comp/ossoi/ sfamisfls.cfm. Please mail and fax executed documents to HUD's Asset Sales Office: Asset Sales Office, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 3136, Washington, DC 20410, Attention: Single Family Sale Coordinator, Fax: 202-708-2771. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lucey, Deputy Director, Asset Sales Office, Room 3136, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2625, extension 3927. Hearing- or speech - impaired individuals may call 202-708- 4594 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers. PUBLIC NOTICES Edmonds Avenue Ali, Glenwom Scll'Sloruge Lied Sale Avenue Ne. and Sunset Lane NE lember lsl ] 1:30ant and inceids to lid rchasc addiIiau:a de mill be held a1 pi Opertyadjaccnl to Su n>cl Highland Self Storage Terrace along HaniriFwn Avenuc 3408 NF 41h St. NE for housing and as,ociated Renton,WA 9805+6 ulAicc,. Conceptual plans Published in the Remnn Reporter propose reoevelopmenl nf' Sunset on Aupusi 13. 2010, August Terrace and adj:uent rroperties 20. 2010. and August 27. 2010. with mixed -income, mixed - #393482. use residential and commercial __ space and public amenities It is SELF STORAGE LIEN SALE expected that, with the Sunset September lst at 1:00 PNI Terrace property and associated Sale will he held a Storage One prapertie, owned Or purchased On 4th Located at 4725 NF 41h by Renton Housing Authority. up St. Suite C Renton. Wn to 200 addict nal new aflardable 425-228-1213 housing units and potentially Tiflmon Auction Services 300 new moderate income to Published in the Renton Rcportet market rate housing units could On August 13. 2010. August. 20. 2010. August '27. 2010. 0394075. Superior Ceurt Of Washington County Of King In to The EsTalc of: Constantine J. QUARTAROLO Deceased. NO. 10-4-04564 1 KN -I NOTICE TO CREDITORS The Personal Representative named below, has been appointed as Pcr,oual Representative of This Estate. Any person having a dotal against The decedent must, before the time the claim would he barred by am' Otherwise applicable statute of limitations. present the claim in the manner as provided Ili RCW 11.40.470 by serving on or mailing to the Personal Representative or the Personal Represent, five's attorneys at the address stated below a copy of the claim and filing the Original of the claim with the Court in which I abate proceedings were iced. claim must be presented within the later Of: I I ) Thirty days after the Personal Represcrrtalivc sexed or mailed the Notice tO the creditor as provided under RCW 11.400200 )(cy or (2) four months after the dale of first publication of the Notice. 11 the claim is not presented within Ibis time frame- the claim is forever barred. except -as Otherwise provided in RCW 11.40.051 and 11 40.060 This bar is efi'ecOve as to claims against hath the dncndent's probate assets and nonprobate assets. Date Of First Publication: August 13, 2011), PR: Concent Quarlarolo Peter W. Mogren WSBA pl 1 515 Of MOGREN. GLESSNER k ROT] P.S. Attorneys for Personal Representative 100 Evergreen Rldg-;P O.Bux 90 Rencon, WA 98057-W90 (425) 255-4542 King County Superior Court Cause No. 10-4-04564-1 Published in The Renton Reporter an August 13. 2010. August 20. 2010 and August 27. 2010.094069. Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scope File Number: LU10.052, ECF Description of the Proposal Proposed Sunset Terrace •elopment. The project redevelopment of `unset Terrace public housing community, a Renton Housing Awhorily property of approximately 100 existing units in 50 -year old. Iwo Story structures. located at The intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Hrimcgron Avenue NE an approximately eight acres. The Renton Housing Aulhorav also owns another approximately Three acres of vacant land along he created. There would be a 1 -kr -1 unit replacement ibr all 100 existing public housing units. Public arltctltties would be integrated with The residential development and may include the hal lowing: a community gathering space or "Third Piave a new recreadorllcammunni: center; a new public Iihrary;a new park/ open space: retail shopping and commercial space: and/or green infrastructure. Adjacent Area. As a result of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the neighhorhoad will he catalyzed, Supporting both Surrxet Terrace and neighborhood redevclopmcnl will becivic inye•unentsmcluding planned or anticipated upgrades w Sunset Boulevard (SR 91x11 and other local streets, stnrmwaler drainage ,ystenns, parks and recreation 1,161ities, education facilities, and a new public library. Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the nciphborhnod as a whole ani-"- determine what future land use rccinciopmcnt is possible and what public Service and infrastructure improvements should be made in order if, make This a more vibrant and ml riclive cnmmunity for residents. businesses and property owners. The EIS will address Sunset Terrace arca redevelopment as well as ncighinxhood redevelopment and supporting ervice, and infrastructure improvemerim SEPA Planned Action. The City is also proposing m adopt a Planned Action Ordinance for the neighborhood including Sunset Terrace. A Planned .Action Ordinance. it adopted pursuant to WAC 197.11-164 to 172. would indicate that the completed EIS adequately addresses significant impacts of the proposed action, and that Future projects consistent with the analyzed projects and parameters of the Planned Action Ordinance would not require future SEPA Threshold determinations or E•ISLs Therefore, comment during this Scoping period is encouraged. Proponent Renton Housing Authority. Sunset Terrace area redevelopment, and City of Renton, private neighborhood redevelopment and public service and infrastructure improvements. Location of proposal Sunset Terrace is generally bounded by Sunset lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the nonh. NE 10th Street on the cast. NE Sunset Boulevard on the south. and Edmonds Avenue NF on the west The pmrmsed planned action neighhancm)d study area is generall} bounded by NE 2151 Strect on the north. Monroe Avenue Ne nn the ensu. NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. Lead agency for SEPA and 2010-0163 R 2010.0164 METROPOLITAN K]NG COUNTY COUNCiL NOTICE. OF HEARING Proposed Ordinances 20141.1163 x 200.0164 NOTICE IS IIF•RERYGIVF,N that The Melropolilan KingCuunty Council 1Councl I1 v' ill hold ipuhtichearing in the Council Chamber, an The 10th FloCu of the King County Canr111nnSe. 516'Illird A�cnuc. $conte. WA. un Monday. Septenrher 20. 21110. beginning at I I:1X1 a.m- The purpose ul this public Irearng is to consider adoPuon of Proposed OI'LilraneeS 0110 1 2010-0163 and 2010-0164. Ihereinafler "subject legislation" 1 adaplitg anrendtlenls 10 The King C(19111 .% Management counprehcnsiye Plan (KCCP). Public Hearing: King Counly encourages public comment ar the Seplember 20 public hearing. Te,thnony i, limited to nen nnnutes per speakerif you wish In submit wrinen materials for the Counclmernbccs' rcyicw. picasc provide 15 copies to the Council Clerk. l'he chambefsareecluipped with au audinlvisual system capable of di,plering 35mm slides:. VHS tape., overheads transparencies are not nece"ary1, and computer displays. Audio/Visual presentations are included in The 2-minule Timeframe. 'testimony sign-up will begin al 10:30 aan. on September 20 in The lobby outside the Council Chambers. Please call The Council office at (206) 296-1000 if you need directions to the Courthouse. If y'nu prefer sO roll, »•rile. fax ur e-mail your comments to Councilmemhers, please call the Council office for addresses and/or numbers - Summary: Proposed amendments to the KCCP were Iransmtlted by the King County executive an March 1, 2010 and reviewed by the Connril's Environment and Transportation Committee (ETC). That Committee held six meetings focused Specifically On the KCCP legislation. including a Special evening mecring in Council Chambers to hear first-hand about potential impacts of the legislation. An crcning work session was also held on Vahan Island. Public tcslimonv was taken at four meetings. as well as, vitt fax, mail. e-mail and the Web. The ETC completed its review on July 27, 2010 and reported out the subject )egislnlfon In The full Council, without recommendation, Proposed Ordinance 2010-1163 includes: technical changes to the KCCP; an updated Transporta(iou Needs Report; and an areas zoning study supporting land use and zoning changes to 73 acres near the City of Issaquah. Proposed Ordinance 2010-0164 makes several changes to the King Ccunry Code. most of which are technical in nature. For more information: For background information on The 2010 KCCP amendments, please visil the Council's 2010 KCCP website ut linp:llwww, kingcuunty.goeluuurscillissues/cunrprehensive�planaspx The complete text Of the suhject legislation is available in the Council Clerk's ufSice, Roam NV -1039, King County CollrlhouSc, 516 Third .Avenue. Seattle W.A. A copy will be mailed to you upon your request to the Clerk at (2156) 296-1020. Complete public review copies are alst> available on the Internet at www.kingcnumt govlcouncillderk Final Consideration: It addition to the rropnsed amendments conlaiued in the subject legi.lmion, CrnmciLnemhen may offer additional amendments for cnncideralion by the CounriI Asa result. persons interested in any of the issues raised in the subject leg ixlaticn ghoul- make their views known ur the public hearing on September 20, 201 f1. AnnendmenlS Ihar may he considered for adoption by the Council on September 20, 2016 or Ihereatler include. but arc not necessarily limited lo', • any amendment contained in the Executive's proposed versions of The subject legislation: • any amendment to the subject legislation recommended by the ETC Chair in his amendments; • any amendment otfcrud or discussed during the ETC's review of the subject legislation; and • any other proposed amendment that is within the scope of the public comments submitted to the Executive. the ETC, or the Council. Dated al Seattle. Washington, this 13111 day of August, 2010. METROPOLITAN KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON Anne Noris. Clerk of The Council Published in the Covington/Maple Valley, Kent- Redmond and Renton Reporters on August 13. 2010 *1393331 NEPA Compliance Citv of Renton HIS Required The lead agency has determined this proposal may have a significant adverse Import on the environment - An environmental impact slatemerl (EIS) is required and will be prepared under The State Environmental Policy Act and implementing regulation, (RCW 43.21 C 030 (2)1 c), WAC 197-1 1) and the National Environmental Policy Act and US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) implementing regulation, (42 USC 4321, 24 CFR 58). Marerial5 indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed ut the City's website or HI Ci(y Offices; see Ccrn(nct Person below 'I his HIS will be a joint SEPA/ NEPA document.. intended to satisfy requirements of both slate and fedeml env it onmental statute,, Through Federal legislative authorization. the City of Renton has assumed responsibility for compliance with NEPA (40 CFR 1508.12] and the related Federal law, and authorities that would otherwise apply to the HUD. Pursuant ur SEPA. the City of Renton is the lead agency 1'or the proposed action, This combined SEPAINEPA EIS scoping notice is being published to achieve efficient documentation and coordination of notices and pertinent meetings. A NEPA Notice Of intent to Prepare ar EiS will also be published in the Federal Register. Alternatives: The alternatives to be considered by the lead agency will include the proposed action, a no action alternative. and a redevelopment alternative In the propuned action. The redevelopment alternative will be finalized after the scoping meeting and conclusion of The comment period. It may address alternative land use mixes. infrastructure options. or other feanrres. EIS Issues: The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the Ef S: aesthetics: air quality. including greenhouse gas emissions; earth: energy� emironmentai heallh� environmental justice; historic! Continued on Page 16 20119-0609 METROPOLITAN KING (:O1'NTY COUNCIL NOTICE OF HEARING Proposed Ordinance 2009.0609 NOTICE 1%, HE GIVEN That Thu Niel ropnlitxn King County ouncil (Council) will hold a public hearing in The 0 116/ Chambers' zn the l0dt Fluor Of the King County Courthouse. 516 Third Avenue. l 3canle, \VA. on Monday, September 20. 2010. beginning ;n I 1 :00a m. rhe purpose of this public hearing is to consider adoption of Proposed Drdnnanre W01 2009-0609. Ihereinaflcr -subject legi,lanon 1 adnplive:uneudmenl%Io The King Counts Shoreline, Master Program SMI'). Public Hearing: King County encourages public comment in ; the September 20 public healing. Testimony is limited to nen minutes per speaker. If you wish To Submit written materials for the Councilmemberq' renew. please provide IS copies to the Council Clerk, The chambersareequipped with anaudio/visual system capable of displaving 15mm slides, VHS tapes, oserhetrds (trinaparcncics arc not necessary), and computer displa}'s. Audiolvisual preaentatietlq are included in the 2 -minute timeframe. Testimouv sign-up will begin at 10, 30 a.m. on September 20 in the lobby outside the Council Chambers. Please call the Council office at (206) 296-1000 if you need directions to the Courthouse- If you prefer Io call. write. fax or e-mail your comments to Councilmembers, please call the Council office for addresses and/or numbers. Summary: Proposed amendments to the SMP were it ansnulled by the King Counly Executive on November 5, 2009 and reviewed by the Council's Emironmenl and 'I Committee (ETC). The Committee held seven meetings focused specifically on the SMP legislation, including a special evening meeting in Council Chambers to hear first-hand about potential impacts of the legislation. Antivenin, work session was also held on Vashon Island, Public Testimony was taken at four meetings. as well as, sic Ltx, mail, a-mniI and the Weh- The ETC completed its review on July 27, 2010 and reported out To the full Council PO 2009-0609. without recommendation. Pruposel SMP policy mnendmenis are contained in Auachnreut A to PO 2(M- 0609, and would be added as the County's shoreline mamtgenleuT' policies in a new chapter 5 10 the King Counly Comprehensive Plan.' Cade revisions Ili implement there policies are set forth in Proposed Ordinance 2009-0609. For more information: For background information on the 24)10 SMP amendments, please visit the Council's 2010 SMP website al hupl/www-kingcuunty.gnylcouncillissueslcump ehe nive_plan.aspx The complete text of the subject legislation is available in the Council Clerk's Office, Rourn W-1039, King County Cuurthuusc, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA. A copy "ill be mailed to you upon your request To the Clerk a1 (2061 296-1020. Complete public review copies are abo available on the hnernel at www.kingcounq'.gov7counciUclerk- Final Consideration: In addition m The proposed amendments contained to the subject legislation, Councilmenlhers tray offer additional amendments for consideration by the Council- Asa result, pens interested in any of the issues raised in The suhjecl legislation should slake their views known at the puhtic hearing on September 20. 2010. Amendments that may he considered for adoption by the Council an September 20, 21110 or thereafter include. but are not necacsarily limited In: • any amendment contained in the Executive'& proposed WasiOnS of the subject legislation; any amendnlcm to the subject legislation recommended by the ETC Chair in his striking amendment. • am' amendment offered or discussed during the FTC's review of The subject legislation; and any other proposed amendment Thal is within the scope of the puhtic comments submitted to the Executive. the ETC. or the Council. [Sated at Seattle, Washington, this 131h day of August. 