Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc - 3 of 4F 146 � �� is �• Fr r ,fir � , }. �fiL� Va AHEAD OF THE CUR Community & Economic Development 146 � �� is �• Fr r ,fir � , }. �fiL� Va AHEAD OF THE CUR Community & Economic Development Appendices Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Contents A Scoping Materials and Responsiveness Summary B Land Capacity Analysis C Draft Planned Action Ordinance D Environmental Health: EDR Report E Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies F Transportation Data and Analysis G Parks and Recreation Level of Service Calculations H Greenhouse Gas Calculations I Public Health in Land Use Planning & Community Design, Sunset Area Community Planned Action J Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard Cultural Resources Survey Report Appendix A Scoping Materials and Responsiveness Summary SUMMARY OF THE SCOPING PROCESS SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED FOR: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In partnership with Renton Housing Authority 2900 Northeast 10th Street Renton, Washington 98056 PREPARED BY: ICF International EIS Lead Contact; Lisa Grueter 206-801-2816 In conjunction with: CH2MHi11 Project Manager Contact: Roger Mason 425-453-5000 November 2010 ICF International and MMHill. 2010. Summary of the Scoping Process: Sunset Area Community Environmental Impact Statement. November. (ICF 00593.10.) Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton and Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Contents ScopingSummary ................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1 PublicScoping Process........................................................................................................................... 1 PublicOpen House........................................................................................................................... 2 Comments Received At Open House Question &. Answer...............................................................3 WrittenComments.......................................................................................................................... 5 Attachment A — Scoping Notices and Scoping Document Attachment B—Scoping Meeting Materials Attachment C — USEPA Comment Letter Summary of the Scoping Process i November 2010 ICF [Click and type job number] Summary of the Scoping Process Introduction The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action that would encourage redevelopment in the broader 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. Consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the City of Renton solicited comments on the scope of the Sunset Area Community Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the comments received and how they are planned to be addressed in the EIS. Public Scoping Process The City of Renton initiated a formal, public EIS scoping process that occurred from August 13, 2010 to October 18, 2010. The process includes: • A Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the EIS scope was published on August 13, 2010 in the Renton Reporter and by direct mail to agencies, notifying the public and agencies of the joint SEPA/NEPA EIS. This notice established a written comment period through September 13, 2010. A public scoping meeting was held at the Highlands Neighborhood Center on September 1, 2010, where oral and written comments were solicited. The meeting was advertised in the Determination of Significance and Request for Comments described above, as well an interested parties mailing list that includes residents, business owners, agency partners, and other interested stakeholders, postcards mailed to 3,700 property owners, residents, and businesses, and posters hung in the neighborhood.' • Last, consistent with HUD NEPA rules, a Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft EIS for the Sunset Area Community was published in the Federal Register, establishing a 30 -day written comment period regarding the scope and contents of the Draft EIS; this federal comment period opened on September 17 and closed on October 18, 2010. Copies of the notices and advertisements are provided in Attachment A. Comments received during the scoping period were considered by the City of Renton and Renton Housing Authority in determining the issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIS. 1 Postcards were mailed to 2,500 property owners (included properties within 300 feet of the study area) and about 1,200 resident households in the study area. Summary of the Scoping Process 1 November 2010 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community EIS Public Open House A public open house was held on September 1, 2010 in the Highlands Community Center as away of collecting public feedback on the scope of the EIS. The open house format included a presentation on the proposal and anticipated scope of the EIS, a question and answer session, and time for the public to visit stations set up to describe various aspects of the project. Approximately 17 interested residents or business owners attended. Meeting materials were provided at a sign -in station, and included: • Comment Form • Scoping Document • Presentation (English) • Presentation (Spanish) • Matrix of Alternatives These materials are included in Attachment B. Open house stations were available for one-on-one conversations with members of the public and were staffed by city, RHA, and consultant staff included: • Neighborhood: covering the Sunset Study Area as a whole, the framework of the alternatives being discussed, subareas within the neighborhood, and features within each subarea. • Sunset Terrace: covering goals and conceptual drawings specific to the Sunset Terrace subarea within the larger Sunset Study Area. • SR 900: covering cross-sections of the SR 900 (Sunset Boulevard) corridor at various places within the Sunset Planned Action Study Area. • Drainage: covering a variety of green drainage options for inclusion within alternatives beings studied in the EIS. After a general open house period, City and Renton Housing Authority ( RHA) staff welcomed participants and invited them to a presentation given by the consultant team addressing; • Purpose of the meeting • What is an EIS/What is scoping? • What is a planned action? (describe what a planned action does and why the public should comment during scoping] • What are the proposals? (for both Sunset Terrace and the larger Planned Action Study Area) • Where did the proposals come from? (City of Renton Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy) • What topics will the EIS study? • What are the potential alternatives? (This presentation describe the three alternatives) • What is the schedule? • How can citizens provide comment? Summary of the Scoping Process 2 November 2010 ICF 40593.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community EIS City, RHA, and consultant staff responded to questions. Comments Received At Open House Question & Answer The public was invited to provide questions and comments during the Question and Answer portion of the Open House. A summary of comments and questions from the open house, grouped by topic, is included below. In addition, where appropriate, a response and/or discussion of how the comment is addressed in the EIS is also included. Sunset Terrace/Renton Housing Authority (RHA) Redevelopment Plans Question/Comment: Meeting attendees asked what the plan is for Sunset Terrace/RHA redevelopment. In addition, they wanted to know if apartments, condominiums and commercial space would be included in the redeveloped Sunset Terrace, whether stand-alone commercial would be part of the plans for a redeveloped Sunset Terrace and if there would be opportunities to buy commercial space there. Response: Responses were provided at the meeting indicating that multiple options would be reviewed in the EIS for redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property. The Sunset Terrace/RHA redevelopment plan includes a vibrant, mixed -income community (including low- and middle - incomes) on the existing Sunset Terrace site. Redevelopment plans includes 1:1 replacement of all family affordable housing units that exist within Sunset Terrace. Some units would be replaced on the Sunset Terrace site and some within the larger Sunset Area Planned Action Study Area. Zoning in the Sunset Terrace allows for ground floor retail with residential above. This mixed-use development type is a component of the anticipated redevelopment studied in the EIS, but not stand-alone commercial. AHA also plans development of other ANA -owned properties within the larger Sunset Planned Action Study Area. New Commercial Development Question/Comments: Several questions or comments were received at the meeting relating the commercial development anticipated under the alternatives reviewed in the EIS. One commenter described the relationship of higher density development within the study area encouraging new retail development and reducing traffic impacts. Meeting attendees asked about what types of employment would be anticipated in the study area, and whether or not job estimates provided at the meeting included construction jobs. Response: Answers were provided at the meeting stating that anticipated employment was based on commercial uses allowed within the existing zoning, which include retail, commercial, small offices, and non -profits, among other uses allowed. Big -box retail is not allowed within existing zoning. The employment numbers studied in the EIS alternatives are area -wide numbers, and do not include temporary construction jobs. Temporary construction jobs would be in addition to the jobs considered in the EIS. Low Income Housing Question/Comments: Meeting participants were interested in knowing where existing low-income residents would move to, and whether there would be additional low-income housing for those interested in expanding Section S housing within the study area. Summary of the Scoping Process 3 November 2010 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community EIS Response: Answers provided at the meeting indicated that RHA will create a relocation plan for all residents in which each resident is contacted. RHA indicated that replacement housing will be as good as or better than existing units. The 1:1 replacement of affordable housing units at Sunset Terrace would include replacement of the existing affordable housing units within both the existing Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Study Area and within the larger Sunset Area Planned Action Study Area. The EIS alternatives include market rate, affordable and public housing replacement units for the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, The City's existing zoning regulations includes incentives for affordable housing. Traffic Safety and Transportation Infrastructure Plans Question/Comments: Meeting participants expressed concerns about traffic safety in the Sunset Area Planned Action study area. They indicated that traffic has increased over the years and safety has decreased. Commenters indicated that they would like the Study Area to be safe for pedestrians, calling out the corner of 12t1i Street and Harrington Avenue NE as particularly bad, with safety issues exacerbated by large numbers of kids crossing the street at this location. Others commented on cars avoiding left turns because of traffic safety causing additional traffic issues. Meeting participants asked the City to comment on traffic safety and pedestrian improvements in the study area. Response: Responses provided at the meeting indicated that the EIS alternatives look at physical improvements to transportation infrastructure in the study area. Transportation infrastructure and improvements, including both vehicular and pedestrian modes of transportation. In terms of addressing left turns, Sunset Boulevard improvements included in the EIS alternatives will look at access management options that address both local access as well as state highway design needs. In addition, the alternatives also address police and fire impacts. Sunset Boulevard Improvements Question/Comments: Meeting participants provided comments on proposed Sunset Boulevard improvements being considered in the EIS. Interest was expressed in providing one or more pedestrian bridges over Sunset Boulevard that would connect commercial areas and transit stops on either side of the street. In addition, residents complained that existing trees along Sunset Boulevard were overgrown, break up the sidewalk and block stormwater catch -basins. Meeting participants indicated that any new trees planted would need to be smaller tree species, and that a commitment would be needed to maintain planted landscaping. Meeting participants also indicated an interest in providing easy pedestrian access between the Planned Action Study Area and Gene Coulon Park located to the west along Lake Washington. Response: Within the Sunset Area Planned Action Study Area, pedestrian improvements are planned along NE Sunset Boulevard as well as along other neighborhood roads. Intersection improvements are intended to respond to the need for better north -south connections. Sidewalk and drainage improvements are also planned. The City has plans for a pedestrian connection between Renton Highlands Urban Center and the Downtown Urban Center North in the vicinity of the Landing that is in proximity to Lake Washington and Gene Coulon Park. Police Enforcement of Traffic on Sunset Boulevard Question/Comment: Meeting participants indicated an interest in seeing more police enforcement of traffic on Sunset Boulevard. Summary of the Scoping Process 4 November 2010 1CF 00593-10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community EIS Response: A response provided at the meeting indicated that citizens can contact the Renton Police Department directly to request targeted traffic enforcement for a specified location and time of day. Funding Sources/Financial Analysis for Projects Question/Comment: A meeting participant asked if there is any analysis of funding sources such as bonds, in the EIS. Another meeting participant asked where the money would come from to implement projects described in the EIS. Response: Responses were provided at the meeting indicated that projects included in the EIS are designed to attract funding sources. An analysis of funding sources is not part of the environmental analysis process, though this type of analysis will occur separately in order to help achieve the City's vision for the study area. King County Library Improvements Question/Comment: A meeting participant noted that Renton voters approved King County Library annexation and the Highlands Branch of the public library will he rebuilt. Response: Alternatives studied in the EIS assume the Highlands Branch of the King County Library System will be rebuilt and relocated, some in the neighborhood and some in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in particular. Written Comments In addition to comments received at the September 1, 2010 Open House, the City of Renton received the following written comments during the August 13 to October 18, 2010 comment period: King County Metro: Transit Service and Facilities King County Metro staff commented via a September 30, 2010 email on transit service within the study area: The project area is served by Routes 240 and 909. Route 909 serves two bus stops along Harrington, and Route 240 operates along Sunset Blvd. Route 240 provides frequent service between Renton and Bellevue via the Renton Highlands, so, the redevelopment should be well served by transit. Other routes in the greater Renton Highlands area are the 105, 111 and 908. The two bus stops on Harrington could use additional 10 ft. X 4 ft. ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] landing area at the back of the sidewalk. Please contact LG Hahn, Transit Planner, at 206-684-1725, lg.hahn@kingcounty.gov, to discuss. The current Metro bus routes will be addressed in the EIS. The alternatives include transit and non - motorized improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. Comments regarding bus stops on Harrington Avenue NE will be considered. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 10 The US EPA provided a letter dated October 18, 2010 to the City, and these are summarized in Table 1 together with responses. A copy of the full letter is provided in Attachment C. Summary ofthe Scoping Process 5 November 2010 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community PIS Table I. USEPA Comments and Responses Summary of Comment Response The City's website and particularly the scoping The comment is noted. document are particularly useful and exemplary of an effective scoping approach. Redevelopment of Sunset Terrace into a healthy, The comment is noted. The City and RHA intend to livable, affordable, viable and green community apply for future federal funding to help revitalize would be consistent with HUD -DOT -EPA the Sunset Area Community. Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities' six livability principles: • Provide more transportation choices; • Promote equitable, affordable housing; • Enhance economic competitiveness; • Support existing communities; • Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment; and, + Value communities and neighborhoods. Range of Alternatives: Environmental impacts The comment is noted. The project description in may be as much a function of planning concepts the EIS addresses the planning concepts and the (building height and massing, open space, different levels of investment and private topography, connections/ edges, circulation, land redevelopment. use) as it is a function of the intensity and density of redevelopment Varying the location and type of public investment as well as anticipating different levels of private investment is a reasonable approach for these complex issues. Phased Approach: Temporary impacts are In addition to reviewing the short-term action of generally those occurring 5 years or less. the Sunset Terrace public housing community Consideration should be given to long-term social, redevelopment, a 20 -year look at redevelopment economic, and environmental impacts including in the neighborhood is also being considered in the mitigation. EIS. Air Toxics: Discuss the cancer and non -cancer The EIS will include an air quality analysis. Air health effects associated with diesel exhaust quality construction mitigation measures will be (mobile source air toxics or MSAT). Identify addressed in the EIS. sensitive receptors including parks, schools, The EIS will qualitatively describe the potential for hospitals, day care centers, etc. Disclose locations MSAT emissions and potential health effects. The where emissions could increase near sensitive study area is not near any major industrial receptors. Assess or account for (qualitative or facilities that emit large amounts of toxic air modeled depending on severity) factors that could pollutants. Existing traffic on N.E. Sunset influence degree of adverse impacts to human Boulevard includes only 20/o heavy diesel vehicles, health. Hotspot analysis for receptor locations for which is typical of commercial arterials. air toxics and particulate matter. Commit to air quality construction mitigation measures. Indoor Air: Encourage Renton to integrate lessons The EIS will include an air quality analysis. The learned at High Point in Seattle regarding the City will explore measures to improve indoor air Breathe Easy Project quality. Grant programs such as the Breath -Easy Homes program could provide funding to foster construction methods that reduce dust, mold, and air toxics concentrations in the homes. Summary of the Scoping Process 6 November 2010 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community EIS Summary of Comment Response Legacy Pollutants: Disclose the findings of any The EIS will address environmental health based relevant legacy pollutant studies; as appropriate, on a records search for the PIanned Action Study conduct Phase I and Phase 11 environmental site Area. In addition, a Phase I site assessment was assessments. completed on one vacant property that is part of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Eased on criteria provided in the HUDGuidai1ce. and information collected to date, the Proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area [i) is not listed on an EPA Superfund National Priorities or CERCLA List, or equivalent State list; (ii) is not located within 3,000 feet of a toxic or solid waste landfill site; (iii) does not have an underground storage tank (which is not a residential fuel tank); and (iv) is not known or suspected to be contaminated by toxic chemicals or radioactive materials. Health Impact Assessment: Projects that have the The proposal includes elements intended to potential to substantially affect social, economic; improve the health of residents including and/or environmental conditions within improved non -motorized facilities, mixed use land communities may benefit from a Health Impact uses, open space, and other features. The EIS Assessment (HIA), or, at least, elements of HIA. addresses socioeconomics, transportation, and public services. The City will consider whether elements of HIA, such as a policy level or qualitative analysis would also be helpful to decision -makers and the public. 303(d) listed waters and total maximum daily The EIS will address water resources focusing on loads: Identify waterbodies likely to be impacted downstream water bodies outside the study area, by the project. If there are 303(d) listed water as there are no water bodies inside the study area. bodies in the project area, the EIS must disclose The status of water bodies in terms of 303(d) information regarding TMDL's. There should not listed waters and TMDL's will be disclosed. be degradation of where water quality standards are being met Predevelopment Hydrology: Designing for The EIS will address stormwater drainage. The predevelopment hydrology may be an effective study area is highly developed and contains a water quality management strategy for the project. constructed drainage system. The EIS will address alignment of future development with the City's stormwater code and the potential for green infrastructure where feasible. It should be noted that the City meets National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase It requirements. Transportation: Integrating enhancements for Multimodal transportation systems will be public transportation, bicycles and pedestrians as addressed in the Transportation section of the EIS. well as capacity for vehicles is consistent with The City has adopted a complete streets ordinance, quality urban design, increases clean and efficient and concepts will be addressed in the EIS. transportation options and promotes health living. The City is interested in integrated and multi- modal strategies. To assess/inform the sustainability of transportation designs consider performance metrics e.. CH2MHill's Greenroads, Summary ofthe Scoping Process November 2010 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community El Summary of Comment Response and ICF's "Scoring Smart Growth Streets Literature Review - Findings" as well as others.) Urban Forest Restoration: EIS should compare Urban habitat conditions including tree canopy how different redevelopment alternatives, design will be addressed in the plants and animals section guidelines, mitigation measures would impact of the EIS. reaching goals for urban forest restoration. Threatened and Endangered Species: The EIS The EIS will address plant and animal species should addressed endangered, threatened, and under ESA and under City critical area regulations. candidate, plant and animal species under ESA As an urban area without presence of water [Endangered Species Act]. If relevant, a biological bodies, no effects within the study area are assessment and/or a description of the ESA Section anticipated. Analysis of receiving streams outside 7 consultation with USFWS and NOAA fisheries the study area will be addressed in the EIS. should be included. Invasive Species: Ground disturbing activities There is no ruderal vegetation in the study area. create opportunity for establishment of non-native Nevertheless, discussion of invasive species will be species. Encourage re -vegetation with native addressed. Opportunities for native vegetation species. such as on green street connections can he addressed qualitatively. Land Use/Urban Agriculture: Recommend that The Sunset Terrace public housing development the City consider urban agriculture and its creates opportunities for parks and open space potential benefits in the EIS. Identify current and activities which may include community gardens. future extent of urban agriculture, economic and The City will consider this activity in the social contributions of urban agriculture, and an alternatives as appropriate. The City Parks urban agricultural plan. Division is pursuing funding and researching community garden sites for the neighborhood, including in Sunset Terrace public housing community. Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gases: The EIS will address energy and greenhouse gas Recommend that entities take voluntary action to emissions. mitigate GHG emissions. Encourage efforts to mitigate embodied, operational, and transportation carbon impacts. In addition to use of the King County GHG worksheet consider additional guidance such as from the Council on Environmental Quality's October 6, 2010 guidance. Environmental Justice: Actions should be taken to The EIS will include a section on Environmental conduct adequate public outreach and participation justice. The City's public participation plan and to tribes, minority and low income populations. City and RHA efforts, past and present, to inform Describe efforts taken to inform the community, all members of the community will be described. identify low income and minority communities, Mitigation measures to reduce impacts will be disclose what was heard from the community described as appropriate. about the project during public participation sessions, address whether impacts are likely to occur and to whom, describe how public input is incorporated into decisions about the project. Propose mitigation measures. Tribal Consultation: Government -to -government Tribes were notified through the scoping notices consultation with federally recognized Indian tribal and also through the Section 106 consultation governments is legally required. EPA recommends process (e.g. letter regarding the area of potential that lead agencies consult with the potentially effect). Tribes will be notified through the notice Summary of the Scoping Process 8 November 2010 IC F 40593,10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community EIS Summary of Comment Response affected tribes specific to their interests and of availability of the Draft EIS. concerns. Cultural Resources: NEPA requires that effects on The FIS will address cultural resources. Section cultural resources be considered in judging the 106 consultation is being conducted as part of the significance of environmental effects. Section 106 environmental review process. consultation is required prior to a FONSI or ROD. Summary of the Scoping Process 9 November 2010 ICF OOS93.10 Attachment A Scoping Notices and Scoping Document Summary of the Scoping Process November 2010 ICF 00593.10 { :i� P Pr i r Dri. Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scope File Number LU10-052 Description of the Proposal Proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment. The project includes 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 NE on approximately eight acres. The Renton Housing Authority also owns another approximately three acres of vacant land 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 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. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by Renton Housing Authority, 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 public library; 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 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, storrnwater drainage systems, parks and recreation facilities, education facilities, and a new public library. 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 Sunset Terrace area redevelopment as well as neighborhood redevelopment and supporting services and infrastructure improvements. SEPA Planned Action. The City is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance for the neighborhood including Sunset Terrace. A Planned Action Ordinance, if 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 EISs. Therefore, comment during this Scoping period is encouraged. 1 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 le Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The proposed planned action neighborhood study area is generally bounded by NE 2158 Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7h Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. Lead agency for SEPA and NEPA Compliance City of Renton EIS Required The lead agency has determined this proposal may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required and will be prepared under the State Environmental Policy Ad and implementing regulations (RCW 43,21C.030 (2)(c), WAC 1.97-11) and the National Environmental Policy Act and US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) implementing regulations (42 USC 4321, 24 CFR 58). Materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at the City's website or at City offices; see Contact Person below. This EIS will be a joint SEPA/NEPA document, intended to satisfy requirements of both state and federal environmental statutes. Through Federal legislative authorization, the City of Renton has assumed responsibility for compliance with NEPA (40 CFR 1508.12) and the related Federal laws and authorities that would otherwise apply to the HUD. Pursuant to SEPA, the City of Renton is the lead agency for the proposed action. This combined SEPA/NEPA EIS scoping notice is being published to achieve efficient documentation and coordination of notices and pertinent meetings. A NEPA Notice of intent to Prepare an 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 to the proposed 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 otherfeatures. EIS Issues: 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. SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 Scoping Agencies, affected tribes, 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 approvals that may be required. Submit written comments on or before 5 p.m. September 13, 2010. Send written comments to the Contact Person listed below. A scoping meeting will be held on September 1, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the Highlands Neighborhood Center, 800 Edmonds Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056. Written and oral comments will be taken at this meeting. Responsible Official City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) .' Gregg Zi erTa16, Administrator Date Mark Peterson, Administrator Date Public Works Department Fire & EmerLency Services I p t. � `rr 1 u v Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Alex Pietsth, Ainistrator DNe Community Services Department Department ofT mmunity & Economic Development Publication Date: August 13, 2010 Date of Decision: August 9, 2010 Contact Person For more information, see the project website at: sunsetarea.rentonwa.gov, or please contact: Erika Conkling, AICD 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 e co n kl i n g@ re ntonw a.gov Appeal You may appeal this determination of significance pursuant to SEPA to the Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 p.m- on August 27, 2010 pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.E. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the "Contact Person" above to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LUIO-052 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 180/Friday, September 17, 20"10/Notices 57051 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA -1932 - DR; Docket ID FEMA -2010-0002] DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -5443-N-01] Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sunset Area Community, City of Renton, WA Kansas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of AGENCY: Office of the Assistant a Major Disaster Declaration Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. AGENCY: Federal Emergency ACTION: Notice, 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 2047'2, (202) 646-3886. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Excculive Order 12148, as amended, William J. Doran III, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinaling Officer for this disaster, This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster. The following Catalog of Fedcral Domestic Assistance Numhers ((;FDA) are to be used fur reporting and drawing hinds: 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; 97.0413, Disaster Ilousing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas: 97.1}49. Presidentially 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, Adminintrotor, FederalEnlergency LlanngementAgency. IFR Dec. 2010-233x2 Filed &-16-10; 8:45 anll BILLING CODE 9111-23-P SUMMARY: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gives notice to the public, agencies, and Indian tribes that the City 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 lite 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 CFR 58.1 and 58.4, and as the lead agency for compliance with the WashingtonSlate Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21C), will perform the joint environmental review. This notice is in accordance with regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality at 40 CTR 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 City 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 Oclober 18, 1010. Any person or agency interested in receiving a notice and wishing to make comment on the Draft ETS 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) 4251430-7300 (fax), or e-mail; econkling0renton wa,gov, An alternative contact is Mark Santos -Johnson, Senior Economic Development Specialist, City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development, 425-430-6584 (voice), msontosjohrrsonyjrentoriw•a.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 Sunset Torrace. 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 19405 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 spare; 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. 7:5, No. 180/Friday, Septeinber 17, 2010/Notices education facililies, and a newv public librarv. The Sunset Area contains many public amenilics and publicly -owned parcels creating significant Opportunities for partnership and integration of civil infrastructure improvements. 'rhe 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 shnUld be made in order to make this a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses and properly owners. The ITIS 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. Alternatives 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. h may address alternative land use mixes, infrastructure options, or other fcatures. Probable Environmental Effects The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: aesthetics; air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions; earlh; 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, stormwaler, water supply, telecommunication, natural gas, power, electrical; and water resources, including groundwater and surface water. Lead Agency This EIS will he a joint Nalional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Washington State Environmental Policy Acl (SEPA) document intended 10 sat[s1V requirements of federal and state environmental stalules. 