2010. METROPOLITAN KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Published in the Covington/Maple Valley. Kent. Redmond and Renton Rcponers oa August 13, 2010.0393326. cultural resources.: housing. ]rind use', noise: parks and recrearinn', plants and animals: public services, including public education, safety. health, and social services: socioeconomics. including demographic. employment. and displacement, transportation: utilities, including wastewater, slormwater, water supply. telecommunication, natural gas. power. electrical: and water resources, including groundwater. and surface water. Scoping Agencies, affected trihes, and members Of the public are invited to comment On the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives. mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts. and licenses or other approval, that may be required - Submit written comment, uu Or befure 5 p.m. September 13, 2010. Send written cotnnnenls to the Contact Person listed bclow, A scoping meeting will be held on September 1, 21110 at 6:00 p.m. at the Highlands Neighborlmod Center. 800 Edmonds Ave NE, Renlon. WA 98056. Writtcn and oral comments will he taken this meeting. Responsible Official City c Renton Environmental Revie, Committee (FRC) Contact Person For mor iniorrration, please visit Ili project website al: sun,,etare; rentonwa.go,'. or contact: Erika Conkling. AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Departure: of Community and Ecurmmi Development 1055 S. Grady Way Rcmon, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice(425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentnnwa.gov Appeal You may appeal Ill determination of significant Pursuant to SEPA to the Rentc Hearing Examiner by 5:00 p.n on August 27. 2010 pur aaw i RMC 4-8-11O.E. You should I prepared to make specific faclu, objections. Contact the "Conta Person" above to read car as about the procedures for SEP appeal. Published in the Renton Repos nn August 13. 2010. 094134- CD G Sf4 ^ l2S H m r 1 a ° wtl aa° tiCD cr o ac ra as UQ a c� o n Ute° 0 ° F � � 0 < : x �r."sproOP• m cL :'. �, 7 � �' � � �. `.� `n° ,n7 G o • E �- ��,( � Wim.. H ys C Sip O Fes+• G m G G `� CD CO3 VL cr CD O E� i cr. UG rL ITI -i4''T,,''y� <r� dna= +� = �'. Q- vwi c�i� �Q•�, � +T�v R• s °, `;yip_.. 1 . j a•o -I -� -ati y rn 5'13 F ^, x; n tin �. r!�q r g 4 g "y�' r��E } ' Fr cn 5 _ c g s � G c � � H 8 c. %�°` �. �.•�� � �•i v� g'� `i - `�- a � 3 d. ro � ro � R erne� ��3, �� � m .n � �'. -' �, n � � ,ra .$rc5"@�•w`:,'lno5.n•y Fri L1vF# $Y, P -M X� =.ry oS �• i+' n' `' X ,• n i o(-` rrc "- 3 r;le m Q• .• n _. ay¢� � v r'3 Q b-. c• -a`=a X:'�:' ci o rs �.5 r^ `n . Va k. �.� � Fp� � v �+ ��. U� r' e,5' — o 2. E h rio f's 'b t'° Y'� �w•� ��'� ��� � r3 -- rr. � R ��n 4 n W �_ ��r� o h -��. �"^v c n � = �o �"� K � y�y�g £r. g _; ra r5 � � o. - `� � � c .�^' c: d �, � {' r � �' a �. ;a �` W P fi � � .•i'N •Q t3{j .ry- � '$ n � � i5 '"'3 Y � r�• � � �' �' �' �' � �+ �^ n � a. � v � �. v' ri 5 5 � c �. � c' ryr Q� �E � •� � M `�� � �.� QA �i 5�^� rn F�6' ` a'•Fw `e nd w `k �° �. miSiS•e E � 3 0 o a. S -A 7755 � s e Y c c _ � �^° � ii cG• y�. s a. o i� � �r � � rn ry ro m sfi 5 27 � E� � fj z rr�u��o_ro�oy_a �.p;a r2'2•?�.'or$+-.- msgli�r �"�!-"'� ��r�$ sC'nti p�P -25� ky 3. ao •�2.2 n G ?'e ii. -c c' �.sr• �' S- " a y. w. fs.Ia. R'Mn S _ Q R C `�_ c .� : •.' �i ���TdY� %�r'o�°�^ ��7�_� 4 a''.+-..}g"•c.�r.' y SY � 7�_,�r�% � -� ����a � Fy o Q o�S�Q�c7rucnt4'��g"333_&.E°�Q°_��"mR_ c: MTri.ti ' "'�,r,aY "�' g K• KAT. �`.<a 'rye ria cLa�° i£ r^`r y �n D S' LiL 8 n•.�� w iiia• : E'-��'� `� ?'.n`c ' Y:� �r,fle. S r�r�,��r,o�_� w£^ o •ZR7 k2�` is a=�yri5n.n•n7ss.�h� �v~°p� R F- . n., 1 J 5'i o a 3 -F y F- 7. - _ p B d 9 a m n _ as �• _ Ci " *w v �••c - a S r a a -p 7f __ a ro c S. 8 r 3�� i X n R �. ? �� R$ � o R 'ri �. a 'p rok - F w 8 a� ° z o a R o 5• n ry sv n r`S Y R y �''' E3, yx� 3> h 5. rQ ,G•, id v v a Ca;r'�gF }� ,Z �• pl� E. r c Qsj trF na 3• {' NE S :3 n,� �. r £ ee Y R X B " ,-ct S S R- c ` v V. r v SAF . -6- - ? ' 2 -• - w5' F,r�5 w' �r- o r+e YYTy a �p �'. �' .�^C•fO -c�� :�.4 R.a 5_ y� R - S.� S� � � �^ i � � � � .Q.� iy Y. r� � r�. � nv �s � �� � G,} � �•'c^� c' � a Y � .W., R. � � rR � r� � cam, �- � Y"'. � 9, Jct�v�oKE 'e; 37�E°5 f ] r F.k r'3 �° n• i5 �—' =r L, i` gr Q- r 5 r �p i �64 �� A _ k Ys� -r5 c��� `r�.,•c.�s �;� � ��d Y � � •? � v � g ie � n" � ^' � e,! F ^, E' a- iT� � i.�' a c i"' n � P. ,e' I� � � 76 � � a .g. � � rrw � �, y �• -n' �: 23. kq of NOTIC OF EKVI RONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DMRMINATIOH MIGNIMANCE JO$5 PoetW to RoUft RIt mMad Pm cf an ERrlf mental Adloh MGACr NAME: 1�Ara FWMW Ads3Flb P1tp1ER pftm ri EuuI = ILtO AMICI FM30AANp RDA: OETaf AMIM RUP9P®z OPTICAL ERalrarNrrnri Re.ls Carwmlltaa RRA iGEAnOM: Ir,rMr Ylxray YO�w`dYYS.erl uax NF waavuM,mtawrue RlrW W141R IDr' fafran b rrl.leFAeatea.Y+wd m tln .ar171 t•d [Aw�rA.ww NFm as awn Trp.pw pWiad.efan W0bW%dedW*—% aanerrrbm"W Yeff2ef wIba w0. rrvw AaMytl NF an thI art NFYifak mMearlh Olau--& ""- --- NL OE300P7m7N: Frgal lhRNrsrrmt ea4.YaPw•E 711 P.IIU YRitdei eel..eNMw.a Ftwsr T— Mint YNireaRRRraar• F ermm NerM/AurJrtrqMmrtidrnrlr.nur.h 7m.ar4q wAr M fa�Mlrou, raa..rrraemr.a Imrt�ran YAxr�lm r wm larwrt IMNarAMrn Awnm e!n gprafmrelFieiAAaL TA. RaMr NeNr„Arh.rlM aYvawmalrear wrlrtah arMe rrr N noMrM a.atrnwrb ArmualfLGrwmawua R!, W Smr IaxN[ w brNtfr r P.da.e .d1PaMl}eeeMry e�aew t.i�MlTmrfC NaryNenare.. Aierr MEixY.rei�a wwmNd mrbu.6.xgOrr aAePvra �whPrA r..ra.r Tanar�d µoN PaaruR NRAafA6YeYEL fnirdaM mtlwAr w m.a�weN w aid palc..WM.. RP mpAW tltR,'MM Yre iwlx Favre piparrr rd raRWM FeaEMr1 arIPA x 00�eead k a.amn NmINANWrwILa7 b��dFbradrw�Ori W Satyai w F�eYe13Gd n.v radars Iletnl r1r+N nfi I+.AiwAaoru46eoarl. FYfr. rrwM Pr � 1R3 WA rapaePMne rwU Eta.AAeY WYNehaaAr.. _ti fWY MMralYr rrA1 W Waraad wAaw ndaxml s.daM.warrd aNr Ilm�e.e. faeaabe . rmarrrbpd�atsr.r rhNr4 ab'ra rw Mn.MIRJaan.rAlr riar.. aan prlAelyarya wwpaNla.• rpre r.aY AWrtewM mirnNeMaP.n -,AWr M MRIlaaams. A4a 0 r A71—karlmdfmltrrar pb rY7l.NpPtMlm klr arptrww.aaasrmurrt 3�pwtYe rU Lxrrel irnm a.a rrjtrxYa.d rada.abarnaat nR k wk IerebnerV rdler'rti••rrA wanN4alral rrpaduta 3rYaf leehrre e4r aml w edwrdwarr,nrr`atareWula aMwr, INk rM r.cmYHrr baRlaL rYrAbni.dlRaL w a rNwpaWc 16wµ aw.rlwr.r'.r.darakPRMR MmMe FIN appwe.rF barNxktlN tRddorh.Od • a rwWt f N eeRrrAtrl eMat Ialwa IUM ar rMwakP kpm -O 9 PWafI.rrriwadnwatlA. a.M.MtMnYiwlOr Rrdab .loth rwA. ehY.Mw.+lrrnl rndalPMMa.Yq W W brMY4•{i. Y�MMIMIItM9raPMq auwa Tr F6 M1 dFwsr.r Trrar wr raianlr4rarA:rNl r aNp Whmd r.drrrM�l.ndw vv" wow fad aJrrurbmrlp—t., FaPA M—W ANhM Ifia 4TYba14 NgadilPMafOM f MPMe Aawir�0elbrr+FrM aaWwbgYR71da13anrl Trrax-A Mrd Atlrr drttvagRadopYd MwW bWILlPI 7YlrM Y 3Tl,wwh bdmaehr FIMa.maMld RladMwaArtlArts NIrRcMM1 YMYttV M pe MaPOrad.nMM aoa brhaw Ma7am � aen er arrhd Pa}ttr aea �wyt7 d er PYtwdAdba 04.m awN.r nmya AAx.EFaa>taarirNE ielwminaaMwElk. ib.0 a. 4n'alre Ja•fla anlawdEl P4ladYrmuyai ACMR 00tS WVt- A MNIPKW 3V"M MPACr ON T4E ENYIAONMENT- Fg REONeEO:Th. Wd a3Nq Mr d.r+aara eAwRoprr rrrr..t yperr .er.. rPa an the a.Wx�+.k .nbrMa.r.I N,,.M..raar. RnI h r.y�A,.d.d+alwE r•T.e urM. ar 1err MM1.s+MN foty ANrnd wrp..ar.ar.aYeoa Pd++�F� 17Mq. WACFr7-lu .na drwraaaM hMra.n.AN*Plm Aa Na ltSPwarharrl a N.rtrw U'EM p" YnP4^Mft No�I43 LIW @L it ImFli. WWIW Mm"TYtk m.y.//yrd YrtprC+cwt mYwd rt11w CRIT *.bA.va! q'/.IFa4S W WNalrmnlr[M� ITh Fu riRie a MNSNAIFriAdwmanl.rlvdld b mmh r.grtnTrw dbalY NN. aMtedwN.n.trtr+ral s1Yiu [arv.•prtisrrae IreYNlh{.1a.NIi1aOL11r OarNa r.nL. mwaad..ra..a`Rrr/r r�yN m IRht Pave 31eAW w Ih. nln.a hArrr.r mt.rn.nile.tAN ar•Aiwr.wY. neNbtlw IIU0. hWNRM Sff1ir nr � wwtx w ew Weal.rarfw Iwa p�eperNarwTlfiamAr.d IoMIHAEa w.ryrm Y FNYtsbelMte faN.w NFµradmiRaamMeMaaonrlbnal./Yr aM fWfaMAerrrlaµ ANVANaarNR7lM1Imk6.n p�ael eYv b. P.NFM RVNF.�'aIP�M, dNmrruOQ lrldrrarr k r arrPWxd Yr lr YW y1RjrEbeile tr aaaPrd rtanl+r rUr Nr+arwr,, eid . r.PnrR^rKwrrYlrw Irarar+.dm n. r.knkprr^wrww.rrn.m.d.n.lY..wWr.�m1Ya M aontl�rm.(W mmwrt oaf nlrradMs rlan.aM hod w sw. YdrMr.rtw.MYrU, xatlrrhRbrr. THE IEAD AGEKV NAS OffiMP10 THE FOWYAMC AIrW TOA 01SCLWOR N THEM: .YCttllUf�MR1'.A�.�r7iY.E6r°WaYAarili wNAlaM�rxMmroenM r�ll:.reANrINM{NANPI IallorkJOdaR.lrrelvraak Wda:1d aIe naee:IMf rNm�mtra:Plrr w rwwN:EMR.rrlm,Yabrsaaee� ed.mMry NNat1. wen Ni lartd..n�.c rOrrmrmks Yllr�Id.nNxfaM4 raptORnrL w dYaeam.V W nowtlllRC 141M11 AMlddrl rrlerh,NM'rKlLrrrrWflrY�t�fayy„naliarilx. PO+x�Jrhb.L.rn wltr rrranOy3y�t6-4— rrM rrarwrr. 7RPPe�tA1lIICRA A1RQt01s1aeA AlOIBIFp1 aTRE PYPUE lee(NNI7m W mMrAElfrikl lNelM11 Of TML M r MATSOaIarNr OR 1L1111NTMO.NFIAamImllafClM6 MmaArlalaNAlE1RF AfVR>i FIMF��ANO L=$ ftM RIAeMOO15 WNIATfE1POWE -V"COMWfMIF WY WNIIMR IRWRmNeAWR3W NVTHE mrrtAEY ralsoR aao ec sA.�ma A,mAI,�Rrmar Mer rbmfge.e�r 1, EP71 r IraPaa.d+J. RMrdt AelAerYaea rrx, IW EbrmAn Nr, MMOL WA !D!1 wN1Er�rad Ma mmrM.nrllM rbf daW wRNt4 �rtrA[rfRORl Por nIOrI Mww�MYR 147IIMY tlr InI10• wItAI.IC Wnprana.aarnOOlw,m rn1M: Dela faiFry.ART 7enlerYVrw O{ralAetri wa•t.Rt.rmr.MnArma rANteee awtalnaN asdxwway nANaNwp F1asr rillN3baSri.Nw [�MFo77w fr It�INl�tdeen� la .p1W Wk 1.txndaa Ray 7- mpt Sk lwr aPPar d—N reb th. h -Us ar IW by k6" 17• 1010. 3. C" COM Wor 44410A eCW 42LCAR Irr1ww117-2t-YP W Wrgtw falak Stara.IrU bt ardy aTr appaN ere P11wraYarlan fslptmu WA Man IMMa1 Md—* b—Mad yax.PPRd r.T M Ja^ad wleA FW PSN IiPa.l lar EeSK x away M aaraer.d Ntlr atlltr yPaN Iw rMrdy Wen hrrd 11w lararda W yrpMadbar�ta �aiaarr alladfarrw [meat tM Waw.flSq b faad aTi cern the PoardlRe M ICl4 ePOmiL f CERTIFICATION 411- 4' � I, '` —I - hereby certify that �`1 copies of the above were posted in [ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: r, j `1 tiro Signed:: J,, J STATE OF WA5HINGTON ) J ) SS COUNTY OF KING j I.certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that alYA 141 L• Dz. Ll :-LAL signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 'x � " t. 4 � CA Notary Public in And for the State of Washington Notary (Print): P. Ili, Z-r-c,4gv� My appointment expires: �,- .;?� a 3 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 241 /Thursday, December 16, 2010/Notices 78729 Government procurement is the Uliited Slates. HOLDING; The chassis, plastic body parts and plastic pieces of trim imported from China are substantially transformed when they are assembled in the United States with domestic components. As a result, the country of origin of Fairplay's Hoss line of industrial and commercial electric vehicles, specifically the Hass LD, Hass XD, and Hass Quad, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is the United States. The country of origin of Fairplay's Eve line of low speed electric vehicles, specifically the Eve Deluxe 2P, Eve Deluxe XR 2P, Eve Deluxe LTD 2P, Eve Deluxe 4P, Eve Eco 2P, and the Eve Eco XR 2P, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement is the United States. Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 C.F.R. § 177.29. Any party -at -interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination_ Pursuant to 19 C,F,R, § 177,30, any party -al -interest may, within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register Notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade. Sincerely, Harold Singer Acting Executive Director Regulations and Rulings Office of International Trade [FR Doc:. 201n-11619 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14—P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR --5443—N-02] Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, City of Renton, WA AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: [Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gives this notice to the public, agencies and Indian Tribes on the availability for public review and comment of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community in Renton, WA. HUD gives this notice on behalf of the City of Renton acting as the Responsible Entity for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to the authority granted by section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under section 9 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g), the City of Renton has assumed responsibility for compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) in accordance with 24 CFR 58.1 and 58.4, and is the lead agency for compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C). The Draft EIS is a joint NEPA and SEPA document intended to satisfy requirements of Federal and State environmental statutes. This notice is given in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500--1508. Notice is also given that the City of Renton as Responsible Entity has decided to combine the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 process with the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). Comments are also being requested on the Section 106 information presented in the Draft EIS as well as o11 the Section 106 process itself. DATES: Written comments on the Draft EIS must be received January 31, 2011, Written comments should be addressed to the individual named below under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Public Hearing: A public hearing will be held for the public to provide verbal or written comment on the Draft EIS as well as on the proposed planned action ordinance. The public hearing will be held on January 5, 2011, at 6 p.m. before The Renton Planning Commission. The meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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), or e-mail: ecc)nkling@rentonwo.gov. Copies of the Draft EIS are available at the above address for reference, and copies may be purchased for the cost of reproduction. The Draft EIS is also available on the Internet and can be viewed or downloaded at: http:H rentonwo.gov/business/ default.aspx?id=2060, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal includes redevelopment of the Renton Housing Authority's (RHA's) Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 buildings that are 50 -year-old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE. Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue, NE. RHA also owns additional vacant land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue, NE., Glenwood Avenue, NE., and Sunset Lane, NE., and intends to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue, NE. (which contains about 8 dwellings); RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. The Sunset Terrace public housing community units, facilities, and infrastructure are antiquated and the project is dilapidated. Conceptual plans 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. All existing public housing units will be replaced either on- site or off-site, at locations within the existing Sunset Terrace site, and the Planned Action Study Area within the City; no net loss of low income housing units would occur. The project will require relocation of all existing residents and RHA is developing a relocation plan. 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 total 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. Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the neighborhood as a whole and determine what future land use redevelopment is possible and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made in order to make this a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses and property owners. The Draft EIS addresses the primary proposal of the Sunset Terrace area redevelopment as well as evaluate secondary proposals such as neighborhood redevelopment and 78730 Federal. Register/Vol. 75, No. 241/Thursday, Decemher 16, 20101 Notices supporting services and infrastructure improvements, The City of Renton is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would not require future SEPA threshold determinations or EISs for future projects that are consistent with EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. The proposal is reviewed in terms of three alternatives. Alternative 1, No Action. RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented (e.g,, some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or drainage 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. The lead agency has addressed the following areas in the Draft EIS: Aesthetics; air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions; earth; energy; environmental health; environmental justice; historic/cultural resources; housing; land use; noise; parks and recreation; plants and animals; public services, including public education, safety, health, and social services; socioeconomics, including demographic, employment, and displacement; transportation; utilities, including wastewater, stormwater, water supply, telecommunication, natural gas, power, electrical; and water resources, including groundwater and surface water. Mitigation measures are identified in the Draft EIS. Questions maybe directed to the individual named above under the heading of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Dated: November 23, 2010. Mercedes M, Marquez, Assistant Secretary for Comm unityPlanning and Development. [FR Doc. 2010-31654 Filed 12-15-10; RAS ainl BILLING CODE 4216-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (Docket No. FR -5450-N-02] Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Notice of FHA PowerSaver Home Energy Retrofit Loan Pilot Program: Extension of Period Soliciting Expressions of Interest AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing -Fedora] Housing Commissioner, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On November 10, 2010, HUD published a notice that announced its proposal to conduct an FHA Home Energy Retrofit Loan Pilot Program (Retrofit Pilot Program or Pilot Program) known as FHA PowerSaver. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 directs HUD to conduct an Energy Efficient Mortgage Innovation pilot program targeted to the single family housing market, and the Retrofit Pilot Program is designed by HUD to meet this statutory directive and provides funding to support that effort. The November 10, 2010, notice solicited public comment and invited lenders interested in participating in the Pilot Program to submit Expressions of Interest. The deadline for both the submission of public comments and expressions of interest from lenders is December 27, 2010. This notice extends the date for submission of Expressions of Interest to January 31, 2011. The public comment deadline, however, remains December 27, 2010. DATES: Due Date. for Expressions of Interest: January 31, 2011. ADDRESSES: As provided in the November 10, 2010, notice, lenders interested in participating in this Pilot Program must email their Expressions of Interest to PHRPower5over@hud.gov in accordance with Appendix A of the November 10, 2010, notice, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia McBarron, Office of Single Family Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-2121 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HUD published a notice in the Federal Register on November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69112) that announced its proposal to conduct an FHA Home Energy Retrofit Loan Pilot Program (Retrofit Pilot Program or Pilot Program) known as FHA PowerSaver. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111- 117, approved December 16, 2009, 123 Stat. 3034) (2010 Appropriations Act), which appropriated Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 funds for HUD, among other agencies, appropriated $50 million for an Energy Innovation Fund to enable HUD to catalyze innovations in the residential energy efficiency sector that have the promise of replicability and help create a standardized home energy efficient retrofit market. Of the $50 million appropriated for the Energy Innovation Fund, the 2010 Appropriations Act stated that "$25,000,000 shall be for the Energy Efficient Mortgage Innovation pilot program directed at the single family housing market." (Sep Pub. L. 111-117, at 123 Stat. 3089.) Under the Retrofit Pilot Program, HUD, through FHA -approved lenders, will insure loans for homeowners who are seeking to make energy improvements to their homes. As provided in the November 10, 2010, notice, HUD intends to select a limited number of lenders to participate in the Retrofit Pilot Program. The Pilot Program will be for loans originated during a 2 -year period, will be restricted to lenders approved by HUD to participate in the Pilot Program, and will be conducted in geographic areas identified by HUD as optimum locations to conduct the Pilot Program, In making these determinations, HUD will consider the factors and criteria proposed in the November 10, 2010, notice to establish the framework for the Pilot Program, and the public comments received in response to HUD's solicitation of comment. In addition to seeking comments on the proposed Pilot Program, HUD invited lenders interested in participating in this Pilot Program to notify HUD of such interest as provided in Appendix A to the November 10, 2010, notice. This notice extends the period in which lenders may submit expressions of interest to January 31, 2010. HUD, however, is not extending the public comment deadline. In order to be in a position to make final determinations Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2010/Notices 80807 Description: Norlhwest Pipeline GP submits tariff filing per 154,203: NWP– RP11-59 Compliance Filing to be effective N/A. Filed Date: 12/10/2010. Accession Number: 20101210-5215. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 22, 2010. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the "eFiling" link at http://wvvw.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at http://1nwlryv.ferc.gov, using the "eLibrary" link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an "e Subscription" link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERC OnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc:. 201(}32201 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 aml BILLING CGDE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings No 2 December 9, 2010. Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: Docket Numbers: RP04-274-024. RP00-157-025, Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company. Description: Provisional Rate Refund of Kern River Gas Transmission Company. Filed Date: 04/2712010. Accession Number: 20100427-5162. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 14, 2010. Docket Numbers: RP10-663-002. Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C. Description: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.203: Baseline Compliance to be effective 1/10/2011. Filed Date: 12/08/2010. Accession Number: 20101208-5164. Comment Date: 5 p,m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 20, 2010. Docket Numbers: RP11-1592-001. Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC. Description: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC submits tariff filing per 154,205(b): Devon—Amendment to filing in RP11-1592-000 to be effective 12/2/2010. Filed Date: 12/09/2010. Accession Number: 20101209-5019. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 21, 2010. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the "eFiling" link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Tbis filing is accessible on line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the "eLibrary" link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an "eSubscription" link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (2021502-8659. Nathaniel 1. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2014-32199 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY JER–FRL-8994-31 Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-1399 or http://www.opo.i;ov/ compliancelnepa/. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed 12/13/2010 through 12/17/2010 pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice In accordance with Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to make its comments an EISs issued by other Federal agencies public, Historically, EPA met this mandate by publishing weekly notices of availability of EPA comments, which includes a brief summary of EPA's comment letters, in the Federal Register. Since February 2008, EPA has included its comment letters on EISs on its Web site at: http://www.apa.gov/cornplialice/ nepo/eisdata.himl. Including the entire EIS comment letters on the Web site satisfies the Section 309(a) requirement to make EPA's comments on EISs available to the public. Accordingly, on March 31, 2010, EPA discontinued the publication of the notice of availability of EPA comments in the Federal Register, EIS No. 20100472, Third Draft Supplement, USAF, FL, Eglin Air Farce Base (AFB) and Hurlburt Field, Proposes to Implement the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), FL, Comment Period Ends: 02/07/2011, Contact: Mike Spaits 850-882-2836. EIS No. 20200473, Drop EIS, USACE, TX, Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project, Proposes to Deepen and Widen the Freeport Harbor Channel and Associated Turning Basins, Brazoria County, TX, Comment Period Ends: 02/07/2011, Contact: Janelle Stokes 409-766-3039. EIS No. 20100474, Draft EIS, BLM, CA, East County Substation/Tule Wind/ Energia Sierra Juarez Gen -Tie Projects, Construction and Operation, Right -o€ - Way Grants, San Diego County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 02/07/2011, Contact: Greg Thomsen, 951-697- 5237, EIS No. 20100475, Fina] EIS, APHIS, oQ, Glyphosate -Tolerant Alfalfa Events J101 and J163: Request for Nonregulated Status, Implementation, United States. Wait Period Ends: 01/24/2011, Contact: Rebecca Stankiewicz Gabel 301-851-2300. 80808 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 2461 Thursday, December 23, 20101 Notices This document is available on the Internet at: htlp:/Iwww.regulations.gov/ #!documeniDetuil,D=APHIS-2007-0044- 12532. EIS No. 20100476, Final EIS, USA, 00, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex (GOMEX), Proposed Action is to Support and Conduct Current and Emerging Training and RDT&E Operations, TX, MS, AL and FL, Wait Period Ends: 01/24/2011, Contact: Gloria Kupstas, 703 -604 -5431 - EIS No. 20100477, Draft EIS, USFS, CA, Kings River Experimental Watershed Forest Health and Research Project, Implementation, Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District, Fresno County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 0210712011, Contact: Judi Tapia, 559-297-0706 Ext. 4938. EIS No. 20100478, Final EIS, FHWA, OR, Sunrise Project, Proposes to Build a New East-West Oriented, Limited - Access Highway between I--205 to Rock Creek Junction, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit, Clackamas County, Oregon, Wait Period Ends: 01/2412011, Contact: Michelle Eraut 503-587-4716. EIS No. 2010047,9, Final EIS, USACE, GA, Fort McPherson Project, Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, in City Limits of Atlanta, Fulton County, GA, Wait Period Ends: 0112412011, Contact: Bob Ross 703-545-2465. EIS No. 20100480, Draft Supplement, USFS, VT, Deerfield Wind Project, Updated Information, Application for a Land Use Authorization to Construct and Operate a Wind Energy Facility, Special Use Authorization Permit, Towns of Searsburg and Readsboro, Manchester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest, Bennington County, VT, Comment Period Ends: 0211812011, Contact: Bob Bayer, 802-362-2307 Ext. 218. Amended Notices EIS No. 20100462, Draft EIS, FWS, CA, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, To Protect and Enhance Ecological Diversity and Function in the Greater Portion of Santa Clara County, Implementation, Santa Clara County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 04/15/ 2011, Contact: John Robles, 916-414- 6731. Revision to FR Notice Published 12117!2010: Correction to Comment Period from 01/31/2011 to 041151 2011. EIS No. 20100463, Draft EIS, HUD, WA, Sunset Area Community Planned Action, Proposal to Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace Public Housing Community and Associated Neighborhood Growth and Revitalization, City of Renton, WA, Comment Period Ends: 0113112011, Contact: Erika Cankling, 425--430- 6578. Revision to FR Notice Published 12/17/2010: Correction to Contact Phone [Number. Dated: December 20, 2010. Robert W, Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of federal Activities. TR Doc. 201 0-32 34 9 Filed 12 -22 -RU 8:45 amt BILLING CODE 6560-56-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9242-51 Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(8) of the Clean Air Act, as amended ("CAA" or the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Coalition for a Safe Environment (collectively "Plaintiffs") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California: Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. Jackson, No. CV -10 -6029 - MMM -AGR (C.D. CA.). On August 12, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under section 110(k)(2) of the CAA, 42 U. &C. 741D(k)(2) t0 take final action to approve or disapprove (1) the State Strategy for the 2007 State Implementation Plan ("2007 State SIP"), submitted to EPA on November 16, 2007, and (2) the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("2007 South Coast SIP"), submitted to EPA on November 28, 2007. The proposed consent decree establishes a deadline for EPA to take action. DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by January 24, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA- HQ-OGC-2010-1060, online at htip:/1 uq,vx,.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to oei.docket@epa. gov; by mail to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, MuiIcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460- 0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Tierney, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-5598; fax number (202) 564-5603; e -mall address:tierney.jun@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking to compel the Administrator to take final action under section 110(k) of the CAA to approve or disapprove (1) the State Strategy for the 2007 State Implementation Plan ("2007 State SIP"). submitted to EPA on November 16, 2007, and (2) the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("2007 South Coast SIP"), submitted to EPA on November 28, 2007. Specifically, the consent decree addresses only those elements of the 2007 State SIP and 2007 South Coast SIP that were submitted by the State of California in response to EPA's designations of "nonattainment" for the South Coast Air Basin with respect to the 1997 NAAQS for ozone and PM2,5. The proposed consent decree requires that no later than September 30, 2011, EPA shall sign for publication in the. Federal Register a notice of the Agency's final action on the portions of the 2007 State SIP and 2007 South Coast SIP that relate to EPA's "nonattainment" designation of the South Coast Air Basin with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and thereafter send the notice to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication. The proposed consent decree also requires that no later than December 15, 2011, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of the Agency's final action on the portions of the 2007 State SIP and 2007 South Coast SIP that relate to the nonattainment designation of the South Coast Air Basin with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and thereafter send the notice 10 the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication. After EPA fulfills its obligations under the decree, the parties shall file a joint request to the Court to dismiss this matter with prejudice. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ri rctn i , NOTICE OF ISSUANCE AND AVAILABILTY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) Sunset Area Community Planned Action, City of Renton, WA Notice is hereby given that the City of Renton has issued Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (SEPA/NEPA). Description of the Proposal Proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment. The proposal includes redevelopment of the Renton Housing Authority's (RNA's) Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 buildings that are 50 -year-old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA also owns additional vacant land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and intends to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about 8 dwellings); RHA proposes to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. The Sunset Terrace public housing community units, facilities, and infrastructure are antiquated and the project is dilapidated. Conceptual plans 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. All existing public housing units will be replaced either on-site or off-site, at locations within the existing Sunset Terrace site, and the Planned Action Study Area within the City; no net loss of low income housing units would occur. The project will require relocation of all existing residents and RHA is developing a relocation plan. 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 total 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. Adjacent Area. Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the neighborhood as a whole and determine what future land use redevelopment is possible and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made in order to make this a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses and property owners. The Draft EIS addresses the primary proposal of the Sunset Terrace area redevelopment as well as evaluates secondary proposals such as neighborhood redevelopment and supporting services and infrastructure improvements. SEPA Planned Action. The City of Renton is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would not require future SEPA threshold determinations or ElSs for future projects that are consistent with EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. Alternatives. The proposal is reviewed in terms of three alternatives. Alternative 1, No Action. RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented, 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. Proponent Renton Housing Authority, Sunset Terrace area redevelopment, and City of Renton, private neighborhood redevelopment and public service and infrastructure improvements. Location of proposal Sunset Terrace is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The planned action neighborhood study area is generally bounded by NE 21" Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE, Lead agency for SEPA and NEPA Compliance The City of Renton is acting as the Responsible Entity for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with 24 CFR §§ 58.1 and 58.4, and is the lead agency for compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C). Public Review and Comments Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the Draft EIS, A 45 -day comment period is established for the Draft EIS concluding 5:00 p.m., January 31, 2011. Written comments should be directed to the contact person below. Contact Person: To submit written comments, or for more information, please contact: 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 econkling2rentonwa.gov Hearing: A public hearing will be held for the public to provide verbal or written comment on the Draft EIS as well as on the proposed planned action ordinance. The public hearing will be held on January 5, 2011, at 6 p.m. before the Renton Planning Commission. The meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Availability of Document: Copies of the Draft EIS are available at the above address, the Downtown Renton Public Library, and the Renton Highlands Public Library for reference, and copies may be purchased for the cost of reproduction. The Draft EIS is also available on the internet and can be viewed or downloaded at: htt rentonwa. ov business default.as x?id=2060 Responsible Official City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Publication Cate: December 17, 2010 Account No. 51067 r)�'� 2 �� .. £ 3 U L CL 25 .. 4a .K P y 'y Y C r�ooa3 risen$�s q���g€8 a" W'� E*�r. � Gp9 _�` .�, �a�o .Spy �`oa �...�ae �,� �o��pG Ef+^ ..a,,.�y P�eo—��a °-• ��`�'�'Eg a �`oV�Et � �M$Sro'5�5kkZ�~33¢g °`^ �r F�or�� 6 2 na�6E8+.�6mn {j v`c'U o��0.�ev CC �i��mb VE E(��iU mG� �$5 . 8 <��€��:€����� •o 'Fp '^ 15 2 < � ..,y Fi L�4�S�...8�a €rn ,n `u ���a.�p` o'E eyµ{u1+''° ry¢ ''¢¢�"�2'a -,P,4 u i o nL y.. E m .Z dr S Q �C- C Z a<I. d�E'F=o �iiEEu 'b [2E'E i2 > Da,c n— C �' '$a$ Sl .9 '� I- d .E �+ gg ug5=g .� pa 9 c € P F �.0-a�.1d.E9O5�pi.Ei��Sg�'$gaa.a u �E_.x_E7$a-v�.9v,w�a�e—.SkOCS�s.S $6<KCr�ia'.-.�3 .Sa.]z`a6 �fb�r� u o1�'a�7�C,6 �a'.. It 13 So•c N� �€a$���.g�� �E ���w �' a� ,3c�cV Sit -19 u�.ikES=PuF�w¢a 7 € 11 FF, �g F-dU F' b` 3 E �.k'ca -0 6e .5 ��ni- a .€uoV90aXrno�'nLL'^ma c JZF NM i9y< EE �'�.6d5 P��, U ,,, G"j€�. a vQa� ��:2��u !i$$ � '���' ���•__.�3� O ,� •�•� C � d ci c�a '� C* w 4 ri r�7 Q a) �yCC - ~ G A C p g O C p% 7o d� d "� �•� 3.,-4o�pa� 3 C v �/' V O 42 cd sa a ao�b pa.° � ) cd ri L ~ o en w bt o O sa ) 4q l C 0 a� '.• v o61,:� �'-C,$0 y i as os r -W a� M.D U O Adla,,ent Arwz, Swuat Terrau's rb'eyefopment proNda the Unity to evaluate Me 1.eblkAnd a a whole arc determine what fut a }andud nedevelopma sibea Ord what public ScI.Am and lnfrartrucnr, a imp,omments ahould be made lo Order to make but a mare vlorant and attractive commanhy for reabderrts, bw;n&:; e, and Arupety writers The Draft ELS addresses the Primary propo_ of the Sundt Terraea u4a redavalopmam a, Wed as m Wlua= aMarMaN Frapmals such at ndighbgrhaad +edrvefopmenl and supPsrdng seMcser and lnhastm,,n,,e impran rrbAM $EPA A Planned Planned IndAcirlra. to STDA, A The Gty of Renee is aha grapOthg tis adapt a Pkannad Actfon Ordlnanca ptasuent anned Aiyun Ordlnat ' if adopted, W-IJU not rtgvirs fcmrre SERA thnshc{d determinwdk or Elk ler future pfgecu that are aantutwt Mth FIS atsvmptiana and mhlgaton mwsurts. Aftern+dvm. The propcsal is reviewed in terms of three altemat:vrr. Asnmadve 1, Na Adan WA would davaiap affordable housing on two wont pnaPertlas, but R avnuld fr?k rtdevelop the Snrwe Tairace publk housing Property. Very omhed pubSe Irveatrnm _Ad b. Impr,emaated, rem him RIM lesser redaveiapmenttam tha pabnned Action study area. A Pmnntd Action W*Wd not be d"I natad. TAa Na A"00- AhamYJve is required to be atudled ander NPPA and SUA. AhemaUw Z Thk'It-n Me repndnts a treaderate kmf of graweh in the panned Ac*n Study Area Beed on hrvetOne,Aa rt mEted-Inane housing send muetl ossa In tha PotaorlaiSunsat Tenau Asdewlopment Subarea, t3FIVIA8 }RhSfrumuhy and pub8e sandcesthrnughaat the planned Arson study enc. Md adcptlw e a plarmgd Adjan Or*nana. AUem■dw b. Thu aRermOve repntems the hlghast level of growth in the Phnned Action study aro, based on hhwashnah t h the patentaI Surmtt rertan hadereiopmanr 5abarea wub a greater nrrndeer dweWnR devekhpad in a rt4xd�nmrne, mitred-vsa style, mafrar public htveshaent an study area Infrashuduro end servims, and adaption Vila Planned Action Orly &xa COmMaarT PasupOt •Ranch, affectadmber, aid,nembers of the pub'k are Invited to corn memm the Drag EIS A 43-dary Evanmont Pan" U mitabWlerd for the Orap EIS and related Camprehnhstkc Plan and devebpmaM reg"I"thm htn"mam eondudlnt 5.00 p -as., hmmry 3d, Z= WrRlain COMMMU should be dhsGed to Use mmact person below. UFY OF RENTON PLAN= OepApTmW ATTN: MKA CONelfftR,A Cp, lemon PLANNER NER 1055 SOUTH GR OY WAY, SDaM ROW RENTOM WAMM eraarklhgmrsmterAva,gav PUBLIC HFAMNv: A pAMc heartng bdore the pkanninA Commission hu been tdhedtiltd to aaept written and ore' wmmdda on the OPM and W be held oe_�ysdnerdar.l�a ,.,,.nuaev 5 sniff at SIM p.m., an the Cry co'"" Chambers, 7d Rear Renton city hang loss South Grady Way, Renton, WA If You h— AeUrc Wasthr's, pleax cwncm ErU ConHlry at (410OH579. FOR FUFtTlil3ifNWAR6U4Tlpfrf,PqZ_ ECONTACTTHECITYOFRENT014 DEPARTMENT'OFECO. o. DO NOT REMOVE HIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER At ORLZA71ON Phase ]seclude the PlggCt NUNS when Callhty ftorPnsper Die ldantM4caton. 1, vtf 60 I; t L E % v-, were posted in � cons ' uous Date: 2__ � � I U STATE OF WASHINGTON .11im '� I... N0110E OF AVAILABU Y DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) Nptke is hereby Erten that the city ofae "n bas hsued orate Envhnrtrtherhdl InpaG 5tatement Pratt ELSI far the Sunset Ana Community Phnned Anton Pursuant to Ne Stan Pnvkvnmental Pelacy Act and rte Rational finWanmental Pahcy An lSEPAJNEPAI and is available for pvbik mvkw and sanment Cop Its are evailabta for rtxlevi in the DA xAb i , Rhaow library, heated at 146 tMR Awnua South, and the Merton Kahbinde Lknry, taearad at 1962 NF 13th Street, and et Renton Cry Mail, CuatomA? UMCO Counter, Rh Char, IZ51outh Grady Way, T,enton WA 98057, and of the Oty of Renton web site l http: f!w an IRrwrerearmaaaa 1. PROfFCr NAME? SUNSET AREA PIANAIM ACTION PAI IECT NUM"B" EUAIp-DSS PROLECf PROPONENT: sty of Ranters ted Renton Mooring Autkw" LUcATtOM: Sunset Tarrue Ls generally bounded by Sunset Line NE and Glenwood Avenue NEw the north, NE10a Street onthe girt, NFSunret %Wu avard an the UNAK, and Edmond. Avnw HE on tharrest. The planned action naighbarhood study ana IS gersnRY bmasded by NE31`Street on the north, Womac Annie ME on the east, ME 7' Strwet an the south, and Edmonds Awhnra NE. r t OCKMI role ierepesed SunsA Terrace Redweleprrw,t The propdsal'Pee odes retlaakPmert of the Renton Mousing Aanhorltyrs IRMA'a) SuhsetTerraoe publIehousingw 01.101bl, a 7Avirt pruperlyuft 100 euhtlng units contdMad h 37 buildings thin m 5c>-yeor4d, two-rtory •tructurat, Mated et the Intersection oFIN Sunset ISoulevxd and Marringtw, Avenue NE. RHA abea uaddltionalvacant land(apprmfmatetya was writ two d—ftl units) along Edmond. Avenue MC, Gireuroad Avenue NE, and Sonat Lane NE, and Irroendsu pied.ess additional pmperfa a4i"i h Stntset Ttm"a Rion$ Harrington Avenue NE lsetddi contain about 8 dwe6lnpl; lVtA peopasn to lrweperatathete addffinnti properties Into the Sureat Terrace redevelopment for houoirg arc inodarted frrol The Server Ttrtxa public housing Community undo, ftdhtkm and infsaswctun are nrt quased end the pmJan Is dllapld#tad. Conceptual plan. propane nrdevelopment of Sanaet Twice and ad)annt properties vAth nnIxW 8nwmr. mbud-use ruldandal and mnmarciai WRQd end pablk smenilli _The redeveiopmant would lydude a I. mit Wdt npfawmem farall IOU aRuting Public housiM unin AA a tlrarpabtk haudng units 116 be replaced eithas on -alta err o8 -tile, at IocaGorswhhln the exhOng Sueuat TerrseO *a, and the Ptarund. Action SWdy Ardt within the r -Ry; no net ton of lOW IPcdme hauslM vAK3 svauld *VOR. The praleat AU rdquhe relocation of an existing r"Identf and RMA 4 4—AWpinR a rahcatlon plan. K12 exPeGed that, with tht Sunset Struts property and ""Clo ad prcoerties dented or purdiawd by A"A, up to 479 addhional nae units Could be wruW4ed W"h a pardon eftha total units being public, e"ZIlle, a ltd market rad, public Omelmes would be htegiated with the rstldeanhl development and ectnld Include aha folloWng: a wmmunity pt ne r Ipbee anthird phaa;'&AC hClDUes suds as a emnrM,nlor caner,. senlof curar, mrKVw public parry apace; a new PwVgFan span; ndtali shopping antl com Aft"'spats; and grtsn InfrastrucOsre. . CERTIFICATION hereby certify that copies of the above document places or nearby the described property on Signed: f i ' r ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that I==, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the Cf"Niposes mentioned in the instrument. r ve ey Notary Public in Ad for the State of Washington ra r•/ �Q z ly, Wg,�{y} �= Notary (Print): - y �i Ir��+ �Ay'L .�� MY appointment expires: A1.�:� :.:_•; ti �� `f', ���°; 1 _ Z 0 F- U) 3 LL 0 LUM tn LD z Ne LL a a L) a z 1 -1 3 z O m z W 4c V z 0 P z v u cr w � U N � C CL 3a r- ¢ o a�+( coq CCLQ C Ln c cE� gdfu s s� c -ni c UUl7 L m o ur tin c .� � yya 3 1 p pp ■ -F G � U Ji np s!i o N h n n — N � e o v� d w ■.'o pp! u R � e ■ a o yry � o u H W N w ar o n O N „ H '40- Sppa a7 IO m n e ` M n A # wr■i� ■vy34 �.p+x& p WYiG w N I H � yw� Y� � N n 49k 0 ~ #Q O -4 R «� ■ O A b e rgµ} k V w y m y a ae y� cc w C e o v� d w u R � e ■ a o yry � o u H W N w u R � e ■ a o o g � w o n O N M H C Y n■ a e m n e ` M n M M u o g � M VS O CL CL G C D R m �L/1 rt Ef � m i L Q ai iT' rd �.� •3 IRALei C v i0 L c i d w W L � IR N Ln a Q -o r +hl 7 C a a am t/7 9J 41 G O a-. O M C a N .SC d `° M :3 O L c 4m- 0 Q @ (,SO a 3 L.L ° a 7 LL Q O >- s 4' J-- y z 0 12 W tA Q to U CL di E CLOi i r5r A.N i* W ri 1 1 ; LU ill: S `�r r3 3 fir � d M VS O CL CL G C D R m �L/1 rt Ef � m L Q ai v i0 L c i d w W L � N C 0 a Q -o r L k a a am t/7 9J 41 O M C a N .SC d `° M :3 O L c 4m- 0 Q @ (,SO a 3 L.L ° a 7 LL Q O >- s 4' J-- y z 0 E � � 2 & kE_ < ) 43)§ t � kE ? k E$c' § 7�k `0�z °` =MW 'r- kk/ agar- ecCL Em a CEl$/0 2T o0) '7§t LU =00L) 5�� t 0 Z ° £ a<o § S z 2 k a q \fk > k$ LU §k 7 § ƒ N �kIFS EI»< -Eft < } 77<n< §�£ 2£2 m=2■ 000e 0)4#00 _< @ z(0r,0 D@«_EO g co f $ \t } > Rf IL§ k k k/ 3% f)-31. 8 k % � 7 a £ 2`2 L, 3 g 2 k »7 k§ \0\k\ �LL °$\f/ M #§ k2�#~ $-5SE> 0 r-sb«m� 2��t< > 00)@k@§ EaQ. = ° �� a LL k. 0 (1) Ol ■ C)- 52R�/V) �@■2Sk q�k0 (N� tl V. a C6 m x I �it L ILILIII as O r pa U a�C > �� �� O C3 q a �4 d f V I ti 5xx b UO) 3m 17W�2fc ��3 E �it L ILILIII as O r pa U a�C > �� �� O C3 q a <xCr'1 d f V �LL ti � r pa U fu g�C�S 5xx b UO) 3m 17W�2fc ��3 E Q�t�A R �p y m� 13 f!f as L 7� } LL C 405 T W G U O mW � CA:,!E EI my _tL L .5 $J $$o E CL CD td LL y u o U U li y,gig eE _ vgg3� w� p ul .� x CL i� 1 p} T ' dE 'a�ku 5 tq CDto0LL Ilc$— cc C7 Y � o u D .m 1 t w�.o"�g315, +w'� n I °' oa cv g �u7 aq b -I j' e to cu c 4 VJ IN �0WW�� �L>t_ 7 QDf3 to <`0rm} -if ,-� Z> FA a IvF�pS�p����m� ESR Fi m a � a T I � CL � w co N N fi vi ' m (D tom 'o ' � ,n g LL LL V G N c w i6 � k a � r~ 4 7 fm Haag LL i x u h LO S -�, c Y a V7 a 12 Z{n G l- ri WiIL Q JU d c cis W:2 .5 a } u. 1ID CL _ 0 Q d bA Era 2 3r _rna141 � 7 s°,LL u ' � � O ac� �triP�oC�� iC•� lA J k S � 3 Val y R'- S• H Gp+ • -s � 4� m v � C m 72 Y v S. F 22 - CO) -N loil Q% tm alc co nL X W LL 0 P. L N m Lpp r h 8 T g i g rz IL a °i�tj]w$t�ipc=irt� 01 Q d Era 2 3r _rna141 � 7 s°,LL ui CD o - d'E 3 a m d Era 2 3r _rna141 _ oo 4a 0 ac� �triP�oC�� iC•� my m k S Val r%pi S• H Gp+ • -s � m ED a�$$ sE j i •.LL 0 SE 3''.v 0. Y I ij 0 U _ Zito a m � 2 LL G c ij 0 7 Lu I ! � A 93 in ciLp ,C A A C �� Y y@ O 1 LL, CL In 00 Q� - ° L " tz p $ C 6r,� I� s A E Ia a dui N 3D_ ~°D as ww .rad 2 iyQ :c maZ 't� � r�j1�i �T �1dntA7 a i92 7t�i AC7 $ a9,MIA Gi sA m5��9!$ Igo E 99 Ll -0 9 cm pQ E3 ELL IL E m m Q z h E r a IR � oo n m i C 4 W _rtn cTi�v7t'3�cn L I G.1 f� CL a x 1 0 Q � � 0 4 R E -P iE 7 $ pp IL '3NF87 W u�Wfii fA d : rc SL F I I I i 4 0 tv P4 a Y a Z d E CL L Q 45 CD y co 0- E p x o L N H In ICZ7 F e2v � a LU� a Ly a R 4?nvfai3iD3'�r�n I I I I Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 63/Friday, April 1, 2011/Notices 18217 The SMP is a comprehensive plan to protect and enhance the two lakes' natural resources while encouraging economic development activities that complement or have neutral effects on those natural resources in a manner that is consistent with license requirements and project purposes, and to address the needs and interests of stakeholders, 1. Locations of the Application. A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at hitp://wyAw.ferc.govusing the "eLibrary" link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http:ll www. ferc.gov/docs- filing/ esubscription.asp to be notified via e- mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail FERCOnlineSupport©ferc.gov, for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210-211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents, Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title "COMMENTS" "PROTEST", or "MOTION TO INTERVENE" as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b), All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the amendment application. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities Of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document an that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010. Dated: March 25, 2011. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. tFR Doc. 2011-7685 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 arnl BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2662-012; Project No. 12968- 001] FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, City of Norwich Department of Public Utilities; Notice Updating Procedural Schedule for Licensing Take notice that the Hydropower Licensing Schedule for the Scotland Hydroelectric Project No. 2662 and Scotland Hydroelectric Project No. 12968 has been updated. Subsequent revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone I Target date Filingof Additional Information ............................................................................................................................................ May 8, 2011. Issuance of the Setter Adapted Statement Request................................................................................................................. May 16, 2011. Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for Evironmental Analysis............................................................................................ May 16, 2011. Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions........................................................ July 15, 2011. Filing of the Better Adapted Statement .................................... ............................... July 15, 2011. Commission issues EA................................................................................... ............................... November 12, 2011. Commentson EA.................................................................................................................................... ...... December 12, 2011. Modified terms and conditions................................................................................................................. February 10, 2012. Dated: March 24, 2011, Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. IFR Doc. 2011-7681 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 amt BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER—FRL-899021 Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ compliancelnepal, Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 03/21/2011 through 03/25/2011 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice In accordance with Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to make its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies public. Historically, EPA met this mandate by publishing weekly notices of availability of EPA comments, which includes a brief summary of EPA's comment letters, in the Federal Register, Since February 2008, EPA has included its comment letters on EISs on its Web site at: http://www.epo.gov/compliance/ nepaleisdata.htm). including the entire EIS comment letters on the Web site 18218 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Notices satisfies the Section 309(a) requirement to make EPA's comments on EISs available to the public. Accordingly, on March 31, 2010, EPA discontinued the publication of the notice of availability of EPA comments in the Federal Register. EIS No. 20110069, Drop EIS, HUD, CA, West Coast Recycling Group Metal Recycling Facility Project, Proposal to Develop and Operate a Scrap Metal Shredding and Recycling Facility at the Port of West Sacramento, Yolo County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 05/1612011, Contact: David W. Tillev 916-617-4645, EIS No. 20110090, Draft EIS, USFS, MAV, Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project, To Conduct Mineral Exploration Drilling and Geophysical Activities on the Superior National Forest, Cook, Lake, St. Louis and Koochiching Counties, MIN, Comment Period Ends: 05/16/2011, Contact: Loretta Cartner 218-626- 4382, EIS No. 20210092, Final EIS, HUD, WA, Sunset Area Community Planned Action, Proposal to Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace Public Housing Community and Associated Neighborhood Growth and Revitalization, City of Renton, WA, Review Period Ends: 05/02/2011, Contact: Erika Conkling 425-430- 6578. EIS No. 20210092, Draft EIS, TVA, 00, Natural Resource Plan, To Determine How TVA Wil] Manage Its Natural Resource Over the Next 20 Years, Implementation, AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, TN and VA, Comm em Period Ends: 05116/2011, Contact: Charles P. Nicholson 864-632-3582. EIS No. 20110093, Final EIS, NOAA, 00, Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan, Amendment 15, Implementation of the Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) to Prevent Overfishing, Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank. Review Period Ends: 051021 2011, Contact: Patricia A. Kurku] 978-281-9250. EIS No. 20310094, Draft EIS, USFS, CA, Kirkwood Meadows Power Line Reliability Project, Proposal to Construct and Operate 34.5 kilovolt (kV) Power Line, Eldorado National Forest, Amador, Eldorado, and Alpine Counties, CA, Comment Period Ends: 0513112011, Contact: Susan A. Rodman 530-621-5298. EIS No. 20120095, Draft EIS, USA CE, MA, South Coast Rail Project, To Establish Commuter Passenger Transit Service between Boston and the Cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Bristol, Plymouth, Norfolk and Suffolk Counties, MA, Comment Period Ends: 05127/2011, Contact: Alan Anacheka-Nasemann 978-318- 8214. EIS No. 20120096, Final EIS, STB, AK, Part MacKenzie Rail Line Extension Construction and Operation, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Port MacKenzie, AK, Review Period Ends: 05/02/2011, Contact: Dave Navecky_ 202--245-0294. EIS No. 2021009 7, Final EIS, FRA, NV, DesertXpress High -Speed Passenger Train Project, Proposes to Construct and Operate High -Speed Passenger Train between Victorville, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Review Period Ends: 05/0212011, Contact: Wendy Messenger 202-493-6396. Amended Notices EIS No, 20100076, Final EIS, FRBSF, IVA, WITHDRAWN ---Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Proposes to Sell the Property at 1015 Second Avenue that is Eligible for Listing on the National Register of Historic Places, located in Seattle, WA, Review Period Ends: 04/19/2010, Contact: Robert Kellar 415-974-2655. Revision to FR Notice Published 03/19/2010: Officially Withdrawn By the Preparing Agency. Dated: March 29, 2011. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. IFR Doc. 2071-779] Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 aml BLUING CODE 9560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FR I--9287-61 Notice of a Project Waiver of Section 1605 (Buy American Requirement) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to Salt Lake City, UT AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The EPA is hereby granting a project waiver of the Buy American requirements of ARRA Section 1605 under the authority of Section 1605(b)(2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality to Salt Lake City, UT for three vertical linear motion mixers to be installed in the Citv's Water Reclamation Facility anaerobic digesters. This is a project -specific waiver and only applies to the use of the specified product for the ARRA-funded project being proposed. Any other ARRA project that may wish to use the same product must apply for a separate waiver based on project -specific circumstances. Vertical linear motion mixers are a proprietary mixing technology developed by Enersave Fluid Mixers, Inc. (Enersave) of Ontario, Canada. The City's waiver request states that the mixer's drive head is manufactured by Enersave in Canada and the mixer's vertical drive shaft and hydro -disk will be manufactured in the United States (U.S.), There are no U.S. manufacturers of vertical linear motor mixers that meet the project specifications. The Regional Administrator is making this determination based on the review and recommendation of EPA Region 8'5 Technical & Financial Services Unit. Salt Lake City has provided sufficient documentation to support its request. The Assistant Administrator of the Office of Administration and Resources Management has concurred on this decision to make an exception to Section 1605 of ARRA. DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Recovery Act Coordinator, (303) 312-7814, or Brian Friel, SRF Coordinator, (303) 312--6277, Technical & Financial Services Unit, Water Program, Office of Partnerships & Regulatory Assistance, U.S. EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, CO 80202. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with ARRA Section 1605(c) and pursuant to Section 1605(b)(2) of Public Law 111-5, Buy American requirements, EPA hereby provides notice that it is granting a project waiver to Salt Lake City for the purchase of three vertical linear motion mixers which have a drive head that is manufactured by Enersave in Canada. This manufactured good will be used as part of Salt Lake City's Water Reclamation Facility's capacity upgrades. Section 1605 of the ARRA requires that none of the appropriated funds may be used for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States, or unless a waiver is provided to the recipient by the head of the appropriate agency, in this case EPA. A waiver may be provided if EPA determines that (1) Applying these requirements would be inconsistent Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 64/Monday, April 4, 2011/Notices 18573 This Notice also lists the following information: Title of Proposal: Admission to, and Occupancy of Public Housing. OMB Control Number: 2577-0220. Description of the need for the information and proposed ase: The Statute requires HUD to ensure the low- income character of public housing projects and to assure that sound management practices will be followed in the operation of the project. Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) enter into an Annual Contribution Contract (ACC) with HUD to assist low-income tenants. HUD regulations, part 960, provide policies and procedures for PHAs to administer the low-income housing program for admission and occupancy. PHAs must develop and keep on file the, admission and occupancy policies and the PHA must include in the annual plan or supporting documents the number and location of the units to be occupied by police officers, and the terms and conditions of their tenancies; and a statement that such occupancy is needed to increase security for public housing residents. PHA compliance will support the statute; and HUD can ensure that the low-income character of the project and sound management practices will be followed. Agency form number, if applicable: Not applicable, Members of affected public. State, Local or Tribal Government. Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including respondents: The estimated number of respondents is 3,278 annually with one response per respondent. The average number for each response is 60 hours, for a total burden of 196,680. Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. Dated: March 24, 2011, Merrie Nichols -Dixon, DeputyDirector, Office of Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives. IFR Doc. 2011-7821 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -5486-N-08] Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Resource Bank AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: Comments Due Date: June 3, 2011. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or DMS Control Number and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development. 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, Room 9120 or the number for the Federal Information Relay Service (1- 800-877-8339). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erika Poethig, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-5613 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U,S,C. chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g,, permitting electronic submission of responses. This Notice also lists the following information: Title of Proposal: National Resource Bank, OMB Control Number, if applicable: None. Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This is a new data collection for application and reporting information related to the proposed rational Resource Bank. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111- 117 approved December 16, 2009) funds technical assistance for HUD programs under the Transformation Initiative (Tl) account. The National Resource Bank will provide cities tailored technical support through a "one -stop -shop" of national experts with wide ranging skills including fiscal reforms, repurposing land use, and business cluster and job market analysis, to name a few. Agency form numbers, if applicable: SF -424, SF-424supp, SF -LLL, SF 269x, HUD--424CB, HUD-424CBW, HUD - 2880, HUD -40040, HUD 40044, and a narrative response to application rating factors. Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The number of burden hours is 2,914. The number of respondents is 30, the frequency of response is 2.2, and the burden hour per response is 212. Status of the proposed information collection: This is a new collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: March 23, 2011. Raphael W. Bostic, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. IFR Doc. 2011-7835 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 aml BILLING CODE 421D -67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -5513 -N -M] Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, City Of Renton, WA AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. 18574 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 641 Monday, April 4, 2011/Notices SUMMARY: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gives this notice to the public, agencies and Indian Tribes on the availability= for public review and comment of the Final Environmental hnpact Statement (Final EIS) for the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community in Renton, WA. HUD gives this notice on behalf of the City of Renton acting as the Responsible Entity for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to the authority granted by section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under section 9 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g), the City of Renton has assumed responsibility for compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) in accordance with 24 CFR 58,1 and 58.4, and is the lead agency for compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43,21C). The EIS is a joint NEPA and SEPA document intended to satisfy requirements of Federal and State environmental statutes. A NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued after the 30 -day availability period. This notice is given in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, DATES: The NEPA/SEPA Final EIS will be available until May 2, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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) 425-130-7300 (fax), or e-mail: econkling@renton wa.gov. Copies of the Final EIS are available at the above address for reference, and copies may be purchased for the cost of reproduction. The Final EIS is also available on the Internet and can be viewed or downloaded at: http:ll rentonwa,govlbusinessl defaull.aspx?ill=2060. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposal includes redevelopment of the Renton Housing Authority's (RNA's) Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 buildings that are 50 -year-old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE. Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA also owns additional vacant land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE., Glenwood Avenue NE., and Sunset Lane NE., and intends to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE. (which contains about 8 dwellings); RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. The Sunset Terrace public housing community units, facilities, and infrastructure are antiquated and the project is dilapidated. Conceptual plans 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. All existing public housing units will be replaced either on- site or off-site, at locations within the existing Sunset Terrace site, and the Planned Action Study Area within the City; no net loss of low income housing units would occur. The project will require relocation of all existing residents and RHA is developing a relocation plan. 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 total 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. Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the neighborhood as a whole and determine what future land use redevelopment is possible and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made in order to make this a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses and property owners. The EIS addresses the primary proposal of the Sunset Terrace area redevelopment as well as evaluate secondary proposals such as neighborhood redevelopment and supporting services and infrastructure improvements. The City of Renton is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would not require future SEPA threshold determinations or EISs for future projects that are consistent with EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. The Final EIS completes the environmental review process by revising or clarifying portions of the analysis and responding to public and agency comments on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS also introduces and reviews another alternative, called the Preferred Alternative, which is within the range of alternatives studied in the Draft EIS. The City analyzed three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) as part of the Draft EIS to determine its Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is evaluated in the Final EIS. All four alternatives are described below. Alternative 1; No Action. RHA would develop affordable housing an two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented (e.g., some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or drainage improvements), resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action studV area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to be studied under NEPA and SEPA. Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action study area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action study area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance, Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Dated: March 30, 2011. Mercedes M. Marquez, Assistant Secrefury for Community Planning and Development. (FR Doc. 2011-7945 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, City of Renton, WA Notice is hereby given that the City of Renton has issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (SEPA/NEPA). Description of the Proposal Proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment. The proposal includes redevelopment of the Renton Housing Authority's (RHA's) Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 buildings that are 50 -year-old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA also owns additional vacant land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and intends to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about 8 dwellings); RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. The Sunset Terrace public housing community units, facilities, and infrastructure are antiquated and the project is dilapidated. Conceptual plans 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. All existing public housing units will be replaced either on-site or off-site, at locations within the existing Sunset Terrace site, and the Planned Action Study Area within the City; no net loss of low income housing units would occur. The project will require relocation of all existing residents and RHA is developing a relocation plan. 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 total 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. Adjacent Area. Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the neighborhood as a whole and determine what future land use redevelopment is possible and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made in order to make this a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses and property owners. The EIS addresses the primary proposal of the Sunset Terrace area redevelopment as well as evaluate secondary proposals such as neighborhood redevelopment and supporting services and infrastructure improvements. SEPA Planned Action. The City of Renton is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would not require future SEPA threshold determinations or EISs for future projects that are consistent with EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. Alternatives. The Final EIS completes the environmental review process by revising or clarifying portions of the analysis and responding to public and agency comments on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS also introduces and reviews another alternative, called the Preferred Alternative, which is within the range of alternatives studied in the Draft EIS. The City analyzed three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) as part of the Draft EIS to determine its Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is evaluated in the Final EIS. All four alternatives are described below. Alternative 1, No Action. RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented (e.g., some community services but no NE Sunset Boulevard or drainage 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 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. Proponent Renton Housing Authority, Sunset Terrace area redevelopment, and City of Renton, private neighborhood redevelopment and public service and infrastructure improvements. Location of proposal Sunset Terrace is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 101n Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The planned action neighborhood study area is generally bounded by NE 21St Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 71h Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. Lead agency for SEPA and NEPA Compliance The City of Renton is acting as the Responsible Entity for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with 24 CFR §§ 58.1 and 58.4, and is the lead agency for compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.210). Contact Person and Document Availability For further information, please contact: 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[trentonwa. gov Availability of Document: Copies of the Final EIS are availahle at the above address for reference, and copies may be purchased for the cost of reproduction. The Final EIS is also available on the internet and can be viewed or downloaded at; www.sunsetarea.rentonwa.gov. The NEPA/SEPA Final EIS will be available for a 30 -day period until May 2, 2011. A NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued after the 30 -day availability period. Responsible Official City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Date of Publication: April 1, 2011 p>�� �2���Y ��� tie ��za�•�ae 943 1.1 -JAI s{ 85 � ,73yS z yak' 5g� aa� � gUyt a ,R ,.. , .5 ,4 g I'M ug f8iY2�15 Lo7613Q 04C �,fiJ r� > -t IL y Q 5�oeeva3� $ °2E "K0-. a44�fiz��E�ar�A tppC oY$.YC- Z—y ` �•0L $c8.fi r..` Wg'.nim¢¢�! > 4o fybaylz'J eYA8�5 diiC¢22 In .�l�i ldOp "Fwd aheC —FyCCCC -2of4 2 Ell 1 _> a� •S;A G�•CppG]. Q 42 n LCC Cg Y E�Ec ii9G O vi �$= r91;6 C Y C C 111 Od owC��E.�._��_11Hvy5.�fl6ofi y{ ,y, 3 3'Q 0 �+ b y ■ ° a= `� L 'n b 9 5 a i 11 ti � r ^$'a � �$rE3 + =Ikeay�d� i. 'm y� 'N 'fid �x �'3 'qu 3FC1y Y�a 2-A%1dS4i}uI''� S�z.Yu ��p �i$en a i5 'e{�w aAA 'N N �}yJ�� yq y 5 $ s y y y r�' G SEboa. HE.�C ep SgtBt $ g $ -9 .. b v � b L" A v6 �3 rs�KiS 3 2 55 'ae F-81! 1a82u � y�N yssv,u29�m�Ym e u p w1eay $r Z ..`72,6 s 2 v -8 ell ' iii a35 w g�. ..�---;ati sx < y$ ri?F 6. Uu7 ..0 EZdG CY.�S aE .. n .10 xw ny2y .SXaq.3Ew. ,:�o F- U �C9�4t C; Q j' - co 0 G Z 3N°�°.r_y �o3ro r ; csaso a to '. eq Am ZOrstnc� 15 CD � � r Z` 00 G 3.Qtip. _ L� w �ALr. $ aoee m?Cp'o o c � �UO� Z2� ��Yrroa3ic'C��v L Id wad ca & .3 g ° 1-4-B 3 3 Cay ty of iC.3Ll `al's' 3EPA PINImd rXVun. TIw 4lY cE RIR.On k ILIO "P&p 414 ids Pt a P401ed Al%- 0rdna— Pur,Ji w sEPA A Plonmd Aalnn OMva„ce, II adop.d xw,wi rewne T[d,N! STrA tlatstKk dweNnlnalhnr d US, Far hnvre a'olern [hal R ranalanro whh EEf Fir4lr�PdCne and mkeklT:mi vne.sAea. Of NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FINAL INVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FELS) Amice Iiberg given that rhe Oft d Rftni,m mead i rival EnwmRmannF YnpeeL StaiwTanl 0"N' HSI Ear ML Amnt ArY Camm,udty rhmmd Aiden qumuwe I. da 5f En.rarm Ml Poky4arM the NNicnal tFall"erwal PoM AdistONNSM, PROitUkAME: WNWAAEAMANNED1CNOw PROW NUMR.:LUA10452 PROSECT"WOMEN" My Pfnealan end RwrWA HPRIInt AWONFity LOUTKW: 9..erakTertaOi R prielopY bP,ndfd hV luwllY.e aE and bnramd Aean,e hIE M lha nMh, NF 1DR Streif ov the ealk wd tdmande Av onA NE Pe the wet. The penawd eatim nrilAeoahwod dDdy lflo N pnRraRf �°� 6r' NE 31"Street On dee rarin. Nrmroe Aranlw NE M Vee eaw. NE 1` Sires[ Pn It. wtet4.M Ldmands Avenue NF. DordaPTIGNt rrp.wdgmen7arrvF. prFdav,rlormeN. The pop ael Nadud.irrdMIapmem tH the Renton H—ln AVO,xj4'a(R,,ws) sm,Nl Twee pubk nndrt mmm.mhy,.73+ pmPwtYvMh 1PV eWNLft 11*3 vmrW tad h IT 6uIL1kp p+1.T Saye.rek, aro eLory ebsehune, hates h the leftm W O NE Nm Le,r1oVRN and HRrrhgtdn ANnw NE RNAa7n ewm apdrtlonolYerant e,d (appemlwnh l rce xld, hoe dw0ft wdirl elms EdN & Av NS Ok"w 4 Anwrwe NG wd Sunset Left NE Ind Mende m pandma .ddida Tell prWfny act—t In Iunder TarerA, riwq Held fttan A.wnur NF LwHdt mntahuahwEA t d—III10% RFA plenr W IrKaVMm[Mx Iddnbrv! pnpmpal lMO pre S—aet Tem -redo bpFIT hn hvurky and leewY W Le11LpoA TIy SaerNt Telrla PIWk hoNteq TarmrlRAy nNiil, hdRltea. and YrhalnaW,R an ""tId end the F"j$ t a j1RPhb ed. CanYpiwl plans pr.pmAetlwLhpm.nt o}9rnse3TertKL sod adjecenl pmpardes rAth mhdrd�Mienx, w�md- wnmldantlalAM mmaarchil spare AIN pLUkmmNdtlm. The fWavatepmr L"Pid hdvdea 1-b lint rtpt.oan,x,l Po* d ]Od edklnq W hRc horedq vin Alf a6clni Pvbgn hovin f ants x6 he lepbcad eid,x an- ytecreff.sln..t kKetkmeAdw,the etktMltSuTH 7m1e01 itr, end tM Planned AL1bn sl„q Aro rrltl,ln th. soy;MMLhu ofkw:,am heue;nl area would rKear. T%t Pro1NteK1lrequh mAati alYmAwl rwmerYtrx,d RNA h d[Vahphnp a rdootlan pMrt R h rrperlad tlr4Mld, [M Sundt TRf•Ia pvperlY Aad awP'�led pnpartirs PMvwd or Pnearea.d by RFK vp W a75 rddhloMl nes anon mWd M CPrei-,K[nd %MIR a poHldria(tlwe Wer)vlis brdrK IYIaaF alRlydahl., and hlF,ktrile r�hYeveNlsuwoN3 bed"pr—::' Olaw neitdrralnl de.Nhpmen[ Ind mum Intl„tlL ehe felk+,hni: amwnvchy pthrynt .9--' fdrd ove:. ek fMfilkF lW, n a can—Ity Ceptor. Plrear m,den Wfv W b% nbaarV span: • IN* PON" an pow; non a N,Wn3 aft tdmnt "I ryme; and green Irinitmcwre. AnlpopW A,v. Sn11prLTemara i rsdevehpmlM prpemea M. ePpaeturAv m M'efie[! VM mld,eohodd N I xhek mNdaeermlm ehN hA,n hItl [se nd.r.ppn,.rn k pwrdlr wed nF.ai pakhe xertu aft In/r1otTlAEpnR NrprrxamenV *mold be nada In orderM Tike thlF o mr, arrant mrd anettNt WMme,d,Y Inv raamead, hW hllYeeaM pfppmlyamrn. 'the E6 addrowa tlar PAmery pwppPll Pf Pw smmfl TrR.a vea ntlwNepma,d aswRRg IWto W—lify pNMYk wet, u wIlMmhood rddevNdpireM and w"wilnd aR-akai pM N/n3truC++,A ITpvra,ntalt3 Ahmvathe. The P1,W NS amplalaa ttr orw"nffxlnai rniexp Nc byrrvWFqwC%Ft nLpQfda,,11tM arahw and rRporrrnt lP PUMc aAd petty emmenia wn rA. Or.N tt5. The Por F6 Nae h[rature avN FG~ IMthN IftlmaLLe, Caned the PrrfF—dAHamatral."Oh d V LF14 dr ranp W aflmnrtla pt~ h dea 0,4 E15. TM CRs a e}�.led rhea' Fltlrrwtr {P3n,mw ..1. % w4 31 m pm d rha Oran EE 4 datrrrdne IU PfItf" AtIMMIh . T}e Prike ad Ahernmsm h —UMd M the ArW E15. N four allamatNlr re da,Meed bekW- Abmatka 1. Nn Adson. RHA woad develop AfWd bk hatRlrrt en iwn rx.Rt p,ppankr, bll N wo,dd Mt ndrN4P Lhasmnat T-- Pwb0, h-*%PmP•,N NRnyRTAFd 'It iwednentwgWd tre MpiNn.nnad (-4,— ._Fly but np NF 5.p : 1eNm.rd or enlnapa hrnPNw .tA rrwA th, 1— rMlvIWpIMAt ltlprpthl pINr1 Adhn lR,dY ares A Penrod Asdpn would nal b daaltroled. The N. Mlm )hanallra k nRuaed In ha aludred mndlr yEPA isN 547' Allan)lMe 7. TAhe�rnmdw rep—M r WONlh IRM CI FF—$L the Planned ALRm-&iwyA head en Mnemimrl IN rnbwd{barna hnuNrq and rraamd [w.r F pN M1fli6diurrxl Tpr.m LngeLllaPTem SdSa Y. te"Ad IRkmTA1M Arid FVbrK HIYEtS thnmrboa the Planned kWP M,dl' Rill, NL adhtmen of a Pla—A ACE104 OldiMntde. AIILmNM 3.1hk dMlRetiN rep -1h the hlpleae le-0089-Kh M the P4rred Aitb.Nadf—a. hlirdon i—Rt—N in the Pulautter 5~ Tlmage RwkNielNetirRSVhmea wd,a lnabm mpberdwdtrw dawl.pad M 1 Tb*d4aktlei, MW-uk JtH% nwr plldk bantrimant In NYdYanl InhimadWa end wrAce. EIN Naopan Ma Ilamtel Attire[ ONII-6d. htkrtld kkWiddaa. TFp itnnmNrr f `RwFnD nelEFdtaftw FD*Lh Ih of m and flphdt lase peon Xi --&.l In Rw N -W Anton SR* AM, bled eh Irneetn.rK In the PRtNDol Uw l T— RedeNhPnwmSrd,er.awith Imndandra rdw dweONaF de"$DW In a nbed-ll mer mloedvf!ttyk ul.lded Around a Arpr pifk IpM end No read,„elan aupkta tmw,c In VI* arta 4lrertNdrve are, wyatc are adwtIn raPenrodPctbnPrdria— lutl Ite,iRf ktfErA and N9Atar,pRsna TM hNM RIMen M ItSlht as the nfePor.rAtc F.tl1Y krcomPMratf who the Nidonwl Emlvvmnp[ Pn1PiY Ail INET'AJ In mco4--MI174 Qq K 58.1 Lad SLA. and 40. lead ag—,ior nw,galncr ler the Werhhrgmn SLAIe EM1A,wmrenbk Pd&,Y Ad (sFPA. ACVv y.y1CI. Cmtm hnen wM DeLa MAvWWWV FOR R/RTHM tMORMATION, MWE CONTACT_ EARA MA1,11fi AKP se,dar P4rinor Che df AEnwh be Panmtnl d CommeIllY and kc %Oe,*0MV4 %056 S ends Wef Rw,bq WA RWi7 143334"71 V06. 410er! nes ha t� AVAIIMRM OF 11MUMFINTI COMES OF THE Oka EIS ARE AYNLAILK AT THL 'LOVE ADMSS FOP REFERENCE. AND COMES Key K MIRCHA.LEO FOR THR COST OF AEPROOlATON. THE HNµ Ns 15 ALSO AYAPAGE ON THE INTERNE AND CAM tr MEWED OR D0W?4UWEO AT: esurw.sunsFTAaEg.REM THE NVA/SErA PNAL ELS WILL IS AVAIWLE FOR A E0 -DAY PERIOD U*M M0 1, )051. A NrPA RECOLC OF DEO'SIM(P001 WrLI EFF"AD AFFFA THE 30-DAYAVAILA;ILm REIM REEPONTNU OFNMU CITY OF RENTON EMNRONMENTALW.VW Mwrr-FE CERCI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. PLEASE GONTAGTTHE a" OF RENNTON, DFPAHTMENT OF ODMMUNrrY d ECONOMIC DnUOPMVNT AT 4a) 430-720'0. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Flew Ir4IWIa the prefect NUMBER [meed Patfinp for proper IIID Weriffire l— CERTIFICATION I, YAA Ccwnk1t!2 hereby certify that copies of theab vd c ment were posted in conspicuous plates or nearby the described props , ci 11 to rAK-eS Date:�yl& W h 3� .�01!_ - - Signed: '� STATE OF WASHINGTON } ) SS COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that .. T, c c -Loc signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hisfher/their free and voluntary for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. y G Notary Public in And for the State of Washington =r " Notary (Print): ^ j ►y� ;w 11-0 . My appointment expires: 4 dl 9 1-- CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY COURIER On the 22nd day of March, 2011, 1 deposited by courier services, a sealed envelope containing Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final EIS documents. This information was sent to: ARMtoo 5 min. EPA Region 10 1200 6'" Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-3123 (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) S5 COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gil Cerise signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act forthe uses and purposes mentionedmentioned4 the instrument. Dated: Dated: 1 Notary Public in an 'fo Washington r��//rr/frr�� r ;ttf5�� hires Notary (Print): 51ON �.