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 Cunlact." Dated: August 23, 2010. Mercedes Marquez, Assi.sta n t Secretary for Cor7ttn unity: Plan ming and Development. [k R Duc. 2010--23181 Filed 9-16-10: 8:45 anal BILLING CODE 421x -67—P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -5375—N-36] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities 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: Septernher 27, 2020, 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 , och-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line a1800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National 1";oalitiort for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503–OC (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identif},ing 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 wock. Dated: Srptramlrer 9, 2[110. Mark R. Juhnstun, Deprrfv As.si.stant .Serretarlf for Special Needs. IFR Dac. 2 01 0-2291 8 Filetl l.) 16-10; 8:45 aril BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -5442—N-011 Notice of Single Family Loan Sale (SFLS 2010) AGENCY: Offico of the Assistant Secrclary for Housing—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 nolire also generally describes [Ile bidding process for the sale and certain persons who are ineligible to bid. DATES: The Bidder's Information Package (BTP) was made available 10 qualified bidders on August 31, 2010. Bids for the loans must be submitiod on the bid dale, 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:11 iti-ti-Li,.hud.gol /offices/hsgfcorrtp/assetl skarn/sfls.cfin. Please mail and fax executed documents to HUD's Asset Sales Office: Asset Sales Office, lTnitcd Slates Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 3136, Washinglon. 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. Sunset Area Community EIS Scoping Document The City of Renton, in cooperation with the Renton Housing Authority, intends to issue an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing future redevelopment of the Sunset Area Community. This EIS will be a joint State Environmental Policy Act/ National Environmental Policy Act (SEPA/NEPA) document, intended to satisfy requirements of state and federal environmental statutes. Through Federal legislative authorization, the City of Renton has assumed responsibility for compliance with NEPA (40 CFR 1508.12) and the related Federal laws and authorities that would otherwise apply to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Pursuant to SEPA, the City of Renton is the lead agency for the redevelopment and infrastructure proposal detailed below. The purpose of this document is to present background information and proposed environmental topics to be included in the EIS under preparation for the Sunset Area Community. This document presents the proposal, a description of the EIS topics, and how the City intends to solicit comments. A scoping notice issued by the City of Renton on August 13, 2010 should be read in conjunction with this scoping document. Scoping Notices are available on the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) or by contacting the Contact Person listed below. Background What is the Proposal? The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community, encourage neighborhood redevelopment, and implement public service and infrastructure improvements. Proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment. The project includes 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 NE on approximately eight acres. The Renton Housing Authority also owns another approximately three acres of vacant land 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 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. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by Renton Housing Authority, 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 or "Third Place"; a new recreation/community center; a new SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER; LU10-052 public library; 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 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, education facilities, and a new public library. 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 Sunset Terrace area redevelopment as well as neighborhood redevelopment and supporting services and infrastructure improvements. SEPA Planned Action. The City is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would not require future SEPA threshold determinations or EISs when future projects are consistent with the Sunset Area Community EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. What is the study area? Sunset Terrace is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE loth Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The proposed planned action neighborhood study area 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, SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 F It ure 1 lCFSunset Area Planned Action/EIS Study Area 11-1,, 91 _ Co& Mnton Sunset EIS SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 What is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)? An EIS is an informational document intended to allow for citizen and agency comment and assist agencies make informed choices about proposals. An EIS contains descriptions and analysis of: • The proposed action and alternative actions • Existing conditions of the built and natural environment (i.e., the affected environment or setting) • Impacts to the built and natural environment that may occur if the proposed action or an alternative action were implemented (direct, indirect, and cumulative) • Mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts of the proposed action, and • Summaries of impacts found to be significant, unavoidable, and adverse (meaning residual impacts of the proposed action despite mitigation measures), What is a Planned Action? The Planned Action designation by a jurisdiction reflects a decision that adequate environmental review has been completed and further environmental review under SEPA, for each specific development proposal or phase, will not be necessary if it is determined that each proposal or phase is consistent with the development levels and mitigation measures specified in a Planned Action Ordinance. Although future proposals that qualify as Planned Actions would not be subject to additional SEPA review, they would be subject to application notification and permit process requirements. Because a Planned Action is contemplated for the Sunset Area Community proposals, public comment during the EIS process is encouraged. What is scoping? Scoping is a process intended to ensure that the EIS focuses on and addresses all relevant issues. The City is required to notify agencies, tribes, and the public when an EIS is under preparation and to solicit comments on the range of alternatives and impacts to be discussed in an EIS. Public comment is being solicited in a scoping process through September 13, 2010. See "How do I comment on the EIS" below. What will the EIS study? Elements of the Environment to Be Addressed The City of Renton has 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. More information is described below under "Environmental Topics." SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER; LU10-052 Conceptual Alternatives The alternatives to be considered in the EIS will include the proposed action, a no action alternative, and a redevelopment alternative to the proposed 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 features. How do I comment on the EIS? Public comment is being solicited in a scoping process through September 13, 2010 including written comments and a scoping meeting. Send written comments to the contact person listed under "How can I get more information?" A scoping meeting will be held on September 1, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the Highlands Neighborhood Center, 800 Edmonds Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056. Written and oral comments will be taken at this meeting. The public will also be invited to comment during the comment period on the Draft EIS after it is published, and during a public hearing regarding the Planned Action. Notifications about the Draft EIS publication and public meetings and hearings will be made in accordance with adopted City procedures. Interested parties who sign up on mailing lists or contact the City with a request to receive notices will also receive notices, See "How can I get more information" below. How can I get more information? The City's web site will have updated information on documents and public meetings —go to Renton's website at: sunsetarea.rentonwa.gov. Check it often so you'll know what's happening. Or email or call our contact person. Contact Person Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econklingerentonwa.gov Environmental Topics Potential Environmentally Significant Issues The following is a summary of the elements of the environment that have been identified as being potentially impacted by the proposal, and therefore, will be addressed in the EIS. Impacts, mitigation measures, and impacts that cannot be mitigated will be identified in the EIS. SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 Topic Proposed Environmental Analysis Approach Earth Describe the geologic setting and simplified geologic character of the study area. Rely primarily on narrative description using soils reports from recent constructed projects — public and private. Conduct a limited field surface assessment of the Sunset Terrace site. Discuss the degree and nature of potential soil/geotechnical impacts encouraged by the proposal and alternatives. Air Prepare an analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Determine if the proposal and alternatives would result in additional air pollutant emissions. Summarize existing air quality conditions and compare growth levels and potential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) based on the transportation model. Prepare a focused review of greenhouse gas emissions using the King County greenhouse gas emissions worksheet to determine the potential for alternatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared with dispersed development patterns. Water Assess current conditions and potential impacts regarding groundwater and surface water. Describe change in impervious surfaces and water quantity and quality taking into account current surface water, drainage, and soils conditions, proposed drainage master plan, and low impact development techniques. Plants and Animals Since the study area is largely developed the primary topics to be addressed are water quality and runoff effects on adjacent natural systems outside of the study area. Review available information and conduct limited site reconnaissance visits of the Sunset Terrace sites. (No habitat or wetland surveys or assessments will be conducted.) Prepare a technical report that: describes the existing conditions for wildlife habitat, habitat features, and potential use by Federal or State listed threatened, endangered, candidate, or priority species. Summarize existing City and state inventories and contacts with representatives from other agencies that may have wildlife information relative to the study area. Describe application of federal state, and local regulations that apply. Assess the potential for proposed low impact development standards, regional drainage systems, and other features to minimize impacts. Document findings. It is anticipated that the conclusion for NEPA purposes will be a letter of no effect regarding federal listed species. SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 Topic Proposed Environmental Analysis Approach Energy and natural resources Describe energy sources and consumption, changes in demand for energy as a result of the proposal and alternatives, and mitigation measures to reduce demand such as energy code requirements, proximity to transit services, etc. Estimate Sunset Terrace site -wide energy usage by direct space heating, electricity usage, and vehicle usage. Use the Energy Star Target Finder model to forecast baseline energy usage, natural gas consumption, electricity usage according to geographic area and facility type. Calculate vehicle -related energy consumption by considering project -specific VMT forecasts, which are based on the facility's mixed-use land use goals. For a neighborhood level analysis, use the King County GHG spreadsheet to estimate energy usage and supplement it with estimates of vehicle -related fuel consumption. Evaluate potential energy reductions achievable by using more stringent energy codes and by adopting LEED energy - conservation design goals. Environmental health hazards Assess potential soils contamination in the study area based on contamination and cleanup data as available from the City, state and other readily available sources. Based on available information concerning historic land uses in the study area, identify the risk of potential contamination in the study area. Describe federal and state laws and specific mitigating measures to address potential contamination if found. Environmental justice Describe the potential of the proposal and alternatives to have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations and provide appropriate mitigation. Noise Describe the overall noise character of the study area based on existing uses, and for Sunset Terrace based on noise monitoring. Conduct 48-hour mid -week noise monitoring at one monitoring location (Sunset Terrace). As part of the noise monitoring conduct site visits to the Sunset Terrace site to identify site-specific noise sources such major roads, commercial facilities, and airports (addressing facilities within 15 miles). Review the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study for Renton Airport to evaluate how existing and future airport noise levels will affect the Sunset Terrace and the planned action area. Determine future noise levels based on U.S. Department of HUD Noise Assessment Guidelines and use of the traffic SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 Topic Proposed Environmental Analysis Approach model volumes and other noise programs. Describe existing ambient noise levels and potential increases in noise levels due to increases in traffic. Describe mitigation measures such as the energy code and other noise abatement practices. Land use Assess land use compatibility including the proposed amount, types, scale and pattern of uses in comparison with the existing land use pattern and adjacent development. Analyze conformance with applicable federal, state, county, and local plans and regulations, such as the Renton Comprehensive Plans and Zoning/Development regulations. Housing Calculate the number of housing units that would be provided and those potentially eliminated, with estimates of housing type (attached, detached, etc.) and affordability (extremely low, very low, low income, etc.). Describe plans for replacement of current housing and relocation of the occupants including whether replacement facilities or housing units are available within the community or in nearby neighborhoods and effect of the relocation of families on these neighborhoods Aesthetics and Light and glare Use existing photos, maps, aerials, and text to describe the overall aesthetic character of the study area. Describe site and neighborhood character in terms of visual quality and coherence, character and design of existing buildings, and building height, bulk and scale. Using conceptual plans developed for the Sunset Terrace and other example developments indicative of zoning allowances, describe the degree and nature of changes due to the proposal and alternatives and potential effects on surrounding visual character, height and bulk, and shade/shadow. Recreation Address amount and type of designated and informal parks and recreational program opportunities in the vicinity, operators, and baseline of existing facility capacity and programs. Describe proximity of parks and recreation facilities to current and future residents. Determine who currently uses the facilities (youth, adults, seniors) and who may use the facilities in the future as a result of the proposal. Describe the demand for parks and recreation services, types of facilities/amenities that may be needed. Develop mitigation including opportunities to add parks and recreation facilities, or to address inter -agency SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LUIO-052 Topic Proposed Environmental Analysis Approach agreements to optimize available facilities. Historic and cultural preservation Historic Resources: Conduct a literature search for the study area and vicinity to identify the presence of any known historic resources. Notify the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and affected tribes by letter about the project and the pending cultural resources investigation, as necessary, and invite them to participate and contribute information to the project. Conduct a reconnaissance-level historic resources survey of built environment resources 45 years of age or older on Sunset Terrace (approximately 31 buildings) and along SR 900 (one parcel deep, approximately 18 buildings). Inspect the integrity of these resources to evaluate their potential eligibility for listing in the'National Register of Historic Places. Collect information about their architectural character and physical integrity of each resource, including photographs, and prepare a Washington Historic Property Inventory form for each resource surveyed, Archaeological Resources: Conduct a literature search and coordinate with agencies as described for historic resources. Conduct an archaeological survey limited to Sunset Terrace and 5R 900 to identify previously recorded and/or unrecorded archaeological resources where ground-disturbing activities are expected to take place. Inspect the ground surface at Sunset Terrace to find exposed ground surface, any exposed cultural materials, and areas that have high probability for having buried deposits that could contain cultural materials. In areas where project-related ground-disturbance is expected, excavate shovel test pits to reveal the nature of the subsurface deposits and whether or not buried cultural materials are present. If required, selected probes will be made along SR 900 in readily accessible landscaped areas to confirm the area's disturbance and likely lack of resources. All probes will be backfilled upon completion. Any newly identified archaeological sites will be mapped, photographed, and recorded on Washington State Archeological Inventory forms. Socioeconomics Address demographic character changes, present and future employment and income patterns, and potential displacement and relocation associated with the proposal and alternatives. Transportation Perform traffic analysis to determine roadway design SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 Topic Proposed Environmental Analysis Approach parameters and potential traffic related environmental impacts. Prepare an operational analysis, and an assessment of safety, transit, non -motorized modes. Public services Address the following services: • Public Safety (police, fire, and emergency medical services) • Educational Facilities (K-12 schools, early childhood education) • Health Care (e.g. regular and emergency dental and medical care) • Social Services (e.g. family counseling centers, day care centers; services for senior citizens and the handicapped; nutrition centers, meals on wheels; income maintenance and man power programs, etc.). Prepare a demand analysis based on population, housing, and employment estimates and service providers' adopted levels of service. Utilities Describe current conditions and potential need for improved facilities as a result of growth and redevelopment for the following services, wastewater, stormwater, water supply, telecommunication, natural gas, power, and electrical. Inapplicable Environmental Topics The following topics referenced on NEPA or SEPA checklists or guidance documents are considered inapplicable to the Sunset Area Community: • Agricultural Lands. The study area is highly urbanized and is not used for agricultural purposes. • Flooding. The study area does not appear to contain any streams, and flood hazards have not been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. • Coastal and shoreline issues. The study area is not located along shorelines. • Airport Runway Clear Zone or Clear Zone Disclosure. The study area is not adjacent to the Renton Airport. • Exposure to hazards from stationary aboveground storage tanks that contain materials of an explosive or flammable nature. At this time, above ground storage tanks are not located in the study area due to its residential and retail character. SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 10 Attachment B Scoping Meeting Materials Summary of the Scoping Process November 2010 ICF 00593.10 Renton Sunset Area Community NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scoping Meeting Comment Sheet You 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 approvals that may be required. You may turn comments in at the scoping meeting tonight, September 1, 2010. Or you may submit written comments on or before 5 p.m. September 13, 2010. Send comments to: 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 ■ y C C: 75 cn C: Co • a ° (n o a o u) o w ■ ■ 0 a� E E 0 U O -0 cn co C (D cm Ca cu 0 0 o � 0 O ■ 4--f U Q 0 CL 4� 0 w cu O cu Z 4) I Q CL w z ._. CL rw V ) U) L w 0 o E � R � O �5 (D E (CD: o � co m cn C 0 o .o -o E C E 0 0 0 L cn 0 4] — Q � � Q I I ■ 0 a� E E 0 U O -0 cn co C (D cm Ca cu 0 0 o � 0 O ■ 4--f U Q 0 CL 4� 0 w cu O cu Z 4) I Q CL w z ._. CL rw V ) 10 Ow 0 U) .C/) co cu c 0 .CL U 43 co c 0 0 U) w E -7o m q 0 .0 Ca 3 %4--- 4-j cn F L. (D • — E E 0 U) > cn i ` cn o Q U� Co (ncn o E ip 0 0 0- U — 0 .° ° o 3 Ln -C'X W W L I � I q 0 .0 Ca 3 O U U)0 co _ -C W cf) O CL O p O U)W c Cl)�� �=. co �� � +� -U) O �cnWr�n �° L� �E �(��a)a N•w 0CO cm� ,a}� O� caL �-0 U Co 4) a) 5)0 m C:�. cn=o 0 0 a_ a) .o .1.-' U) Lm CO O C:M 0 L o — _O cn '�- ft� cn cn a_+ mcmE Q) to C3 O C� t� ' S .+N U U�0 a) (D Cf) �QQ O L vo���'—=—QUO �{QWcnU) ■ ♦ 4 (n cu _ a a .a E cn E c a a : 4) c ac � cu cn w > CU 73 :3a)U ate— v C cu • ��c C17 w C: � C:CU . - j w �Q a) c� C a>�� CL C/)o . �w o�Q � a a� U) Lf -a o CL ' 'd � � cn � a C: a ._ :DU) — cu z3 CU ra o 4-1 C) CL U) Q � � (n _ a a .a cn E a C: : c ac � U cn CU :3a)U ate— C CU w 0 C:CU j > a) .00 .0 a>�� o�Q a a� Lf ECU -C CL OD ow C: o'o.� :DU) cu -P z� � 0 cu �c:a� cn C: 0�- E cn -0 C: > ca FS lb r� 4-j }0 �o E o o a) a Q 0 a) >'t— cn� � CU M • �. va (D�a � o U) CC3 C: ��� c _ 0- a) 0() L. o (D>-� " > 0 -0 I CL -EQ cn a) E 0 E 0 co co 0 CD a) c E • ^+ cn W Y • C: •C: a:� o co=3 cu E •� �o Fav c>;c0 Co " o a) QL C: -0 a) o—•o m 0aD0 C: a) a)cn0 a) E E a C: c a •0 a) a) � > > I � C: ■ IL I JIBS �� J .� Baa aw-Y:y ": � JJJJ • i�l. i-'►� _ - - _ . - _ - -- M rte+ r -N •.r- 5 '.ii 1�_r„a - r t-..r*S '�ti ■ a! Jar ' i s ■�1 *r.`��� 1 t J_F_" k a I: V ii ea a►~� yrx _ �► `,.,x ��'��,,;� •�.. ■-..-•rpt �_ �.,jis; r r-�_ -' • :3� r t s► 'ti ra t 1't��-•� y i:�i a. I Y •tMr L-.. I��Ytt •�, . r- '1. T. •1 ~^a`r�!., _■!tt`� TJ�� .• • Y�`'�i■r"�a #IZ'r'' r:1+• • 7.a t �r a R=�r ,- Y.�y r �5'4+b;�YNl�I'L' a t*�i1 I� �_`J�sY••t ,+�,r �.� :,� • ^ r •.U` ♦ r�� -filli r ■--iii _A rl�niN v `I.} y iY y iY.. •{r i � ■L}■• � y tla • ... r r. J , til �: �1JL::J�� `_ r, I s Si,r ,:?f I �+. r ,,.■t �.:_.ir.::�1:'R"v� ty. t �: ti•-••- '� _-1 � . _ _ , Ir�� w `-^-..i �.a'4 as Y• •�+t � i�� � T� •i 5 �' . ��.11 J5a '.4' �.�/� •. �f r r-��-.I .... +a„y... w ...i.W Jrrr11 rL�ti� M :L . �'� .ti..��h ,�• a.ar` % I mv7 a.+, •. •.�+ia.. t -.a y, rr.air �^... ws._ . r r� '" . •r tir ..., i ux�.w ..■.r aa.. .ti i....a, +� r +_rrw . -'� ..,+ � � .� �.- - � �, . � r • r � F F{ ,� +' � r"' . .ra a .. ..� a : ' +1_ � r-_.�...: ►..�� e'er_ -_.'.a • � ; � " r` �' 1 rte. � i �.� ' � r �s ,+ra-�.< i,_ . '.1 j v •.a M -0 .-t+r•�Yr•_'`a ■�" : � +) € ru�,..l - - -iii 1-•. • a y ._ti_. ` "'. r-. .`+•tet, �� i•, C ] •" ; + rs +r.rj --=.1 r.; ?•,••a-' ; ■ �-r• (Ito: •r� y a'+• i A r. ..Vol ,•• .�1 .'a a',ri - •r. i. ^ai N.- irya, %r-+_. Ito: �L f`.1F.% y -c 5 L: U Q L 4 411 Y cc LU Li) Q W < V'1 LL CL Q cr_ Ma CL li 0 � 2 O t7 � LU � C) LLW LU CrCr V) < 0 z Lll ❑ Azj]pl imp rw �}2 Nii Y,i9tlNQW '"�., ,IN MY 46;l Al �► — - ; �;. _ f'v XQrlr` - a . ' INr MY COOMINMNNAI. 4 ikelFk�- :, ' = L= _ Y V,,• ` 3N 3nY pNl!1kY111 ., 1 �� lit 7[1!tl(I,nND AYfN far:js`"A s �.s aN anvxaQN� s � 1. at wt iNl7%i0N' IN inYxa ONl. +�, _ ;! d . ct. - a+N�F ' p,.a 1 z1 i,Wfw%vEKS• -iN IAV 9UGMN319 1 •''!1 'L� '-� 'A`` c 'aN3+lYaQO + - 3Ntl1�31Y9Ntlii If - r,_ F+i�r :tk 4jaa•R �� , rErEk� -- ' - ury !u ,, !, . -- .�{-�_ ryt �� T ,�! Y AYO 1.aL wF W ��h'i' 3H t r r F �P 1Ji��:' w>NaeAra.rr ! n C -.isos f�� ► Cr4 OIL E �t ad��i wni r �Am Rai'+ r` :• 3" E Ike ?.nix7l'�' tamour �m'G,"--� 3A117-SVWtl7 t.-r�%Stisw�r r z AY I�� – * z 0 ?� b M 72 -� '►.� pp� s�M�� '� � ' E �7� � LTi` l: ;,Fs.�:. o n i = � a��� - �N•anvN37aaiaY.- _ �aryrys7'1 slow re • 4 I 0 .V) V) .0 w V) a� 0 0 c V) u cu r13 4-J .� c v V Z cz a� O W o.: VI O �--w au a au Ln .o ii 0 V au .x ct a 0 • C 0 U Q a� c ca 0 cz 0 CLL CL U C Vim. MC ■ CO 4-0 LD a� E cn 0 co CL c� o a� ..� 0 }, C cu U (� cu 0 > > Q — O En L L3 > C 0 cu72 C _0 L co ) L {u Z -0 U > � N ce) C M Q3L QN Q N N N C6 L �2� 0 > > > m q? +�.6..-4- co0 O O L Co (n a) (nM La C6 a)<<< U)U)❑JQ.v I I> I I I I I F—I Q ■ ■ ■ C 0 U Q a� c ca 0 cz 0 CLL CL U C Vim. MC ■ 0 0 A Cu wool a` (A N c o 3 UO E p u I� ate, L � I (U c � v � � a � I LM i 00 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O d O O 115 O Lri O cr1 O vl * v (y 7 9l i Z = 4-0 a) 0 U O .� O o C:cn a co •CU 4] > O a) -- 0CU 0 0 0 1 L .� 0 +� a.... to (D CO C6 � O .- c 4) 0 • E w O E � 0 > C: 0 m > CQ a._ = O CO3 Ca � C: ( Q 4-a a) -E U � � O 43 Ca Q >CL C (1) -2 c: c= cu L— L— 2 cu C= O •� Cu �� � Oa. �•>U) cuco0 -DZ O J I I I I I I Z i 4 ■ Q Q 0 �•C:x 0 _ — c .� a a) o '� o o Ems., ��� > I -0 0 a .o �M CL 0 0 U E a- 0 a)'5 -0 0 Cn _(D U N CD� ����co Z � � ECU CU �•L (D Cc #= °ice 0o Co (1) U� C Q,,}� �No �0 4� �. C� Fla �O -0 �E� ��m �U �.�Co a) -,--a �a?Nr� C�'F���.� E (-a �`= }' 0 •> {I) U) ❑.q :D -a' Q CL I I I I I Q 0 0 .- (� z3 •L x �•E O C ON�� --0 0 (� 4 a) 0 E Co o v Co �( �x a) EO a) � �z >0 Y � CU L V F- cn E n in N cD •� `-a) �: o Qo 0 �•co w,E-o OL cz O 2 U) Eos o ) vca�� 0Q X 0 N O.O m N O EM c6 a�-0 caNO 4} Ep >, C) U=�� CZ LO 0.00 0E .O Q a) .0 C�3 jCD o 0 ca � a) CD Oca_ � c 5 L, > o O cu0:; .a 0 " c— a) -0 0 ❑ ca JQ� QU) o' 0 0 0 cu U cu 0 �-- 0 co w a� 4-0 C L U U Ca °� a} ,r 'c—n O U � .� � � ca s..Q N CU o 0 ca � a) c0 cu ❑ � c 5 L, > o �o cu0:; .a 0 " c— a) -0 0 ❑ ca JQ� QU) Foil 0 c 0 CL 0 a (u cn 0 E co Q n� W E E o Co r cn L > CD C:► p s p a) r _0 E C) -a N r 0 .4 p CU r Q) a E ��-, N • a)� a), >0 c' o ° .L E �� I o v o Q W cn CL 0 a) cu ma C: L- 4-0 � i oF- c , D 0 LO Q Q CL � U3 I 10 1 I I I.L I I as U) 0 4--0 E 0 U `V .L) L- (3) W L • 0 ca Ca 4-00 � ca 0 Q c co (3) � �U > c (3) a) C6 ,L) o o _0 c as U) 0 4--0 E 0 U Q • C!) - 0 a) caa E = L 0 c a) CD L O Q ._ E o • E V E C �Lf (1) < o co .2: cn 4-1 ��cu_ cu E cuLC� E a3 — E 1.2 0 E C) cn 0 0 co m t/? a.) — -0 Z W C— L co _0� cu C a) {B ,C Ca :O .O Q. U .v co m Ca U E u Q Cu 0 _ � cu 4 L i � a) 0 CU � ��U cu L—cu 0 In< c Q U O � C) � � a o N a) T W W -0 W a m U) � ❑ � w Z � � cu a) m . J J �o -C ■ ■ Y = c i 0 co 0 F }� cu 0 W cp a)M +� Q 0> cm E .0 a) — c += Q �= cm E o � •V C: a -a o CL • cu4-0 L O c� N L -(D Q ch CD 0 0 ._ (D O U} CU �= v c— •— 0 -+ . — E cu c�cn a) cin (n ca •— O w CU a — a) v Co Co� o c� CU co Cc 4-4 rn o oD IT,o a) co a)a. U ,Q ca < .� J 0■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ = O d 0 o U :� co Cn o•� o-0 ,0 a� m m •V CU U • 0N — c U E E E a) *� C: 0 cu Q — LM_ c -1--j cu O c cu 4? _ Co� • 0 cu c � 43 C6 CI) E O L- V o C:< a 0 ❑ CV � N a N CU 76 m N F 0-0 CD -0 ��00�`OaL-Q m 0�� .— � .0 C: Co c � � � CO 0 0.} QS 420 (D aS Lrr--, cmn tam) = = 0 .7 0 a) crc .�cn3-0—c 0c.cn mcg • CU caD ca Cll C/) !E5 � cu co c C6 -0 c .—C-) + cls E 9D 0,} N .� a)_ 0 0 m ����`CL ��� cu 3 Q -D Q 70 ■ _0o C/) — �= C� O U) CD CU ►{a cacU o o ,o E > •cu Q C: � .0 Q 'Co cn Q cn C: W tr 0 N cn _ U Q a c�—� C (�CL (1) • U (� cuC 4) Ca cn O a) �_ Q] N �Q �•0 �❑ 0 CU � *� � LLJ c� c�i C Q W U �� _ co c C .4Z�co - U U} -0 O (D cn E cn V} W nn U OM ►� ❑ W Q W W (D Q U- U) co ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • v m L wa _-2-0 0 C) {� V cu 70 CU cuL Cl)o CU C ■ 0 cn 0 a) C o �(n a� c c6 � o' o � (j) 4-0 `cQ U) C W U ■ 72 a� 0 co U) N 0 1141 c� C LoM Lo Si a o •U m_ (D (.0 a� C a� a� 'O u � a) ♦-•+ 0 0 U) 0 •° •a; cr L L C (D = cu ��o-0 a •� — a)E > a)Q �3 0 C• a� E cn .m L 0 cn " M (D � c6 o c -0 0 ca •c U � cu m cha) 4 Co M oo a L ma) -m U) a ' o a) a) E LO ,QD) 0Z J ■ 0 cn 0 a) C o �(n a� c c6 � o' o � (j) 4-0 `cQ U) C W U ■ 72 a� 0 co U) N 0 1141 c� C LoM Lo Si a o •U m_ (D (.0 a� C a� a� 'O u � a) ♦-•+ 0 0 U) 0 •° •a; cr L L C (D = cu ��o-0 a •� — a)E > a)Q �3 0 C• a� E cn .m L 0 cn " M (D � c6 o c -0 0 ca •c U � cu ■ z = O 2 G 7 l cha) " C: M L ■ z = O 2 G 7 l cc r : 1l1 uMa•a, a.. 1 LLJ I ..bY1• r M% . "� ..atr^ w.a r�.`� . r• f JEJJJ• • 1. -!� - - - V) r^}... air, •-.. 1 + ari 1.-r..l 4 .. - _ _ W ' r..r+t .•+ar+r.. 1t 1 ++F�rr„r: p 1 Q V) �1y �, ,�. _..«: _ate. �[ ; CC ellO LL CL .� i i •�" �+'� 0.s � .. � .� = : � f r �. y ..a..ti•r+ 1 . ``�; ° ; 1 d OC .'� �' •s '•r Oji ��'1, -" `•fl-- -_ • -- - - •- . - 0 1CL n r. r. � t is Q •N.. .x.r ....��r +wrrr-.`w�.r..� #/ rn 40 4 1}; 11*♦ r..~ -� as jca..w..s Ln LU ci r•�.�..v :�..T.Ii1�4� *� t tl� f.1 i -.iy r • .� 7• f_ i1 f� 1 FI ti.M-. jr• ♦ O 1 r i-. r. i • ' w*y� ay !'` �� �, r.• 1 0 . �. 1 -r lJ.- `j i r� 0 p � � �� •-,� 1-■ � • *1 � ♦_ a �.. 'illi#�1,, {.. ~�:% ... r e.1 } � �-rte �-- •''s.�1�-3E1•��Jb1�iy�W�Cli;� y} 1� C�:, .��i� ••y••'1 •s w - '•' � Q LLI i a • ^ �• .10.7 i ♦-v.r 1 �'.i+`�:.: �1F1 rY �Iltf•{y rem 1 "UJ C)c 1•i La } 1 • • M. + 11 ; :4rr. r. .. •ryi `: i R . i In 1 � 1 I �>� r � r ~' .I I . I I �a.M..� "1�' J f ,a IC• j �• r `� •4 ; i ! .,r t% `�n,i,i � r: Vl d if�A � .• %:.~ii rv�'r-- Lr -i rt. -a!',' � .i r i• ' � ti lrf�r�.r �! . �Y+r j ••y '-� 0 ►-r-r. i 0 ""�+.. •... N . a.., {'. • L.rr d 4 - ' �' r-1..a.a_ti x � � ,r1 �•. ; 0�s •�•, � -,r,.• L-ra ., w-rar... �• -..r,. � � 1�..�.JT ~ i � �� • .,r •r• a y J� a �.• .... �� L•r.... 1...�0 . +�.ax . rti �r�. � -•• ~� ~ 't ��'+ � ' • � � • � 1 iy r s •' .••• . a� +.r.,i„ { ,...• : r.. f..��r:.....✓ I... i. % raa •� ! :l ri 'y : ya i �� aaa,• af' r.r I.rr..�.R.w-N .1.►.r.-..r•.''a� 1 : +.. !.M' �ti. = �1 •i ••. a•1_ { �. i i 1 •1 a •1 f' w 1 J . • -�i,r • -F •-a� ,+ 1. 'la la N. .i• !. 1 .}i. I. V L• �:-.•�._ +� v7•r . * r �� •rP rr ` .t. �.. :.y .rl'�+ •r y:,�; `~•� i. r:' qb.Y! I. �� �. 1 ''1•'.. r•�.r :.,, ,..- 1ti�, •.l,. �...-+i I.ti r rr,.,ra� ,� �-•- �c� -� �• 1 +�� �J li� _ raa5 r 1 VA „,�,�� a saes+' �1�-••rm i r •-�:;n.wWgra �y �.1-. .R - t ,...y.a.� �3N 3hY 3OH NOW' �j r��; �'�; ��•,�„ :� �z ++4:rralC�i � �}:�y�� ��_�-rl —►ala �ilr� :IS � f n �a, 3N 3hY;9POMAI 73M3{ Or 3N3hYgNY7a!!!M-w - •• -+._. 1 -3N MY NGS213i331 R� f 4, ��'7 � - 3N3hYx39Ni Yn _ f1� 3 dL �,�' ANO r - -- - --'Z` �- • - i 7 .i 3N SNWYJ S a 3N'3hYN33Gtl3�Y • NEW • 1 N'l LI. ; lh- :� : i '!�?• Her �� _ r �- ,r';3," i fir' i'y�'a � �•? W- m m as a) z �6-"Mlq idbi V) cu ,C� a) 4- U u GJ � o �a 0 0 C � as a) z �6-"Mlq idbi V) cu ■ 0 0 co 0 M .� v ca m Q c 0 ■ {a a (13 > :o co ° In -0 (n - v v c c U) cn U) m cu 0 > L CL U >.. CO a) 0 v {n =3 co �a E o +D Q Q (D a) ap--- � 0 Z 0� 0 '�}'•0 -C— 0 v v• 422 > > > > ' — U C� � m m C:; Co . C/)Cc v •� �_ VU v N m •� co�U ca +� a) v v N 0000 00-0� :E5-Z)a- m 0\,*>4 .2-E \>\,.a) co H W co ■ 0 0 co 0 M .� v ca m Q c 0 ■ L -J 4 r E C N O 010 o 4-0 7U*m C :3 O O O X U) z (v O E m (> E � >1 o U a- c co N cn 7tnn cn 4-0 U) 5 0 � p O pcr X ca ,� cn I ��� o cu (/) L- o o _to a) O mM -0-0aU 'p nm U) N cn O co Hv COD CEf)E J _0 U)0 .110 J cn m U {a � O� O :3:3L 'c: ��� N O N N i� O `'3 NO �.—WcOWWJZL❑� WU 00 ■ ■ Z < a) 0 y d .L > � �a..� 'L CDm a)a) %Cc CD U _- •o > — .0 U N l4 p EQ a)cc L- M o E U .� :3o � L) U O U5 a) U �.., a) Cn •� c� 3 p .x ca X x •E p C _ o cn cc > 0 O �, w oa) j L �- w .XN ; s'ca 4) Q , o cz E 0 C6 a) ° ° > O o o .E X Q (DL a) cn Q_} _ a.., 0 C6 co co m co > x c 0 a) 0 0 V) 2 m , ' a (D C.) � cc a O? o m cn M O -0 ?> > Co x N = p �.L p '� m a? .x v CLC _ — L = C: .L�co -ao -00 N C/)M U cn�'v.W _0 CU -,4 c� u, _ a� F— a -a -a0 4-0 E CLza �.coa��•°—� a�a a 0 0 > 0 CD CO a) ca a a� 0 LOv L L � a) X -a t- caowoIvo �p.a L o0 �� Nom_ p L L- Lr-- �oo� 3 �,� 0'o �,p jjEU)�rn U)W.Sm�Q6 �.� N U)< 2 S 7� • � yd 0 4-0 • cnc L 01- -a o .� E ' o CL ._�� �, o � T- — c CD Q)L U _0 0Qa DL O N O O 0 ° c 0a) 4-1C ❑ U N m (� L cn E E 'a L) EO O ❑ C Q .2ja� (a cn(D C� CION L 4) 'U ,� Q7 E N U{a N CoCo co O OU) L Q �_ co LZ U � � v CO � (n r_ L — co ._LLJ o p CU .c O �. 0 Co 4) _0°° TD C C LO> m C: EZ 4) OCL • � � �U) Ea) -P _ SEmo N a)"� W W Z7 C) < U) C7 < � =) 0 0 of of �4> 0< 0<� -0 O z) E ■ ■ ■ Scoping Meeting Sunset Area Planned Action EIS aepTemoer T, el ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action Land Use Form and Location Stand-alone commercial, clustered complexes Primarily residential: urban scale. stacked Rat andlor townhouses with structured Horizontal Mixed use vertical Mixed Use Urban lint—ity Fowsed Around Key Nodes, eg, Sunset Terrace, Institutions Urban Intensity Focused Along Corridor. Lanci Use Housing Employment Single F—ile Redevelopment Small Retail Redevelopment Multiplex Red—elopment Retail Lot Consolidation Vacant Infill Development Homoownership Opportunities Rental Opportunities Market Rate Affordable Mixed Income Sunset Terrace Redevelopment family Village Redevelopment Shopping Center Redevelapruenr Local serving retaii & services Regional serving retail &ser vires Alternative Development Matrix Public Facilities, Services & Development Pattern Supports Infrastructure Interconnection/ Walkability Library- single purpose site No improvement Library - imegrared into mixed use Pedestrian -oriented dlevolopn—1 r mnn¢e deuclopment setbacks. promote public realm, structured prkmg New Centers: Community Center, Senior TransltorienteJ developments density Center pport_s, transit integrated New parkland w support increased Pedestrlan-orIeMed development: esldential capacity. Muk Redeval Iplex npment Parks & Recreation: Integrated with Master library- mlegr a ted into mixed use Planned Development parking. _ Parks & Reaeauon Optim ire City/School Facilities Parks & Recreation: Integration with _ Regional Drainage Facilities Hew Centers: Cemmnsnity Center, Senior Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact — Development. Green Streets Education - Spectrum of Ages suppiarts, tral intell Integrated Social Services Homeoarnersh fp opportunities ALTERNATIVE 2: MId-Ronal Intensity Improvements Public FntiEities, Service; & Daveloprnerd Pattern Supports Land Use Form and Location Housing Employment M%structupe Interaonneetipn/ Waftbl" Stand-alone commercial: clustered cu "A'SSi Family Hedevelo ment Small Reeal Redevelopmend Library purpose one _ _.. Na improvement Primarily residenuaf: urban scale, stacked Pedestrlan-orIeMed development: flat ancVortownhouseswfth structured Muk Redeval Iplex npment Retail Lot Consolidation library- mlegr a ted into mixed use reallsruchned setbacks, promote publkreehn, strrruwed parking. develnprrrenl Ho-rizontaE Mixed use Vacant Infill Development Shopping Center Redev«lopment Hew Centers: Cemmnsnity Center, Senior Transit -oriented development: density — Center suppiarts, tral intell verural Mixed Use Homeoarnersh fp opportunities Local serving reta; & seMces Haar parkland to support Increased residential cispilI urban k "try Focused Nocard Key Rental Opportunities Regional serving rel ail &rvices _ _ Parks & Recreation: Imagrated with Master Nodes, e.. Sunset Terrace, Imtlbutions se planned Dene end Urban ante—ly Focused Along Corridor Market Rate Parks& Recreill Optimize CRyf5chaal Sunset Boulevard FacilRies Parks& Recreation: Integration with —_ Affordable - — tonal Drainage FxilitFes Mixed Income Lard Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Derelopmew, Green Streets Education - Spectrum of Ages Sunset Terrace Redevelopment _ Family Village Redevelopment integrated