�;t;•,rlg appointment expires: zl D1/ZoIz h i Sunset Area Community Planned Action/EIS LUA 10-052 template- affidavit of service by mailing CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF C0MMUNi1TY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22nd day of March, 2011, 1 deposited in Federal Express, a sealed envelope containing Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final EIS documents and/or compact disk. This information was sent to: Agencies See Attached (Signature of Sender):!,(,LQ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gil Cerise signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 4 1 1�) I�f►tP�: Fi//� �_ '•a �d� MY z w ��G 0 ti 1 Fug �ha Notary (Print): appointment expires: } Notary Public in a %nk Sunset Area Community Planned Action/EIS LUA10-052 template - affidavit of service by mailing ngton AGENCY MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) US EPA- Office of Federal Activities US Housing and Urban Development US Department of Housing 8, Urban EIS Filing Section Attn: Ryan Mielcarek Development Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby), 909 First Ave, Suite 255 HUD Library Room 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-1000 Room 8141 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW 451 7th Street SW Washin ton , DC 20004 Washington, DC 20410 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation EPA Office of Groundwater and US Department of Interior (federal) Drinking Water, Room 4601 Gwen Wilder 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 803 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Office of Environmental Policy and Old Post Office Building Washington DC Washington DC 20460 0003 Compliance 20004 1849 C Street, NW, MS 2342 Washin ton, DC 20240 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NOAH! National Marine Fisheries US Department of Interior NEPA Coordinator, Branch of Federal Service 1849 C Street NW Activities -ATT. Pat Carter 7600 Sand Point Way NE Washington DC 20240 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 400 Seattle, WA 98115 Arlin ton, VA 22203 US Army Corp. of Engineers Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 template - affidavit of service by mailing CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF DELIVERY On the 23rd day of March, 2011,1 delivered, a sealed envelope containing Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies i See Attached I (Signature of Sender):i G� STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ` 3 lei SS State c; vl.':.�. :rigton COUNTY OF KING ) MICK i71. '-AKINS MY CCh4s.",: '' FXPIRES I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa Grueter signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hisj__Jtheir free and voluntary act far the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: �� 51 Z G l l Notary Public in a&for tV State of Washington Notary(Print): My appointment expires: Project Name: Sunset Area Community Planned Action/EIS i Project Number: LUA10-052 template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY DISTRIBUTION (ERC DETERMINATIONS) City of Renton Department of Renton Housing Authority Community and Economic Mark Gropper, Executive Director Development 2940 Northeast 10th Street Erika Conkling, AICP Renton, WA 98056-3133 Senior Planner c/o Alex Pietsch 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 template • affidavit of service by mailing on > C! 00 c(o�co�'roc"sDQ A- wE- a����n�,rowr C R O `C qp O 7r w LA Pa fD `C Do a rD p• -. S CD zt. Q6 +moo 0•C ��� o mcr :DjM.�xa�a ICD G =S CDa CZ ado r'r: �a=1CD CL -•, y P. ... CD `C C. ps � Z 00 Un a.•* c �" O '. w a w SID y c C p7 "Ct �CD n coo �C ¢ h R `d. ^� {9 `` w i] CD CD CD CD CD ' ►� CD :.1yi13fCI) Pyz cr ED P r l�i_91^Lbrr G v} CD O J �y y c�.i �Q•h rn a s cn d-ri O !� Ori G"iow sem, �a�, ,v � � _.� •• w h7 �. '� �, �' - cmmp° "n7b-U w°n' R�,. '�o �� FaiFe - 0cxYp`�n•g��4 rr"�'n� F' *>n i=3 -_yrro>.c-°�a'ln 9eZRal"aoe;Me*e�z F v W n ace 5'o0 r i R @ n prim + oR � Mz ?•. ,,� .-._ � � � � � � a '� a �.�y o• � � a � ». �. 'j �- sc''� `'Tr � � �' n � � o S�v a `� c � � � �. S' �, � ° w `o "' �'� � x 'r1 m8$� fi�^ n,$•?:���=c 4��ao� afia9'0E •�a� ipso mn �m a�..�•. $$c��. �a� _^Sw�f °❑ �.a >R`seoo Q l4wc �t R -w o oZ^ w�y n• e�"►<4�a� F3.Sca9 G F 5 g❑ .` �m Jo 0DO 60 2 S +' 5.5- c m aof '5"5�� FOR o x o .00 � W g (C7o o p Fs3a� 7 �'=�Sge gyF� o o - �o% ei G°."`� •g m Q ,-. ? g ii HUM", oc " w m « `n' � 'Y' Q � Z � rs o : � �a -, a. S � i'o n t7g$ z [n [r7a FE2U ts7 trig ,ea mac. 3 a C o -s❑ y- s� XGo79 C{0 "❑nCS o? aa?rn4 pin ' 0�wjg S �_ c�m n c c+r �a�[] 43''0�eo �agmC3o o i�mroa9��f7 �'¢,Rjo",�d2�R [ria rs gg.� 3 O ❑ b• n id �O $ 8-'� n 7d! p ? - a g "3. 7y ".-RNa <.I R n Q �a_. 4 es+o cn pr r°rC o19w t�i�4�Zi . �° <_. ❑ 0 7 � g� iiG a 3 w m a t gds un 0, w a>��oao�a o y ° ?• = t7 v -]a 17 '�'� o v�_v,� � S!, Qin o a '=f o.•m* Tn r7�'35! 0 3 R (ion A N �.. a� c 7Ctyym w oaf❑ L' W ■ m m G O R �^ �4ynmrJg�0`�'u�[¢30 aty�nRb po�waara+�.�"i[nN�^'o�� aw nma���'pa�fa�4ctr�ro '?�aa`„nt7 aw N Y_r'A •-y ,'L' ' { n 0� t i •O•.G ? _�. w G 7� O cv = Q riy n ego p • `t - a a n ro$ gQQ, ooaa �~Ca M � ��� C7 ° a c. o o rRra H c � g o ��a. 55: a o w ae N ni �p w '4 O N ••• N� 7 ^'s O w ^y o Cb v. m tv �ga�a�n�nr�'?�.��3�°'awn°°�wq�mo��°b'"'n'n�•������oaa�on$ .��oo�S[�xs�.ae�'ae,��'"Rs an ?o�� ? an oma -'wog reag.�Y7�'e o� tib. w�'fln� �= wc�Q o Boa a5 �� fa' m v 3 �� s yaQ �#R °a•nE3 M '�i`�a�n ,�o•��gn� f}��$"�Am•yeoo�_otneCw���mc�s���naa��'n5y °0aw25rs�� 5�n R o a'`� "'O7 d a� W 5 F m �-� � }•� h4 n,p1,4 a-,�. �+.o a� � ea c � n H e ❑ -�o +� Cj R c ra °' "' m j , "> > C a m m❑ m p, A. d n h R '• s n a �<m T4cn noc `mcnTo�c$°4a� �gorq woo N n 6 4 C ro n �0 to O ? a '-' a w �� rD c n e ~ v a -dw ..t' m y' h ❑ w a •��a o �� •m �� @ H, m Cb n �. = n. �•6 o v ry c c " c i v','� a 5 ry'� o� _" � �'!n ;aw �n 4 0 F, �.d? �'o �, in� b � aaw n ao.a•7 a. �9 rnw � O��OO �.f ��fl't�is w�, �C3 �^�,QCav❑ ❑cam#��ew � � 7a red�y'�sn�s � r, v: o a �% - . O. O- �' -. .�. 4a �:. Qe � _ gra o a -, ro �. `v� • _ O n rs a -. a w v, rc .� rc City of (no ' 'all NOTICE' OF INTENTTO REQUEST RELEASE OF FUNDS FOR SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT Date of Neter: Mary 13, 7031 Name of Ropon.N. Entre- I of Panton, Washington Add—: 1055 5, Grady Way, Renton, WA 9110.57 Cansadartd Telephone: Erika Cimidng, San— Plamhat CH of Rrmten 0eyarmerrt et Cam,nunily and Economic Uewtiopment P1—irut DwHlml 1425;• 430.6576 the or about May 13,1011 the Gary of Renton MN atrthot[e filed Renton Housing Aoehority DtINI to submit a request to We Deparment of House,{ and Urban Dneiwment JHUDI for the release of funding for probecur aasbead under section 9 orthe D.S. HnuelM Ad of 1937 (42 U.S.0 1437x1 m urere t ke ndaveloprru nt on R9A's 5u tTerrace pub&c housing community and erddai—I pmpi rtla owned.dey—Fur, ed by RHA for housing Intl au -dated smokes. CordePhuel phos Arboreta red0rrhVmmt of S„metTemade and adjacent properith ties wtnbed-Inwma, mhedyne residentlel and commerWl spam ant pubik ameniths The redevefopeteot would th fuck a 1-10.1 Unit rep3aeemetht for aD 100 a[aHng pubfc housing units efther an,iKe al Sennet Ter ice nr aFI at Iodarm. s,wde- the EKVI; Els Stddy Arm The pro)ett*1requiI ruivalioe of a0 saistiry residents and RHA la daraloping a ref—ti.. plan. It L. torpeded that Irish the Sunset Terrace properly end associated properties awned Or purchased by RHA, up to 179 eddlhortal new units could be mnserurted. Public raen10as would be integrated with the development and could cndnrde a aommu+try galherhgspeoe: cW fadPUea; a new parklopen spate; relePshopplrig arrd camrnerda I space; and groan Irth"ttnrdvra. The actNRks proposed carnprlse a onficttor which the Cay of Rtnton initiated and prePar id a SEPA/NEPA ELL A pobflt ELS scoping process do the yrojrdt donned farm August l; to Dcrnber 16,1014 the CRyof Renton asued a 0ni4 EIS ctrl Depember 17, 2010 F•dlreving Iformal aunment partod which tn&d on Jamsary3L 201L McCity Issued a F'nel EIS on Apra 1, 2D11. AR EAvtrtldmtlrhl tevleW R1pNtllf-RR11het deerrnena ihr erwlrmmendi 4etermbaeelone Fa lH, project H an file at the l7tyaf Rentarti Department M Comrnunay and Imnemk Development, P4anlrq Division, 1055 S. Grady way, Rrntvn. WA 96057. She public may reAm and debtor, copier of the ERR at this Ivcatian Monday through Fshbay between LDE) A.M. end SIDE) P.M. , Record of Digclsfon The Ory he" provldu nada of Its Raccrd of Decision haDDI for the Rembesuseet Area Communhy tis. The RDE) documents the CRyu —Isirreatan and—Rifuasom wO reaped to en-Imnmental irreeca and mltigallan me learesfor or -mus elements of the er Arannri as requh,ed by NEPA. The RDD does nut —atiwta aeprwal afaerrlrpmrn[ of to propreat Tho RbD is saw considered pan of the ERR Copies of the RDD are ayallaeq at the Cly, evauHe: wwwswuelerea. raManwa.eov. CERTIFICATION Public Cam ments Any Iddwlduaf, group, orrgency mal r ebmtcommams on the ERR to the qty of Racoon 0epartmwrt of Communhy and EWIDMIC 0-10prI All dommeeb, mmbed by Mey 10, 7n, x911 he be uwvtdered by t CCy of Renta, prior to aothackingtahndoston of a request for release of funds. COputsd the ERR are —Fable uppt request by rontactln; Erika Conkling, Unlor Planer, It the roared fnformatlan pmM&d (bore, Release of FDrids The Dty c Renton ,ar[Ife"'D HUD Met the 901 ErPriram"Mai Review Camw4Hee, the body deN11Aatrd by We Chief Ee"I Dri'm W frmrtlon as the NEPA RespOrluble still" JREi. condeh is to acs:epl the ]urhdletlun d; chii redtI Courts Iran action h brought to erddrez respdrn,bJlne,ln relaiEan to the eeuiMirmin iF review Process and thanthese responsfhliues have been satbflad. HUD's epW_.I dghe ttnfiIII qn whuffes Its resporu;1bodln ugdat NEPA end rehtad lew9 Pnd 1uthorIk3, and allows Ile Renton Hu1NMg Authmav to rue PrW mfunds. 0*0110115 to Release of Funds NUD wlRrecap[ ob]ertlon, to W rrhne d }verde end [he [Ry of Rentan's cert0ieatlon 1pr a period of INteen (15) digs "DIN ng the arrUdPd d sulmili date a its ritual renipt of the Ieguhut Iw}delteverh rateq "" ffi" Ythey ant an meat rhe hu"wing bases: e)!he crinMM694WIS not"Imed brth,[ertYyinRcm-er of" Chy of Renter: (b) the Myer Pardon has onddad a staP IN, Falied to make a dmiakranh or anstng required by HUD "Pablo"' at 24 CFR Pen Sit (d) that {sant re ri ten: has commItled funds or hwmed poets oat aWharUrif by 24 CPR PaI before approval of s ni of funda by HUD; Or Idi another Ftdelai II sct g p;erstrant to 40 CR Part 1504 has submitted a wr i funding torn the waled Is unsattsracfoiy from the sbnd"I of emkoomenhl gwHry, objections most be prepared and submftsed in eceortivba with the requI pracedurm fie CFR Part Sal andshap be addressed so Ry.n E Mleirarek Deparbnant of Heiainy and Urban Derebpment Region %Sealtir gfflce. 9091st Aye., 5uha 100, See[tle WA 9x1114-1000. The Sande ReI Xfffll Is open baevrean I am _5;00 pm Pe[enUW 96JI I" should acmbtd HUD is verify the KWRI his dry of 1.11e. abletTkn perked. Responsibie Entity Certifying officer 01yO Renton Ennebo orI Rey:ew Committee (eRq IDete dt all r" n: May A. 2011 Date of Pabkke0an: May 1d, 2DL1 !, _1=G,', 1,C.- T+ Mt --A hereby certify that .- copies of the above document were posted in L conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date:'5wLIZII-)rf STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) Ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I_know or_have satisfactory signed this instrument and acknowiedg uses and purposes menodf o',d " f � Dated: 40 aip S-2 aaa Signed:! evidence that red it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the - 't" Pudic in an-d1or the Mate of Waihl ngton o` Print): s: lent expire (Signature of Sender): e sem._-.Q..-57>.._ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfac+, v signed this instrument and ack�ektj; mentioned in the instrument. skt f`:S'0 Ry 4 .. Dated: J .. _...__.. i a or— w � ���:''SSS111at1 NotaIntoF. My appointment expires: t Rocale Timmons (her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes ,�gjotary public in and for the State -:of Washington I "L-) Sunset Area Community Planned Action/ EIS LUA10-052 E— v On the 131h day of May, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope, and/or sent an email containing Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds documents. This information was sent to-- o_Agencies Agencies See Attached Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): e sem._-.Q..-57>.._ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfac+, v signed this instrument and ack�ektj; mentioned in the instrument. skt f`:S'0 Ry 4 .. Dated: J .. _...__.. i a or— w � ���:''SSS111at1 NotaIntoF. My appointment expires: t Rocale Timmons (her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes ,�gjotary public in and for the State -:of Washington I "L-) Sunset Area Community Planned Action/ EIS LUA10-052 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology* WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn.- Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172 r6d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency KC Wastewater Treatment Division Office of Archaeology & Historic Attn: James L. Nolan Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* 1904 Third Avenue - Suite 105 Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Seattle, WA 98101 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle WA 961043855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 _ Boyd Powers * Puget Sound Regional Council Renton School District Depart. of Natural Resources Attn: Rick Olson Rich Moore, Asst. Superintendent, Business PO Box 47015 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 300 SW 7' St Olympia, WA 985047015 Seattle WA 98104-1035 Renton WA 98055-2307 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: $EPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Khedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: }CRD -01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-38556 Bellevue WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities King County Library System Sound Transit Real Estate Services Director Bill Ptacek Ferry Weinberg (Environmental Compliance Attn: SEPA Coordinator Administrative Offices Manager) 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 960 Newport Way NW Sound Transit PO Box 34018 Issaquah, WA 98027 401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 981244018 Seattle WA 98104 Renton Reporter Seattle Times Seattle King County Public Health Attn: Dean Radford Attn: ,fill Mackie Attn: David Fleming 19426 88h Ave. S. The Seattle Times 401 5th Ave., Suite 1300 Kent, WA 98032. P.O- Box 70 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle WA 98119 Department of Commerce Governor Chris Gregoire Renton Historical Society Attn: Ike Nwankwo Office of the Governor Attn: Laura Clawson PO Box 42525 906 Columbia St SW PO Box 40902 235 Mill Ave. S, Olympia WA 98504 Olympia, WA 98504-0002 Renton WA 98057 Renton Housing Authority US Army Corp. of Engineers US Housing and Urban Development Mark Gropper, Exec0ve Director Seattle District Office Attn: Ryan Mielcarek PO Box 2316 Attn: SEPA Reviewer 909 First Ave, Suite 255 Renton, WA 98056-0316 PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98104-1000 Seattle, WA 98124 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Environmental Protection Agency EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking (federal) 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Water 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 803 Seattle, WA 98101 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW _'Old-Po§tDf5ml3uildirig-Washirrgton-DC -_m_ __-_ --- -- -- --- -Washington-DC-2W0-0003�— -- 20004 _ US Fish and Wildlife Service NOAA1 National Marine Fisheries US Department of Interior 1849 C Street, NW Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240 7600 Sand Point Way NE Washington DC 20240 Seattle, WA 98115 US EPA- Office of Federal Activities Lisa Grueter EIS Filing Section BERK Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby), 2025 First Ave, Suite 800 Room 7220 Seattle, WA 98121 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20004 Sandel DeMastus Bill Drew Chuong Brian Do 1137 Harrington Ave NE Windermere Real Estate 1925 Kirkland PI NE nton98056 33405 6th Ave S Renton, WA98056 elSandei@aol.com Federal Way, WA98003 briancdo@gmail.com bdrew@windermere.com Bob Allen William Spencer Clay Hanson 432 Ferndale Ave NE 3406 NE 9th 5t 1555 Union Ave NE #31 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Menton, WA99059 carrfan@camcast.net cbandman69@yahoo.com chskier936@aol.com Catherine O'Day Colin Walker Nancy Kuch 20504 5E 152nd St 4808 NE Sunset Blvd #17-101 15740 SE 166th PI Renton, WA98059 Renton, WA98059 Renton, WA98058 cjoday@msn.com colin@colinwalker.org cooky548@comcast.net Debbie Rienti Dennis Ossenkop Donna