Sol Services Scoping Meeting September 1, 2010 ALTERNATIVE 1. No Action Housing Development Urban Form Infill on vacant BHA properties No Improvement 1.1 Pihlic Hoesing replacement 1100 units) Focus density along Sunset Blvd New affordable and market rate units (250- 350) Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ H—it,oton 1 intersection and north on Harrington New affordable and market rate ants (450- s50) Use to—homes to tra ,sition to residential neighborhood Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomesand apartments Bvid Sunset Terrace site to zoning rapacity Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington Sunset I errace Sunset Area Planned Action EIS Alternative uevelopment ml Sunset Terrace Amenities Street Network, Pedestrian Realm Non -Residential development No improvement No improvement None New open space, e.g. active, garden. other Improved intersection and trussing at Sunset ! - Neighborhood Retail Infill on vacant RHA Propel B Blvd and Harrington New rainwater park Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington New stand atone I lighlands Library at Sunset Focus density along Sunset Blvd I menace Third Place Plaza with civic or community New hillside path on sunset Blvd east of New Mined Use Highlands Library at Sunset building Harrington _ Terrace Third place incorporated into new retail Close portion M Harrington as green Office connection/ Mosrvak elorg Narrirgtan street/open space 350 intersection and north on Harr n Transpo Hub: improved his stops, carsharing, Flexible Community Services Center and hike storage iawnhamas to transRlon to residential Community Center1 New Mllside path nn Sunset Bhfd east of New Mixed- Use Highlands Library at 5„nset ALTERNATIVE 2: Mid -Range iriftri Impraveml Stir"t Network, t ladsling Development Urban Form Sunset Terrace Amenities Pedestrian Reeks Non4lasidmtktl Devi What Infill on vacant RHA Propel No innip-siernizrit No improvement Ncimprnvement None 1:1 PWAic Hwrsirrg re0sucamerrt(200 units) Focus density along Sunset Blvd New open* Pi e3• active, garden, Poe? i�and dressing at Sunset NelAbodwod Rei Blvd and New aitordable and market rate un [250- Focus denslly at Suncet WWIHaningtoh New inalinwiliter *Green connection/ Mosrvak elorg Narrirgtan New atamd Aotr Highlands Library at Sunset 350 intersection and north on Harr n T" New nlfordahle and rnafket rate units 1450i3se iawnhamas to transRlon to residential ihW Wase Wan with dvo w community New Mllside path nn Sunset Bhfd east of New Mixed- Use Highlands Library at 5„nset 550) . eijhbxtRwd bundil Ham Terrace _ portion of Harrington as greence Neighborho5al infill od residen Disperse townhomes and apartments Third Place incorporated into new retail street/op-space. 'Transpo Office _ Hub: Implvved bus stops, carsharill Build sansei Terrace site to zoning capacity 1, fammunhy Serrltac Center and bike stor Community Center 21 ANo W�fi.rd,bllea,6 improvement Na improvement No mpro est None ism New rate snits {Zs0-- Focus density at Sunsel Blvd/Harrington New rainwater park .Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington New stand alone Highlands Library at Sunset 350) intersection and north an Harrington l .,race _ Use townhomes to transition to residenilal T1 Place Clara with civic or community New hillside path on Sunset 131v1 east of �- ,�.;� ' net hhorhnod huildln Herrin [an �"r- -' F. •r„ -• � - :`- � ,• k iFlexible hr office Transpo Hub' improved bus stops shah ng, Com monity Services Center and bike store [KNEW E. Scoping Meeting Sunset Area Plan nad Action EIS September 9, 2Qto Sunset Boulevard NE Alternative Development Matrix ALTERNATIVE is No Action Traffic Capeft and Connnunll Based DeWl Awl Manaterrrent Operations Nnprovemeni Pedestrian Watkablttty Amentlies Bikes Transit Enhancenterm Measures No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Traffic Capacity and No improvements Community Based Design PedesvLan supportive signals Preserveealstfngstreettreec Bike route signage Access Management Operations Improvements Pedestrian Walkal lity Amenities Bikes Transit Enhancements Measures No improvements Na improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Uptimae traffic signal timing Pedestrian supportive signals Preserve eeishng street trees Bike route ngnage New shelters Consolidate driveways _vl (countdown heads and audible signals) from driveways Traffic sWuld fote connection and Spedal concrete bus pad in roadway at coordination Left turn storage lengthened to meet unproved vita sweet 4dewalk plant new street tree in landscape Strategic,:apadty improvements at Special design of Ir. -it zones Curbed median to restrict Icft turns design year LOS connections to intersections strip along corridor Bike storage lockers throughout the corridor inducting from driveways Narrow lanes, ne Wipe a bike la New local panni) service cnnnerGng ,R it Realignment of skewed intersections Bulboutcurb returns at minor streets pavingre , shelters, street furnitu. _ Traffic signal interconnection and Pedestrian refuges in median - Use special paving for crosswalks Bicycle detection at signals Special concrete bus pad In roadway at Landscaped medians coordination _.— _ Narrow lanes and reduce crossing i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -ng -ons _ _ _ o - Narrow inside lanes, widen outside transit stops --_ _ -- - _- _— ---_ - Strategiccapacity Improvements at int., _h. distances 'Use speual l within tersest lane to arcommndate hikes Tranit Signal Priority (TSP( direcYonal lett turn pockets mid -block widen Sunset Blvd to acconrnndafe S' Lane Narrow lanes, stripe a bike are New local transit service connecting 61ke lanes Realignment of skewed intersections Bulb -out curb returns at minor streets Way finding and signage a (requires W59OT pproval) across SR900 to Community Center/Library Provide U-turn accommodations r des provide multi -use trail along the Comtortabk separation of pedestrfarrs Business Access Road EB from 10th Roundabout features at intersections Hillside walk paved path and planting Incorporate Art rridor from vehicle tralBc (landscape buffer} Street to Mon_roe Av_e Widen to add Business Access/Transit MuIttrail along project corridor Garden/Art Trellis Widen Sunset Bfvd to accommodate 5' widen sidewalks to meet Complete Lane Special pedestrian scale lighting bike lanes tit landscape strips) Realign skewed intersection and Ranches, trash and recycling Surveillance cameras for increased reduce crosswalk distances receptacles security and/or emergency response. Comfortable separation of pedestrians _ from vehicle traffic (landscape buffer) improve corridor roadway lighting Widen sidewalks to meet Complete Streets minimums IN tt sidewalks and B Special pedestrian scale lighting ft landscape strips) Surveillance cameras for increased security and/or emergency response. ALTERNATIVE 3: FAd-Range biterrsity Irnprovements Traffic Capeft and Connnunll Based DeWl Awl Manaterrrent Operations Nnprovemeni Pedestrian Watkablttty Amentlies Bikes Transit Enhancenterm Measures No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements OptirMaetrild slBtaltiming PedesvLan supportive signals Preserveealstfngstreettreec Bike route signage Newsheltrrt Consolidate dNveways Pedestrian supportive signals S Z -.s icountck r heads and audible signals] i• aw t l uk.s traffic s'gnal timing {countdown heads and audible signals) �' Spedal design of transit nines A Left turn storage lengthened to meet kmprwed side street sidewalk Plant new street trees in landscape 1 Bike Bike storage lockers throughout the corridor includingtlaignyeariOS Curbed median to restrict left rums int connections to intersections snip alongcorridw _vl shelters, streetfumlture. from driveways Traffic sWuld fote connection and Spedal concrete bus pad in roadway at coordination Pedestrian refuges in median Us al avin for crosswalks g c spec Paving Narrow lanes and reducecrossing - Jse special paving within intersections icvc c gna 6' detection at si Is Landsca ed medians transit stops _ _ _ p Transit Signal Priority (TSPi - Directional left turn pockets mid -block Strategic,:apadty improvements at Narrow inside lanes. widen outside intersection distances lane to accommodate bikes intersections taatrtii� '.;. - � Narrow lanes, ne Wipe a bike la New local panni) service cnnnerGng ,R it Realignment of skewed intersections Bulboutcurb returns at minor streets Way ending and signage (requires WS60T approval] across to Community Provide U turn accommodations R oundabom features at intersections F1 rldgit�pltre�fiatlspstdpfstl(rg poptplirafalat . g Bus r ss Access Road E6 from 10th e5trect CenterJLihrary Romrdabnut features at intersections Hillside walk proved path and planting Incorporate Art Provide muki-use troll a" the Business Access Road EB iron 10th Lsata ,tjad;r.cycwis or Ike Iarms corridor. Street to Monroe Ave Widen to add Business Accese/Tranit Muhi-use VON alrrrrg rojecorridorGarden pcorrid / A R TraIRs widen Sunset Blvd to acconrnndafe S' Lane 61ke lanes I Realign ske—dimter--tions and Benches, trash and recycling reduce --all, distances r des Comtortabk separation of pedestrfarrs from vehicle tralBc (landscape buffer} improve corridor roadway lighting I it widen sidewalks to meet Complete Sweets minimums (B it sidewalks and B Special pedestrian scale lighting tit landscape strips) Surveillance cameras for increased security and/or emergency response. 4f Ellim ` No improvements No improvements No improvements - No improvements No irnpro ants No irnpraoemerds _ Optimize Pedestrian supportive signals S Z -.s P r i• aw t l uk.s traffic s'gnal timing {countdown heads and audible signals) New s4 chars• A Improved side street sidewalk - - "- int connections to intersections Bike storage lockets * A,. Pedestrian refuges in median tilfffib_ Bicycle ion at signals detect ::-,-, r.: Landscaped medians Strategic ciii improvement—t ��41114 610C6ptf ' kAif-" I'" > Transit Signal Priori ITSP) sarewpttlt(Idt@t1aR intersections taatrtii� '.;. - � . - - -' " Ndt►i�ihiaal4roersge - - „, " , . ,._ -. + �� Realignment of skewed t rseetiuns Rrdh out cwh ret erns at minor streets 'Wa'Fwlr�f�.ikt rent "- --;;[fsquEwlhflDCrl�pprcaaq. .. .. isubR6°9t>1 114dtpllgrrpttilly-Pl�kr}4litkrYFt dolsammodtftni R oundabom features at intersections F1 rldgit�pltre�fiatlspstdpfstl(rg poptplirafalat . g Bus r ss Access Road E6 from 10th e5trect owe _ � widen Sunset Blvd to arcommndate S' to Monroe Ave Will adidAlrrAtelwAamr{fFrMKlt j� Lsata ,tjad;r.cycwis or Ike Iarms . ar�Ital tt7rellr�Nk►/rMRMaRi Oald -. ,. .;tlAfYtillry - te'dereRna�rrtllk - I Will r<.y Scoping Meeting Sunset Area Planned Action EIS September 1, 2010 Stormwater Manaaement Alternative Develonment Matrix ALTERNATIVE 1; No Action Parcel -Based Stormwater Sunset Terrace Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Water Quality Treatment Open Space/Sub-regional Requirements Techniques in ROW Flow Control BMPs in ROW BMPs In ROW Facilities Wet Cade Requirements Onsite Meet Code Requirements On-site � No improvements No improvements No improvements No im_proveme_nts_ _ r Incentiaxe Green cicernwater Infrastructure Retroflls Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb 5: Gutter Permeable Pavement Sidewalks Medea Filter vaults Rainwater Parks le.grain gardens) Require Green Stormwater f 110*000 Graft Um W Aw hlrrartinsdare whim inflld'Mi6n is ...__ Pop-up Emiter for Downspouts Gras 6—le Conveyance Infrastructure where Infiltration is Pop-up Emitter for Downspouts Grass Swale Conveyance Permeable Pavement in Parking Stalls Beretention planlers Regional Detention Ponds Feasible Require Green Stormwater ����� Require Green Stormwater Infrastnrdureinclonon Infrastructure including nom Raingardens for Residential units Bioretentian Swale/Planters with Permeable pavement in Travelled Rain Gardens in medians Underground Detention infiltratin radices Curb Openings Way 6ioretention ,wales P-on-bie Pav mens Water Qualily Sportsfield/Playfreld Detention Require On site Green Stormwater Permeable Sidewalks 6uildJRebuild Storm Drain Pipes Intrastructrue forW Treatment Q Treatment (deten4ion during wet season only) Treatment (detention during wet season only) New Rainwater Park at Sunset Require Ur,ite Retention toPermeable Pavement Driveways lRelnwa.Der Park at 5Ua60t til Bioretentian Planters with Detention Allow parcel Stormwater treatment . ear) Performance Standard e.g 2-y within ROW Terrane Allow Zero Discharge of Runoff Off- within ROW Terrace Raln Gxardensdnmedill Rainwaler Harvesting for Irrigation Site Allow Zero Discharge of Runoff Ofl- Allow Fee In lieu of Providing On-site Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Site Cisterns For Residential Units � Rain Gardens in medians Use AAow Fee le -lieu of Providing Omske _ trafrrnIfli_treat Gr4W CQniniliC n Underground Cisterns for Street Detention _ Green Roofs Detention Swales Underground Cisterns lot Street lrri atian Effective Impervious Area Caps Harrington Street Green Connection Rainwater Harvesting Develop narrow street standard, to _ _ irrigation I Green Parking lot Standards Rainwater Harvesting Develop narrow standards to street Detention Tanks/Vaults within ROW reduc roper era e Detention Tanks/Vaults within ROW ' ALTERNATIVE 2: Mkt-Rnrlge Intenift Imptlovemettts. Pamewaiad ft"Miwatx GprNfey/irt,10i1inwil trams WatatQ 1011M f TINWIl asrt Open li�aq/Adr r�torgt Regeln mens Tedeligees ih *M Fbwcorterd BMPS In R" .EI11l t lopm FaidIttas Meet Code Requirements On site Meet Code Reqrdr antis On-ule No improvements No improvements No imprwementa No improvements Incantluhe Green Storrrwrirl lrsTribhtluaR RetfOi'llits Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb &Gutter Permea6ie PavMrbnl Sfdewift Media filter Vaults Ralmeater Parla ter, rain awder l 110*000 Graft Um W Aw hlrrartinsdare whim inflld'Mi6n is ...__ Pop-up Emiter for Downspouts Gras 6—le Conveyance Permeable Pavement in Parking Stalls eforE4ention ptanteri Regional Detention Ponds feudhle Require Green Stormwater ����� permeable pavement in Travelied Infrastnrdureinclonon Reiltgarde115 for ResldaNal Units Cud Way Raft hardens M meriam Underground Detention infdlralin practictces Require On-site Green Stormwater Pe ble Stdew7ARs Ruild/Rebuild Storm Drain Pipes Permeable Pavement Water Quality 6lmetentlot Swaks Sportsfield/Playfield Detention Infrastructrue for WQTreatment Treatment (deten4ion during wet season only) Require On-site Retention to ve Permeable Pavement Driwato j Allow parcel Stormwater treatmenr • Bioretentian Planters with Detention lRelnwa.Der Park at 5Ua60t Performance Standard a 2- S v ear I within ROW Terrane Allow Zero Discharge of Runoff Off- Cisterns for Residential Units Raln Gxardensdnmedill Rainwaler Harvesting for Irrigation Site Vse Allow Fee In lieu of Providing On-site Detention Green Roofs Detention Swales Effective Impervious Area Caps trafrrnIfli_treat Gr4W CQniniliC n Underground Cisterns for Street lrri atian Green Parking Lot Standards Rainwater Harvesting Develop narrow street standard, to _ _ reduce impervious covers u Detention Tanks/Vaults within ROW Attachment C USEPA Comment Letter Summary of the Scoping Process November 2010 l[F OOS9310 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AM REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 981 01-31 40 CI+r' `,� Of Renton s i. � Planning Division 44 Pfl OFFICE of ECOSYSTEMS, TRIBAL_ AND October 18, 2010 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner ini LPTED ED 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 Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood revitalization. (EPA Project Number: 10 -051 -HUD) Dear Ms. Conkling: The EPA has reviewed your NOI dated September 17, 2010, regarding the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community in Kang County, Washington. Our review of the NOI was conducted in accordance with our responsibilities under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Section 309 specifically directs the EPA to review and comment in writing on the environmental impacts associated with all major federal actions. Under our Section 309 authority, our review of the Draft EIS (DEIS) will consider the expected environmental impacts, and the adequacy of the DEIS in meeting procedural and public disclosure requirements of NEPA. A copy of our rating system is enclosed. We appreciate the background information pasted on the City of Renton's website (htt .//rentonwa. ov/business/default. as x?id=2060) — the "Scoping Document" is particularly useful. The "Environmental Topics" listed on pages 6-10 of your scoping document — as well as your public meeting - are exemplary of an effective scoping approach. Overall, we believe that your planning can lay the foundation for the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace into a healthy, livable, affordable, viable and green community. Such a community would likely be consistent with the HUD -DOT -EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities' (Partnership) six livability principles.' The principles are: • provide more transportation choices; • promote equitable, affordable housing; • enhance economic competitiveness; • support existing communities; • coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment; and, ' hitp:l/epa.izovideed/partnership/index.hnnl G ftMWaM IieayvW Paw • value communities and neighborhoods. These principles frame our review and participation in the Project. In our enclosed, detailed comments we identify issues which we believe you should consider in the development of the EIS. With regard to the Partnership, our enclosed comments on "Transportation" and "Monitoring" discuss opportunities for pursuing and developing livability measures. Pursuing livability measures contributes to a better and broader understanding of which redevelopment actions most effectively achieve results consistent with the Partnership's principles. Our enclosed comments also address perspectives on stormwater - including our general expectation that redesigned stormwater drainage systems should result in long term water quality benefits. More specifically, we identify pre -development hydrology as a potential goal for your stormwater management efforts. Low impact development techniques - as noted in your scoping materials - are one method of moving towards such a goal. EPA's Stormwater Program2 and Smart Growth Division are potentially useful information sources. Consider, for example, EPA's "Water Quality Scorecard: Incorporating Green Infrastructure Practices at the Municipal, Neighborhood, and Site Scale",' Thank you for this opportunity to comment and if you have any questions please contact me at (246)-553-6352 or peterson.erik@epa.gov . Sincerely, J j f Erik Peterson NEPA Reviewer Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit Enclosures: EPA Detailed Comments on the NOl to Prepare an EIS for the Redevelopment of Sunset Terrace EPA Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements 2 bttp://cfpub.epa.gov/rtpdesthorne.cfm?pTograni.-id=6 3 http://www_epa.gov/smartgrowtMadex,htm 4 h4://www.epa.gov/smartgrowthlwater_scorecard.htm * P+1ftMdan R&cycWp Pier EPA DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE NOI TO PREPARE AN EIS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SUNSET TERRACE Range -of Alternatives According to NEPA the range of reasonable alternatives should respond to the purpose and need for the project and to issues identified during the scoping process. This ensures that the EIS provides the public and the decision -maker with information that sharply defines the issues and identifies a clear basis for choice. We believe that the environmental impacts of the project may be as much a function of planning concepts5 and design guidelines/ mitigation measures as it is a function of the intensity and density of redevelopment (number of units, square footage of office and retail and acreage of open space). Varying the location and type of public investment as well as anticipating different levels of private investment is a reasonable overall approach for these complex issues. Phased Approach Conformity rules under the Clean Air Act identify impacts as temporary only if they last 5 years or less. The question of whether or not this finding should also apply to impacts regarding noise, water duality, habitat, species, and so on should be examined. Long term social, economic, and environmental impacts should be acknowledged and appropriately mitigated. Air Taxies There are a large number of human epidemiology studies showing increased lung cancer associated with diesel exhaust and significant potential for non -cancer health effects. To help disclose and mitigate potential human health impacts from Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) — especially diesel exhaust - we are providing the following recommendations. 1. Discuss the cancer and non -cancer health effects associated with air toxics and diesel particulate matter. We believe that the resources listed below provide valuable background for this discussion. a. EPA's 2002 National Air Toxics Assessmene b. Puget Sound CIean Air Agency's Puget Sound Air Toxics Evaluation,s c. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's Portland Air Toxics Assessment.9 d. Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule") e. Health Effects Institute's May 2009 Special Report 17, `"Traffic Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure and Health Effects" 11 f. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' March 2007 study, "Analyzing, Documenting, and Communicating The Impacts of Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions in the NEPA Process" 5 Building height and massing, Open space, Topography, Connections/ edges, Circulation, Land. use. G Opportunities for infrastructure, energy and transportation needs with respect to greatest possible efficiency 7 http://www.ep&g_ovlttn/atw/natamain/ Ihtt2://www.l)scleanair.org/airci/basics/psate finai.pdf 9 htt ://www_de .state.or.us/a /toxicg ata.htm to 72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007 11 ht://pubs.healtheffects.orWeetfiie.phn`?u-453 *PAnireoaRroy~Paper 4 g. Recent papers published and presented at the 89"' annual Transportation Research Board Meeting. tz i. Simplifying the Estimation of the Health Impacts from Freight Activity in an Urban Environment ii. Bus Shelter Placement and Exposure to Particulate Matter for Waiting Transit Passengers iii. Results of a Comprehensive Field Study of Fuel Use and Emissions from Non -Road Diesel Construction Equipment 2. Identify sensitive receptor locations, particularly parks, schools, hospitals, day care centers, etc. 3. Disclose all locations at which emissions would increase near sensitive receptors. Consider intersections, increased traffic, including increased diesel traffic and increased loads on engines (higher speeds, climbs, etc.). 4. Assess or account for (qualitative or modeled depending on the severity of existing and projected conditions) factors that could influence the degree of adverse impact to human health. These factors include, for example, distances to human activity centers and sensitive receptor locations and the amount, duration, location and dispersion of emissions. 5. Hotspot analysis for receptor locations for air toxics and particulate matter. 6. Commit to a full suite of air quality construction mitigation measures to avoid and minimize construction -related emissions to the extent possible. a. See the Clean Construction USA website at http://www-epa.gov/otag/diesel/construction/ for many examples of construction mitigation measures, case studies, and examples of institutional arrangements for implementing this mitigation. For more information about mobile source air toxics, please contact Wayne Elson of our Air Program office at (206)553-1463. Indoor Air We commend the Seattle Housing Authority and partners for the indoor air quality benefits achieved through the Breathe Easy project at High Point. We encourage the City of Renton to integrate lessons learned at High Point into the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. Findings from the Breathe Easy project at High Point may be especially relevant for Sunset Terrace as the two public housing communities were constructed by the same developer at nearly the sante time. See EPA's website on Indoor Air Quality for additional information: http://www.ppa.gov/igg / Legacy Pollutants Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments should be conducted, as appropriate, in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards. Please disclose the most recent findings from any relevant legacy pollutant studies in the Draft EIS. 12 hat ://www, b.o a ain/Blarbs/2010 TRB 89th Annual Metting Compendium of Pa rs 1627 ] ,as x 4* Prod on Rseydbd Paper For more information about EPA Region 10's Brownfield Program, please contact Brooks Stanfield at (206)553-4423 and/or see the program's website at: littt)://yosemite,.e.t)a.gov/r l0/cleanup.nsf/sites/bf Health Impact Assessment Projects that have potential to substantially affect social, economic, and/or environmental conditions within communities may benefit from a Health Impact Assessment (HLA), or, at least, elements of HIA. HIA is a combination of procedures, methods, and tools that enables systematic analysis of the potential positive or negative effects of a policy, plan, program or project on the health of a population and the distribution of those effects within the population. 13 IIIA. also identifies actions to mitigate negative effects. The potential need to address health is supported by the NEPA at Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, §4321 and §4331; by NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1508.8, and 1508.27; by Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice; and E.O. 13045 on Children's Health and Safety. Assessing health impacts is important in conducting environmental impact analyses because health effects from development projects, programs, or policies are often more far- reaching than is commonly recognized. Environmental analyses often consider release of pollutants, contaminant exposure, and/or cancer risks, but other health impacts that could occur are often overlooked. For example, other health impacts that could occur include: • Income from new jobs can have positive health impacts by increasing socioeconomic status or increasing access to health care. This income has also been associated with decreased access to health care by changing someone's eligibility for public assistance programs. Income from new jobs has also been associated with increased rates of alcohol and drug use, and domestic violence and child abuse due to increased discretionary income, rapid social and community change (particularly in rural areas) and disrupted family structure due to unusual work schedules. • Replacing low-income housing with high-cost housing can lead to negative health impacts on displaced populations, including increased incidence in chronic diseases, depression, and anxiety. • Adding lanes to a roadway increases vehicle traffic volume and speed. This could result in increased motor vehicle crashes and increased severity of those crashes. Increased vehicle volume also affects air quality in neighborhoods adjacent to the road, potentially exacerbating the rate and severity of respiratory disease in vulnerable populations. • Adding green space to a community, such as neighborhood parks, can lead to increased physical activity, which may lower incidence of obesity and cardiovascular disease, while providing a greater sense of well feeing and improved mental health for residents. Health effects such as these have been documented, but are rarely addressed in environmental analyses. When it appears that a I -RA should be conducted, we recommend involving public health professionals early to assist in data gathering and analysis. Public health data and expertise may be available from local and state health departments, tribal health agencies, or federal public 13 International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) definition, modified from the World Health Organization's Gothenberg consensus statement (1999). aPthftd anP E. health agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Environmental Health, U.S. Agency for Tonic Substances and Disease Registry, or Indian Health Service. Guidelines for conducting HIA are available from various sources, including: • The World Health Organization (WHO) website provides links to many of these at.- http://www.who.int/hia/abouYv-uides/enf. • The International Finance Corporation has developed detailed guidelines for conducting HIA. http://www.ife.org/. • World Health Organization webpage on HIA: http ///www,wb.Q inaia/en/. • U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webpage on HIA: hU://www.ede.govlhaftlaces/hja.htm. Water 303(d) Listed Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) To meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the EIS must identify all water bodies likely to be impacted by the project, the nature of the potential impacts, and the specific pollutants likely to impact those waters. If there are 303(d) listed water bodies in the project area, the EIS must additionally disclose information regarding TMDLs, the water bodies to which they apply, and pollutants of concern. Provisions for antidegradation of water quality also apply to water bodies where water quality standards are presently being met. 303(d) listed waters should not be further degraded and should be consistent with T-MDLs to restore beneficial use support for impaired waters. If additional pollutant loading is predicted to occur to a 303(4) listed streams as a result of a transportation project, the project should include measures to control existing sources of pollution to offset pollutant addition from road construction, so that no deterioration of water quality occurs. Where appropriate, consider implementing watershed or aquatic habitat restoration activities to compensate for past impacts to aquatic resources, particularly in watersheds with 303(d) listed waters where development may have contributed to aquatic impairments through past channelization, riverine or floodplain encroachments, sediment delivery during construction, and other activities that may have affected channel stability, water quality, aquatic habitat, and designated waterbody uses. Predevelopment Hydrology We believe that designing for predevelopment hydrology may be an effective water quality management strategy for the Project. EPA's "Technical Guidance on Implementing the Storrnwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act" details two potential approaches for maintaining and/or restoring, "...the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow."14 L4 www.e a ov/owow/n idlsection43 *PfitdeddnRwydsdAww FA Transportation Integrating enhancements for public transportation, bicycles and pedestrians — as well as providing through capacity for vehicles — is consistent with quality urban design, increases clean and efficient transportation options, and promotes healthy living. The City of Renton's background materials show an interest in an integrated and multi -modal strategy for transportation. Activities and planning around Sunset Boulevard appear to present substantial opportunities for integrated and multi -modal transportation improvements. To assess/inform the sustainability of your designs we recommend you consider and discuss -- if appropriate - the usefulness of relevant performance metrics. "Greenroads", for example, is a tool which can be used to assess/ inform roadway sustainability — a key component of an integrated and sustainable transportation system. 15 For more information on measuring the sustainability of streets and transportation contact the author of this letter for a copy of the memorandum to EPA Smartgrowth from ICF International, "Scoring Smart Growth Streets Literature Review — Findings" The following resources may also help to assess/ inform, your transportation plan: • Green Highway Partnership. 16 • The following references from the 89`h annual Transportation Research Board Meeting. 17 o Carsharing's Impact on Household Vehicle Ownership o Examining Transportation Impacts with a Multimodal Perspective o Catching a Ride on the Information Super Highway o Markets for Dynamic Ridesharing o How does the Built Environment Influence Pedestrian Activity and Pedestrian Collisions at Intersections Monitoring EPA believes the Project presents opportunities to redevelop Sunset Terrace in a manner consistent with the HUD -DOT -EPA Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities' (Partnership) six Livability Principles. Another aspect of the Partnership is the "Partnership Agreement". l8 In this agreement, HUD -DOT and EPA state their intention to "Develop livability measures and tools". We believe monitoring associated with the overall redevelopment effort is an opportunity to both learn about and learn from livability measures and tools. Efforts to benchmark existing conditions; develop tools to measure progress towards achieving community visions; and, increase the accountability of engaging in sustainable redevelopment may help to (i) move the national dialogue on livability measures forward, and, (ii) effectively measure the performance of your efforts. `5 http://www .t;reenroads.usl 16 httl2://www.�reenhi hwa s iart"ersIti .or /index. h 17 httn://www.trb.orOMain/Blurbs/2010_`I'RB 89th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers 162791.asnx 18. http:ll w ww.epa. govldud/partnersh ip/index_htrnl aftht conAsey~Paper 0 We recommend that the EIS discuss your effectiveness monitoring strategy. Potentially useful general guidelines and resources for an effective monitoring strategy include, but are not limited to: • Council on Environmental Quality's "Draft Guidance for NEPA Mitigation and Monitoring" 19 • EPA's Green Communities. 20 • The U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood Development. 21 For more information on the Partnership contact Melanie Wood at 206-553-1107. Plants and Animals Urban Forest Restoration Potentially beneficial urban forest restoration goals include, but are not limited to, the fallowing: • Enhancing connections to adjacent neighborhoods. • Connecting wildlife/bird corridors and increasing habitat. Enhancing stormwater management, increasing water evaporation, reducing thermal heating effects and offsetting carbon emissions. Enhancing public open spaces and pedestrian corridors. EPA strongly supports these goals and we recommend that the EIS compare how different redevelopment alternatives, design guidelines/ mitigation measures and planning concepts would impact reaching them. For more information on the human dimensions of urban forestry and urban greening see http://www.naturewithin.info/. Threatened and Endangered Species The EIS should identify the endangered, threatened, and candidate plant and animal species under ESA, and other sensitive species within the project area. The EIS should describe critical habitat for the species; identify impacts the project would have on species and their critical habitats; and how the project would meet all ESA requirements, including consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USI -WS) and National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). We believe an adequate EIS includes — if relevant to the project - a biological assessment and/or a description of the ESA Section 7 consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries, Invasive Species Ground disturbing activities create opportunity for establishment of non-native invasive species. In compliance with NEPA and with the Executive Order 13112, analysis and disclosure of these actions and their effects, as well as any mitigation to prevent or control such outbreaks should be included. We urge that disturbed areas be revegetated using native species and that 19 http:l/ceq.hss.doe. ov/nepa/re,2s/Mirigatia,q_and Monitoriag—Draft_NEPA-Guidance FINAL. 