Woodard 522 Queen PI NE 3316 NE 12th St 3545 66th Ave W Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 University Place, WA98466 debbiedenti@yahoo.com denoss@aol.com dmwll06@aol.com Donovan Boyd Ron & D Burgess Dan Sakaue 2901 NE 8th PI 2908 NE 8th PI 3800 NE Sunset Blvd, E104 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton98056 donovanboyd@earthlink-net dorisron1811@gmail.com dsakaue@pugetscund-net c Tran Edie Mae Lawyer & Gene Gannon Evelyn Mitchell Viet-Wah Group 201 Union Ave SE, Space #20 812 Jefferson Ave NE 2820.NE Sunset Blvd Renton, WA98059 Menton98056 Renton, WA98056 ediemaelDO@msn.com emitchell44@msn-com duc@vietwah.com janiel@johnlscott.com Enza Shaw Eric Haywood Fred Crothamel 603 Tacoma Ave NE 4008 Lake Washington Blvd N, #3 P. 0, Box 1039 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Mercer Island, WA98040 enzashaw@netzero-net eric.w.haywood@boeing.com fredc@ameriwest.com Greg Fawcett Howard McOmber Haiyang Liu P. 0. Box 402 475 alympia Ave NE 8223 126th P1 SE Fall City, WA98024 Renton98056 Newcastie, WA98056 - gl'awcett@nwiink.com howardmcomber@hotmail.com hyliu_2000@yahoo.com Gloria Ramirez Jerri Broeffle JoAnn Rodger Bellevue, WA98004 Renton98056 Renton, WA98056 ilseattle@mac.com jerrib@provpoint.com joa2rod@comcast.net Mary Kay Hart Joel Dean John Barker 08 NE 7th ST 11.00 Harrington Ave NE #105 1428 Kirkland Ave NE itan, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 jodymaryk@aol.com joel.dean@yahoo.com johnbarker_net@hotmaii.com Jeanette Kelley Kim Howard David Kuhlmann 512 Harrington Ave NE 2300 NE 10th PI 2512 NE 9th St Renton, WA98056 Renton98D56 Renton, WA98056 kelley51201@camcast.net KimH@JohnLScott.com kuhiddx@hotmail.com . Ken Taylor Lau rits; Alvestad LeKetchia Jones P. 0. Box 2432 P. 0. Box 485 1058 Glennwood Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Grapeview, WA98546 Renton, WA98056 kwt2185C«@hotmaii.com lauritsaivestad@earthlink.net ' leketchia-jones@awin.com Linda Perrine Marcie Maxwell Marianne Everett 1157 Glennwood Ave NE P. 0. Bax 2048 2203 NE 7th St Renton, WA98056 Renton98056 Renton, WA99056 1perrine@wkg-corn marcie.maxwell@gmail-com marianneeverett@hotmail.com Michael & Tammy Johnson Brock Weedman Marian McCready 1555 Union Ave Ne #21 1300 Redmond PI NE 2318 NE 10th St Renton, WA98056 Renton98056 Renton, WA98056 mijohns@yahoo.com mlcweedman@hotmail.com mmae@iglide.net Brian Manley Pamela Teal Tom Megow 1515 Kirkland Ave NE 9627123rd Ave SE 1067 Union Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 moan007@hotmail.com mpteal@comcast.net mswiggam@comcast.net Nancy Kaastad Damaso Casillas Grant Bowles 1115 Pierce Ave NE 501 Index Ave NE Calvary Baptist Church Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 14032 Edmonds Ave NE nikaastad@comcast.net padilta56@hatmail.com Renton, WA99056 pastor@caIvaryrenton.com Penny & Morrey Eskenazi Frank Pray RA and SJ Harding 951 Lynnwood Ave NE 908 Kirkland Ave NE .850 Dayton Ave NE Renton98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 pne2@hotmail-com racer272@yahoo.com redrider1950@hotmail.com Ryan & Maria Galloway Roxanna Johnson Ruth Tajon 838 Lynnwood Ave NE P. 0. Box 2877 2033 Harrington PI NE Renton, WA99056 Renton98056 Renton, WA98056 rgjax@hotmail.com roxanna.l.johnson@boeing.com ruth-tajon@noaa.gov Scott Anderson Stephanie & Greg Varnadore David & Shannon Rollo Green 460414k`ZBth- 5 -----------3317'-NE-8t15"" ---- -- ------2213 NE 9th-Sf -- Renton98059 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 scottanderson@presbynet.org screamingfirs@hotmail.com shan9800@yahoo.com Jerome Balken Steve Beck Theresa Elmer 3624 NE 10th St 4735 NE 4th 5t 3101A NE 13th 5t Renton, WA98056 Renton98059 Renton, WA98056 sherriebalken@hotmail.com stevebeck@johniscott.com tenacious_tic@ msn.com Thomas Winter, Jr Terry Persson Juan Pablo Arroyo,- rroyos311 311Edmonds Ave SE 2821 NE 8th PI 854 Dayton Ave NE Denton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 rw31@gmaii.com tpersson@comcast.net vpa1111@hotmail.com Art Eastman Charles Rush Dave Halfon 3533 NE 17th PI 1932 Dayton Ave SE 805 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98055 Renton, WA98056 waunetarne@msn.com wizards5 @comcast.net wolf5756@comcast-net Gale Wright Deborah Allen Janet Johnson 1140 Edmonds Ave NE #117 2905 NE 5th PI 911 Lynnwood Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA99056 Renton, WA98056 wnghtgg 1 @ co m cast. n et Joe Gates Bill Reister Iris Adams 662 Jefferson Ave NE 2186 NE 9th PI 1209 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Sandy Holman Nona Gibbons Mary Barden 2204 NE 8th St P. O. Box 2767 1022 Tacoma Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA99056 Renton, WA98056 n Blaylock yao Chien Bev Miller 3500 NE 9th St 722.0 S Sunnycrest Rd 14109 5E 182nd ST Renton, WA98CS6 Seattle, WA98178 Renton, WA98058 Larry Brosman Edwin & Pat Rasmussen Helen Franklin 3625 NE 9th St 1300 Monroe Ave NE 866 Queen Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA99056 Renton, WA98056 Lori Madson Bob Gevers Patsy Banasby 643 Ferndale PI NE 900 Kirkland Ave NE 463 Ferndale Ave NE Renton, WA99056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA99056 Ted Taylor Don & Lynda Hurter Mischelle Pinney 1104-S"lt5?f-Ave`-NE_ — ----- - I2.,i9�Redmond- ve--------�--`-T140 Edmonds AVe N'E #50l ----- Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Dorothy Somers Pat Sado Owen Gormley "'7 Kirkland Ave NE 990.2 126th Ave SE 2820 NE 23rd PI ton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056' Glenn Davis Delores Ray Mary Leith 3902 NE lith Ct 2606 NE 9th St 3317 NE lith St Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Rentdn, WA98056 Marilyn Kirby Desarae Rosario Rebecca Alder 3323 NE 8th St 611 Shelton Ave NE 3112 NE 14th Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Linda Jean Perchyk Jose Ramirez Viet Ly 2712 NE 9th St 2317 NE 9th PI 4307 5E 3rd PI Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 vly@huittzollars.com Bob & vera Gevers Jim Lyons Cleo & Wendell Forgaard 900 Kirkland Ave NE 2806 NE Renton, Ste A 678 Sunset Blvd NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 cjforgaard@comcast.net Catherine A. O'Day Dawn Johnson John & Cherie Weaver 861 Edmonds Ave NE 1131 Lake Washing Blvd N 1035 Lynnwood Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 cjoday@msn.com dawn @datacentricsolutions-us Joan Stewart Andrea Bufort Dorothy Arnolit 1700 Edmonds Ave NE 2012 Dayton Ave NE 1446 Hillcrest Lane NE Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 joan.stewart3@comcast.net akbufort@yahoo,com Epifanio Son Diego Jeannette Kelly Konrad Hee 1435 Hillcrest Lane NE 512 Harrington Ave NE 5150 NE 20th St Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98059 keiley51201@comcast.net konradlinda@msn-com Jon Sharp Sid Rodabough Sylvia & Chuck Holden 14515 SE 154th 5t 376 Temple Meadow Ln 3609 Meadow Ave N Renton, WA98058 Richland, WA99356 Renton, WA98056 accents_5@verizon.net sbholden@nwlink.com Joshua & Bridgette Marshall Davonne Carter Johnny Contrords 454 M"0F6-rLFAVeNE G4 ---_--"---901Sunset-Blvd-NE------fs39-Eemclaie-P-N-E--------- -- ..... .... . Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Lorenzo Reyes Donald E- & Liz Clapp Debbie Allen 455 Jefferson Ave NE 2935 NE 5th PI 2905 NE 5th PI Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Brad Garter Jesus & Maricela De Dios Alana Mondragon 1026 Newport Ct NE 2615 NE 9th 5t 920 Ferndale Or NE nton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 Renton, WA98056 dgorter@comcast.net Carmen Zarabia 2400 NE 10th PI Renton, WA98056 carrnenzarabia@yahoo.com Jon VanderMeulen 1330 Camas Ave NE Renton, WA99056 vandermeulen@hotmail.com Harrison Liu 3100 NE 16th St Renton, WA98056 Thomas DeJonete 2828 NE 3rd St Renton, WA98056 I Stixrood 814 E Pike St Seattle, WA99102 carls@huitt-zollars.com Robert Thomas 446 Windsor Way NE Renton, WA98056 David Liu 1634 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA98056 liudavid@q.com Carmen Ureta 1150 Union Ave NE #1-4 Renton, WA98059 Elizabeth Rawlings 1.177 Harrington Ave NE #207 Renton, WA98056 el'izabethiswright@gmail.com Dianne & Greg Meboe 1003 Olympia Ave NE Renton, WA98056 dianne@meboe.com Delwari Tyndale 2630 Sunset Ln NE #D Renton, WA98056 xtreme493@yahoo.com Hong -ha Thi Bui 6126 S 126th PI Seattle, WA98179 Venetia Vango 655 Jefferson Ave NE Renton, WA98056 Scott Weiss 1144 Harrington Ave Renton, WA98O56 Brittney Cherry 2629 Sunset Ln NE Renton, WA98O56 brittcherry@hotmaii-corn Jaynes Smith 508 Index Ave NE Renton, WA98O56 Jim Howton 12018 SE 51st 5t Bellevue, WA98006 Keith West 2617 Sunset Ln NE #C Renton, WA98056 Donald Wright 1177 Harrington Ave NE #207 Renton, WA98056 Julia Wilder Baines P. 0. Box 2316 Renton, WA98056 ju liawilder@comcast.net Patrick Gilroy Northward Construction patrick@northward.com Wayne Jones Marc Rousso Len Brannen i_akerg�Develo mint— P ---7a9 �1�f—---�1�IterResou�Ce�liS� waynejones[agmail.com marc@jaymarcdevelopment.com lenb@shelterresourcesinc.com Joel Ing Mark Simpson Troy 5hcmell elter Resources Inc Bumgardner Callidis Development li@shelterresourcesinc_com marks@bumgardner.biz callidisland@comcast.net Barb Main Main Street Builders barbmain@main-street-builders.eom Cerise, Gilbert From Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Please See Attached Notice. Thank you. Rocale Timmons [RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov] Friday, May 13, 2011 2:09 PM 'hmckechnie-hccs@comcast.net',- 'harringtonsquare@conam.net'; 'do novanboyd@comcast. net'; 'schicea@comcast. net'; 'jelyons@ix.netcom.com'; 'hyliu_2000 @yahoo.com'; 'denoss@aol.com'; 'john _hansen3@comcast, net'; 'cjforgaard@comcast.net'; 'screamingfirs@hotmail.com'; 'shbotts@comcast.net'; 'getaview@comcast.net'; 'maryyoung821 @msn_com'; 'mchen44@hotmail.com'; 'Linda.Perrine@accesstpa.com'; 'peterson.erik@epa.gov'; 'cfc@connerhomes. com'; 'todds@connerhomes.com'; 'smithproperties@msn.com'; 'karen@housingconsortium.org'; 'eric.w.haywood@boeing_com'; ' scorch n200sx@hotmall.com'; 'lawyergir[2012@gmail.com'; 'gary.kriedt@kingcounty.gov'; 'gretchen.kaehler@dahp.wa.gov'; 'deeann.kirkpatrick@noaa.gov'; 'grandmared2l @yahoo_com'; 'roy2hike@comcast. net'; 'howardmcomber@hotmail.com'; 'windsorrodabough@gmail.com'; 'apretty5@hotmail.com'; 'jasoncp@rainiercustomhomes. corn',- 'joel.dean@yahoo.com'; 'wailam27@yahoo.com'; 'mylarsen@aol.com'; 'Nomadlucy@aol.com'; 'shir[eyb@commongroundwa.org'; 'm- stanford@gwestoffice.net', 'KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us'; 'manager.harringtonsquare@conam,net; 'ilseattle@mac.com' Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment NQI-RROF ERC Signatures.pdf Rocale Timmons City of Renton - Current Planning Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Tel: (425) 430-7219 Fax: (425) 430-7300 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov Notice of intent to Request Release of Funds for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Date of Notice: May 13, 2011 Name of Responsible Entity: City of Renton, Washington Address: 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Contact and Telephone: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division (425) 430-6578 On or about May 23, 2011 the City of Renton will authorize the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) to submit a request to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the release of funding for projects assisted under section 9 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437x) to undertake redevelopment of RHA's Sunset Terrace public housing community and additional properties owned or purchased by RHA for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans 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 either on-site at Sunset Terrace or off-site at locations within the City's EIS Study Area. The project will require relocation of all existing residents and RHA is developing a relocation plan. 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. Public amenities would be integrated with the development and could include a community gathering space; civic facilities; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure. The activities proposed comprise a project for which the City of Renton initiated and prepared a SEPA/NEPA EIS. A public EIS scoping process on the project occurred from August 13 to October 18, 2010. The City of Renton issued a Draft EIS on December 17, 2010. Following a formal comment period which ended on January 31, 2011, the City issued a Final: EIS on April 1, 2011. An Environmental Review Record (ERR) that documents the environmental determinations for this project is on file at the City of Renton, Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. The public may review and obtain copies of the ERR at this location Monday through Friday between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Record of Decision The City hereby provides notice of its Record of Decision (ROD) for the Renton Sunset Area Community EIS. The ROD documents the City's consideration and conclusions with respect to environmental impacts and mitigation measures for various elements of the environment, as required by NEPA. The ROD does not constitute approval of development of the proposal. The ROD is also considered part of the ERR. Copies of the ROD are available at the City's website: www.sunsetarea.rentonwa.gov. Public Comments Any individual, group, or agency may submit comments on the ERR to the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development. All comments received by May 20, 2011 will be considered by the City of Renton prior to authorizing submission of a request for release of funds. Copies of the ERR are available upon request by contacting Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, at the contact information provided above. Release of Funds The City of Renton certifies to HUD that the Renton Environmental Review Committee, the body designated by the Chief Executive Officer to function as the NEPA Responsible Entity (RE), consents to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts if an action is brought to enforce responsibilities in relation to the environmental review process and that these responsibilities have been satisfied. HUD's approval of the certification satisfies its responsibilities under NEPA and related laws and authorities, and allows the Renton Housing Authority to use Program funds. Objections to Release of Funds HUD will accept objections to its release of funds and the City of Renton's certification for a period of fifteen (15) days following the anticipated submission date or its actual receipt of the request (whichever is later) only if they are on one of the following bases: (a) the certification was not executed by the Certifying Officer of the City of Renton; (b) the City of Renton has omitted a step or failed to make a decision or finding required by HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 58; (c) the grant recipient has committed funds or incurred costs not authorized by 24 CFR Part 58 before approval of a release of funds by HUD; or (d) another Federal agency acting pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1504 has submitted a written finding that the project is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of environmental quality. Objections must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the required procedures (24 CFR Part 58) and shall be addressed to Ryan E. Mielcarek, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region X Seattle Office, 909 1st Ave., Suite 200, Seattle WA 981041000. The Seattle Region X office is open between 9:00 am — 5:00 pm. Potential objectors should contact HUD to verify the actual last day of the objection period. Responsible Entity Certifying Officer City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Date of Dec'si : May 9, 2011 Gregg Zimmer a A an' trat r Dat Mirk Peter n, Ad inistrator Public Works Dep rtment Fire &Emergency rvices Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Community Services Department W I (Ar" Alex Ptetsch, Admistrator Department of Community & Economic Development JQ Jr Da e 15(c� 1 Date