02192010.pdf 20 htt ://www.e a. ov/Menk.it/index.litm 21 httD://www.usgbe.orgLDisl2layPage.aspx?CMSPagelD=148 I*PdnWdvn9wcycAWPapw 6 there be ongoing maintenance (wholly or primarily non -chemical means) to prevent establishment of invasives in areas disturbed by project activities. Land Use Urban Agriculture Potential environmental benefits from urban agriculture include, but are not limited to: including but not limited to: • Reduced food transportation costs and emissions. • Water quality benefits from stormwater infiltration and water re -use. • Food security. • Economic opportunity. • Community building. • Increased supply of traditional foods. • Reduced organic waste through on-site composting. • Reduced food packaging waste. • Increased opportunities for exercise. • Reduced landscaping maintenance costs. We recommend that the City of Renton consider urban agriculture and its potential benefits in the DEIS. Some issues to consider include the following: • The current and future (under various redevelopment alternatives and/or planning concepts) areal extent of urban agriculture on the site • The current and future economic and social contributions of urban agriculture on the site. • An urban agriculture plan which addresses: o The appropriate balance of individual ownership and shared spaces o Leadership and organizational structures and processes o Visual impacts from different urban agriculture practices (including untidy or weedy plots) o Erosion from rotating or unplanted areas o Insect and small mammal infestations o Water management (e.g., the difference between the water consumption of drought tolerant landscaping and urban agriculture) o Cost/ benefit analysis of pesticide and herbicide use versus integrated pest management and organic agriculture o Adaptive management and mitigation of potential soil contamination. In addition to numerous useful and up-to-date local resources on urban agriculture you may find the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agriculture Library Alternative Farming Systems Information Center helpfu1.22 Enerey (Climate Chance and Greenhouse Gases) On December 7, 2009, EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases (GHG) under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: 32http://afsie.nal.usda.2ov/nal displgylindex.phhn?in%_center=2&tax 1eve1=2&tax subject-301&topic id=1444 QPlfntrd on Racyclad Paper 10 The Administrator finds that six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The Administrator also finds that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a).23 These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. In the absence of Federal law or policy regarding the mitigation of greenhouse gases we recommend that entities take voluntary action to mitigate GHG emissions. We, therefore, encourage efforts to mitigate embodied, operational,- and transportation carbon impacts. Innovative energy designs — including partnerships with nearby facilities — are potentially significant opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions. Your proposed focused review of greenhouse gas emissions using the King County greenhouse gas emissions worksheet will help to facilitate efforts to understand and continually reduce GHG emissions. We support such an analysis, as is planned for this project, to increase preparedness for and decrease potential costs associated with meeting local, county, state, regional, national, and international responses to climate change.24 We note the Whitehouse Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) October, C 2010 Guidance on Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting.25 This Guidance establishes Government -wide requirements for measuring and reporting GHG emissions associated with Federal agency operations. The guidance is accompanied by a separate Draft Technical Support Document that provides detailed information on Federal inventory reporting requirements and calculation methodologies. In addition, we recommend you consider the following resources regarding climate change and GHGs: a Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 26 a Recent papers published and presented at the 89`x' annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, including: o Current Practices in GHG Emissions Savings from Transit a Reducing CO2 Emission in Ding County: An Integrated Urban Form and Technology Approach o A disaggregated Empirical Analysis of the Determinants for Urban Travel GHG Emissions — Quebec 23 hLtT)://www.epa.,QLc)v/climatecbangeLendangemient.htm] as Consider, for instance, Local Governments for Sustainability, King County Climate Plan, Northwest Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Western Climate Initiative, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the Bali Action Plan. 2' http://www.wtiitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability/fed-ghg 2fihttn://ceQ.hss.doe.gov/nej)a/tp, s- Consideration of Effects -of GHG_Draft_NEPA Guidance FINAL 02182010. pdf QPihMW an RseyelddPaper 11 Environmental Justice In compliance with NEPA and with E.O. 12898 on Environmental Justice, actions should be taken to conduct adequate public outreach and participation that ensures the public and Native American tribes truly understand the possible impacts to their communities and trust resources. Minority and/or low income communities and tribes must be effectively informed, heard, and responded to regarding the project impacts and issues affecting their communities and natural and cultural resources. The information gathered from the public participation process and how this information is factored into decision-making should be disclosed in the EIS. EPA requests the following information from lead agencies, at a minimum, when reviewing EISs to determine the adequacy of analysis: • Describe the efforts that have/will be taken to inform the communities about the impacts of the project and to ensure "meaningful public participation" by the potentially affected communities/individuals. • Identify low income and people of color (minority) communities in the impact area(s) of the project. • Disclose in the EIS what was heard from the community about the project during the public participation sessions by listing the impacts identified by the project proponent and the communities (perceived and real). • Address whether these impacts are likely to occur and to whom, and evaluate all impacts for their potential to disproportionately impact low income and/or people of color {minority) communities. • Describe how what was heard from the public was/will be incorporated into the decisions made about the project (such as the development of alternatives or choice of alternatives). • Propose mitigation for the impacts that will or are likely to occur. Tribal Consultation Government -to -government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribal governments is legally required. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and the President's executive memorandum of September 22, 2004 are the latest iterations of federal government policy; the latter directed that: Each executive department and agency ... shall continue to ensure to the greatest extent practicable and as permitted by United States law that the agency's working relationship with federally recognized tribal governments fully respects the rights of self-government and self-determination due tribal governments. Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice is also relevant to Indian tribes, including both federally recognized tribes and tribesthat are not formally recognized but that comprise minority and/or low-income populations. Special efforts must be taken to avoid disproportionate adverse environmental impacts on such tribes, and to eliminate barriers to their full participation in the NEPA process and related processes of environmental review. The lead federal agency responsible for a NEPA analysis is responsible for consulting government -to -government with the governments of federally recognized tribes, and for q A*ffi eanRWy~P8pW 12 consulting, though not necessarily on a formal government -to -government basis, with non - recognized tribes. In all cases, efforts must be made to respect tribal cultural interests, values, and modes of expression, and to overcome language, economic, and other barriers to tribal participation. Special attention should be paid to environmental impacts on resources held in trust or treaty resources. Trust resources include those resources held in trust by the U.S. government on a tribe's behalf (such as tribal lands, minerals, and timber). They also include resources in which a tribe has rights that the U.S. government is obligated to protect. However, there is a rule of treaty construction, established long ago by the Supreme Court, that a right not explicitly ceded by a tribe was reserved, so tribes may have a basis for arguing for consideration of a wide range of traditional land rights, such as the right to use religious places and the right to protect the remains of their ancestors. For a NEPA analysis, this means that close consideration should be given to all types of resources and aspects of the environment that tribes regard as significant, and that this consideration be carried out in consultation with tribes. Consultation should begin at the earliest stages of NEPA review, when the purpose and need for the action are considered, alternatives are formulated, and approaches to scoping are established. It should continue through the remainder of the NEPA analysis, documentation, and review process and be documented in Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and Records of Decision (RODS), Environmental Assessments (EAS) and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs,) and the recordkeeping supporting the application of categorical exclusions. EPA recommends that lead agencies consult with the potentially affected tribes specific to their interests and concerns. Among the issues that in EPA's experience are often of concern to tribes are: • Reservation lands. • Formally identified trust and treaty resources. • Grave and burial sites. • Off -reservation sacred sites. • Traditional cultural properties or landscapes. • Hunting, fishing, and gathering areas (including impacts to ecosystems that support animals and plants that are or once were part of the Tribes and tribal descendants' traditional resource areas). • Access to traditional and current hunting, fishing and gathering areas and species. • Changes in hydrology or ecological composition of springs, seeps, wetlands and streams, that could be considered sacred or have traditional resource use associations, • Water quality in streams, springs, wetlands and aquifers. • Travel routes that were historically used, and travel mutes that may be currently used. • Historic properties and other cultural resources. 13 Since the responsibility for government -to -government consultation with tribes is vested by law in the federal government, we recommend that a lead federal agency not delegate its tribal consultation responsibilities to the State or local government unless it has a formal agreement to such delegation with the pertinent tribal government or governments permitting such delegation, as well as a formal agreement with the State or local government as to how such consultation responsibilities will be carried out. Cultural Resources Impacts on cultural resources are often of concern to Indian tribes, both recognized and non -recognized; but they are also of concern to other groups as well. The NEPA regulations, at 40 CFR 1508.27(b) (3) and (8), require that effects on cultural resources are considered in judging the significance of environmental impacts. A variety of specific federal laws, laws of many states, Indian tribes, and other jurisdictions and a number of international conventions and recommendations apply to the management of impacts on different kinds of cultural resources, such as: • Historic buildings, structures, sites, districts, and landscapes. • Religious practices, beliefs, and places. • Traditional uses of land and resources. • Ancestral human remains and burial sites. • Traditional ways of life. The lead federal agency conducting a NEPA analysis should ensure that all such impacts are considered in an orderly and systematic manner, in full consultation with all concerned parties, especially those who may ascribe cultural importance to such resources. Such parties should be contacted early in the scoping process and consulted throughout the analysis, documentation, and review process. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations (36 CFR800) outlines specific procedures to be used in examining potential impacts on historic places. These procedures should be carefully followed in the course of any NEPA analysis, but agencies must be careful not to allow attention to Section 106 review to cause analysts to give insufficient consideration to other kinds of cultural resources. Not all cultural resources are "historic properties" as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (that is, places included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places); hence they cannot all be addressed through Section 106 review, but this does not mean that they do not need to be addressed under NEPA. EPA recommends that no Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) be completed until the processes of consultation, analysis, review and documentation required by Section 106 of NHPA have been fully completed. If adverse effects to historic properties are identified, any Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) developed to resolve these concerns under Section 106 of NHPA should be referenced in the FONSI or ROD, Unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise, the Section 106 MOA should be fully executed before a FONSI or ROD is issued, and the FONSI or ROD should provide for implementation of the MOA's terms. QPr4rfM on li*oyoW Paper 14 Useful references include: • hqp://www.nui.orWnei2a/index.htnil regarding NEPA and cultural resources; • http://www.ega.gov/eom]21iance/resources/Xublications/ed/il2s consultation aaide.adf includes the document, Guide on Consultation and Collaboration with Indian Tribal Governments and the Public Participation of Indigenous Groups and Tribal Members in Environmental Decision Making. • Executive Orders: E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Tribes. *PrMoeonPopw 15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements Definitions and Follow -Up Action* EaviropmenW Impact of the Action LO — Lack of Objections The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. EC — Environmental Concerns EPA. review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce these impacts. EO — Environmental Objections EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no -action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. EU — Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality, EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (ChQ). Adenuacy of the Impact StateWnt Category I — Adequate EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. Category 2 — Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action, The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the final EIS, Category 3 — Inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacrc. P.,PA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revises[ and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. * From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment. February, 1987 4 PrfnAW on Rsoy~PAw Appendix B Land Capacity Analysis Appendix B. Land Capacity Analysis Data and Assumptions The purpose of the land capacity analysis is to document the calculation of growth numbers for alternatives. The methodology identifies possible development and redevelopment opportunities, but ultimately the level of growth will be based on individual property owner decisions and market forces within the framework of City zoning and other development regulations. The methods rely on 2007 Buildable Lands spreadsheets provided by Michael Hubner of Suburban Cities Association and address vacant and redevelopable lands within the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area. King County parcel data as of 2010 was used to prepare draft maps and identify parcels within the various zones that are categorized as vacant, redevelopable, and developed. In addition, King County data was used to eliminate other parcels from consideration in the buildable lands analysis, such as religious institutions, government or institutional facilities similar to the 2007 Buildable Lands analysis. However, Renton Housing Authority (RHA) parcels were not excluded. King County IMap and aerial photos were reviewed to verify status on parcels and to categorize parcels that did not have enough information in King County's data to assess a category. King County parcel data (2010) was also used to provide existing development figures such as dwelling units and commercial square footage, which were subtracted from redevelopable parcels. Summary of Land Capacity Findings Table 1 below provides a draft land capacity analysis broken into subareas. See Draft EIS Figure 2-1 for a map of the subareas and Draft EIS Figure 2-3 for a zoning map. The attached spreadsheet provides a breakdown of capacity by zoning districts. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Environmental Impact Statement B-1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity — Net Additional Growth above Existing Appendix B Subarea Dwelling Units/Jobs Alternative 1 Alternative 21 Alternative 3 Potential Sunset Terrace Dwelling units 168-1752 310 479 Redevelopment jobs 493 164 182 Sunset Mixed Use Dwelling units 1,109 1,052 1,509 jobs 410-652 1,728 -2,875 Central, North and South Dwelling units 206 296 518 Jobs 152-213 273 273 Total Study Area Dwelling units3 1,483-1,490 1,658 2,506 Population4 3,430-3,442 3,830 5,789 Employment SF 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 #obs6 611-9147 2,165 3,3.3.0 1 The Draft EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. 2 The lower range represents proposed concepts on RHA's two vacant sites based on funding applications currently in process. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 3 The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/ employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA's two vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea. 4 Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square constructed in Summer 2010. 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. 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. Alternative 1 reflects existing assumptions in the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report as applied to the adopted zoning and Alternative 3 modifies some of the residential -commercial mix assumptions of the 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report and adds properties that could be redeveloped. These present the bookends. Alternative 2 represents moderate growth within the bookends, by refining Alternative 3 assumptions. The relationship of the land capacity assumptions to the bookends is addressed later in this memo. Alternative 1 Generally speaking, the existing buildable lands methodology developed by King County and the City of Renton was applied to 2010 King County parcel data to produce Alternative 1 figures for dwelling units and. jobs. The 2007 Buildable Lands included the following assumptions for relevant zones listed in Table 2: Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Environmental Impact Statement 6_2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 2. Alternative 1 Land Capacity Assumptions Appendix B Zone Assumed Assumed Mixed -Use ROW % Public Market Future Future FAR Assumed Purpose % Factor (%)1 Residential (Non- Future % Densities Residential) Residential-% Commercial R-8 6.64 N/A N/A 14.51/10 11.50/0 V = 10%, R=15% R-10 8.44 N/A N/A 14.5% 11.5% V = 10% R=15% R-14 12.34 N/A N/A 5% 5% V = 10% R=15% RM -F 19.00 N/A N/A 2% 1% V = 10% R=15% CN N/A 0.15 N/A 0% 0% V = 10% R=15% CV 78.34 1.86 80%-200/a 0% 0% V=10% R=15% I V= Vacant, properties with an improvement value of less than $5000 R=Redevelopable Redevelopable - Single Family: Parcels with adequate acreage to accommodate future development Redevelopable - Multifamily and Commercial: Properties with an improvement to land value of less than 0.5 The land capacity analysis applied the assumptions to eligible properties as Follows: • Vacant, redevelopable, and developed property classifications were generally consistent with the 2007 Buildable Lands assumptions. o Single-family residential methods were used for R-8 and R-10 zones o An assessment of improvement to land value of less than 0.5 was used for commercial and multifamily zones. o Parks, community centers, library, fire station, and churches were excluded from calculations. o The small parcels that make up the Walgreens site on Sunset Boulevard appeared as "vacant." These were corrected to "developed" category. o A handful of small access or associated parking parcels were also reclassified From "vacant" to "developed" based upon a review of an aerial and information contained in King County data. • The Harrington Square project that is under construction is shown as a pipeline project with 217 dwelling units and 8 jobs (3,349 s.f. of commercial space divided by 400 s.f./employee found in buildable lands). Results were tabulated by subareas. See Table 1 for a breakdown by subarea and the attachment For a summary by zoning district. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Environmental Impact Statement B-3 ICF 593, 10 City of Renton Alternative 3 Appendix B For Alternative 3, the 2007 Buildable Lands methodology was adjusted to assume a greater level of redevelopment along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor on the Center Village (CV) zoned parcels that were either categorized as redevelopable under Alternative 1 above, or newly categorized as redevelopable using two methods: 1) a review of King County parcel data on age of structures (1990 or earlier) and review of aerial data in relation to existing assumed redevelopable parcels; and 2) a draft methodology developed by the Suburban Cities Association that considers parcels with 25% of the assumed future floor area ratio and a structure age older than 1995. For purposes of Alternative 3, these parcels were called "CV2" and they were assumed to redevelop with a 50% commercial -50% residential mix in consideration of their orientation to Sunset Boulevard. A higher density redevelopment assumption was also applied in the R-14 zoned "family village" area identified in the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (CIS), and for the current Highlands public library site recognizing possible density bonuses. For these parcels alone, density was assumed at 18 du/acre on the library site and 24 du/acre on the "family village" site. Also, the market factor was removed to account for a complete transformation of these sites. Additional detailed assumptions are described below. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the Bumgardner Architecture Concept Master Plan (Draft EIS Figure 2-10) was used to develop the total. The number of dwelling units was included from the new development summary shown on Bumgardner's Sunset Terrace Redevelopment: Concept Master Plan. • Commercial building square footages were taken from the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment: Concept Master Plan and translated to jobs using the average of the City of Renton's Buildable Lands employees/square foot range of 250-400. The figure used for this calculation was approximately 325 employees/square foot. Employment estimates using this process varies between 97 employees and 182 depending upon whether or not the 27,500 s.f. of community space is considered in the employment mix. North Subarea The "family village" redevelopment concept would, if implemented, redevelop RHA property and contiguous School District and City park properties located in the North Subarea (total of approximately 15 acres). Assumptions for this redevelopment included: • Apply 24du/acre in R-14 zone (considered a practical maximum for townhouse densities; allowed with density bonus provisions for affordable housing), Eliminate the market factor for this redevelopment since it is assumed to occur on this single parcel. Deduct approximately 3 acres of land as an estimate for education facility and park space in the redevelopment Sunset Area Community Planned Action 6-4 December 2010 Environmental Impact Statement U 593.10 City of Renton Central Subarea Appendix B The existing site of the Highlands Branch Public Library is expected to redevelop with housing once the library is moved to the redeveloped Sunset Terrace site. Assumptions for redevelopment of the library site (approximately 1.4 acres, when excluding the associated alley extending north of the library site) include: • Apply maximum 18 du/acre allowed in R-14 zone (allowed with density bonus provisions for affordable housing and community facilities), Eliminate the market factor for this redevelopment since it is assumed to occur on this single parcel. Alternative 2 and the Bookends Alternative 3 is considered to be an upper bookend for the analysis. It provides a best -case scenario for employment and residential growth. It captures a range of land use options included in the Renton Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy such as the Sunset Terrace redevelopment and the "family village" concept. Alternative 1 is considered to be a lower bookend. It recognizes more incremental infill redevelopment of vacant and selected properties that appear to have a combination of land and improvement values that could result in redevelopment that takes advantage of adopted zoning. Alternative 2 is a mid-range option that includes the following assumptions; • a similar amount of redevelopable acreage as Alternative 3, excluding the family village concept and increasing the amount of acres that could be acquired for public parks and recreation a a lower intensity Sunset Terrace redevelopment, and a reduced density and floor area ratio on remaining properties (e.g..a density in the range of the minimum and maximum 20-80 du/ac respectively, and a FAR of less than 1.86 - specifically an average density of approximately 69 dwellings per acre and an FAR of approximately 1.5). Attachment — Land Capacity by Zone Land capacity by zone is shown on the attached spreadsheets. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Enviror mental Impact Statement B ICF 593, 10 Land Capacity Results Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 A B C I ❑ Zoning Housing Capacity (Units) on: Vacant Redevelo Total Land pable Land Single -Family Single -Family R-10 R-10 10 0 11 R-14 6 27 33 Subtotal 16 27 43 13 96 109 Multifamily Multifamily RM -F 20 5 26 Subtotal 20 5 26 20 5 26 Mixed -Use Mixed -Use CV 265 938 1,203 Capacity in pipeline 131 217 217 Subtotal 265 1,155 1,420 Total 312 312 1,488 217 217 Subtotal Zoning Employment Capacity (Jobs) on: Vacant Redevelo Land pable Land Total 1,658 Commercial Zoning CN 7 3 10 Subtotal 7 3 10 CN 4 2 Mixed -Use Subtotal 4 2 CV 146 699 845 Capacity in pipeline Mixed -Use 8 8 Subtotal 146 707 853 76 CV2 29 1,729 Total 153 1 710 863 'Education 51 A B C ❑ Zoning Housing Capacity (Units) on: Vacant Redevelo Total Land pable Land Single -Family R-10 10 0 10 R-14 3 96 99 Sunset Terrace R-14 Na 0 Subtotal 13 96 109 Multifamily RM -F 20 5 26 Subtotal 20 5 26 Mixed -Use CV 42 131 173 CV2 14 808 821 Sunset Terrace CV 0 312 312 apaa y in pipeline 217 217 Subtotal 55 1,468 1,523 Total 1,658 Zoning mp oymen apace o s on: Vacant Redevelo Total Land pable Land s Totai Commercial Commercial CN 4 2 6 Subtotal 4 2 6 6 Mixed -Use Mixed -Use V 27 50 76 CV2 29 1,729 1,759 unse Terrace 0 164 164 Capacity in pipeline Capacity in pipeline 8 B Subtotal 56 1,951 2,007 2,990 Total Total 2,013 A B C ❑ Zoning Housing Capacity (Units) on: Vacant Redevelo Total Land pable Land Single -Family R-10 10 0 10 R-14 3 318 321 Sunset Terrace R-14 6 6 Subtotal 13 324 338 Multifamily RM -F 20 5 26 Subtotal 20 5 26 Mixed -Use CV 65 314 379 CV2 18 1,054 1,072 Sunset Terrace CV 0 475 475 apace y in pipeline 217 217 Subtotal 83 2,060 2,143 Total 2,507 Zoning Employment I—apaciryo on: Vacant Redevelo Land pable Land s Totai Commercial CN 4 2 6 Subtotal 4 2 6 Mixed -Use CV 42 168 210 CV2 46 2,726 2,772 unse Terrace 0 0 0 Capacity in pipeline 8 8 Subtotal 1 89 2,902 2,990 Total 3,178 Appendix C Draft Planned Action Ordinance December 2010 - DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington, establishing a Plazuted Action for the Sunset Area Community pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") and implementing rules provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and project review through designation of "Planned Actions" by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A ("GMA"); and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Comprehensive flan complying with the GMA; and WHEREAS, the City has engaged in extensive subarea planning for the Sunset Area and has adopted a Community Investment Strategy to guide the area's growth and redevelopment, and revitalization of the Sunset Area is desirable and in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted regulations and design guidelines for the Sunset Area; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area includes the Sunset Terrace public housing project which will be proposed for redevelopment by the Renton Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS identifies impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned development in the area; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations which will help protect the environment, and has adopted zoning regulations specific to the Sunset area which will guide the amount, location, form, and quality of desired development; and WHEREAS, designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement ("EIS"), and thereby encourages desired growth and economic development; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Area Community is deemed to be appropriate for designation of a Planned Action. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT SECTION 1. - Purpose. The City Council declares that the purposes of this ordinance are to: A. Combine analysis of environmental impacts with the City's development of plans and regulations; B. Designate the Sunset Area Community as a Planned Action for purposes of environmental review and permitting of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.210,031; C. Determine that the EIS prepared for the Sunset Area Community meets the requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA; D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will determine whether subsequent, implementing projects qualify as Planned Actions; E. Provide the public with information about Planned Actions and how the City will process applications for implementing projects; F. Streamline and expedite the land use review and approval process for qualifying projects by relying on the EIS completed for the Planned Action; and G. Apply the City's development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the EIS and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development contemplated by the Planned Action. SECTION 1. — Findhtgs. The City Council finds as follows: A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.70A), and is located within an Urban Growth Area; B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and is amending the Comprehensive Plan to address transportation improvements and capital facilities specific to the Sunset Area C. The City has adopted a Community Investment Strategy, development regulations and design guidelines specific to the Sunset Area which will guide growth and revitalization of the area, including the Sunset Terrace public housing project; D. The City has prepared an EIS for the Sunset Area ("Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS"), and finds that this EIS adequately addresses the probable significant environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in the designated Planned -Action area; E. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, together with adopted City development regulations, will Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the Planned Action area; F. The Comprehensive Plan and Planned Action EIS identify the location, type and amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action; G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development; H. The City has provided numerous opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the proposed Planned Action, has considered all continents received, and, as appropriate, has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments; I. The Sunset Area Planned Action is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(l ); J. The Planned Action area applies to a defined area that is smaller than the overall City boundaries; and K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action. SECTION 3. - Procedures and Criteria tbr Evaluating and DeterminilLg Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the area shown in Exhibit A. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site-specific implementing project application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIS issued by the City on and the Final EIS published on . The Draft and Final EISs shall comprise the Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B are based upon the findings of the Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to impose appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action projects. C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds described in subsection 3.D and the mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C_031 _ A development application for a site-specific Planned Action project located within the Sunset Area shall be designated a Planned Action if it meets the criteria set forth in subsection 3.13 of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of the City. Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Sunset Area is contemplated by the Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS: (1) Land Use. (a) The following general categories/types of land uses, which are identified in RMC 4-2-060 as permitted or conditionally permitted in zoning districts applicable to the planned action area within the Sunset Area, are considered Planned Actions: Single family and multi -family residential; schools; parks; community and public facilities; office and conference; retail; entertainment and recreation; services; utilities; and mixed-use development incorporating more than one use category where permitted. (b) Individual land uses considered as Planned Actions shall include those uses specifically listed in RMC 4-2-060 as permitted or conditionally permitted in the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action area provided they are consistent with the general categories/types of land uses in (1)(a). (2) Development Thresholds. (a) The following amount of various new land uses are anticipated by the Planned Action: [blanks would be filled with land use estimates based on Land Use Development Amount Residential units Schools acres Parks acres Office/Service gross Square feet Retail gross square feet Utilities Total Development (b) Shifting development amounts between categories of uses may be permitted so long as the total build -out does not exceed the aggregate amount of development and trip generation reviewed in the EIS, and so long as the impacts of that development have been identified in the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with Exhibit B. (c) If future development proposals in the Sunset Planned Action area exceed the development thresholds specified in this ordinance, further environmental review may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11-172. Further, if proposed development would alter the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS, further environmental review may be required. Planned Action Ordinance - 4 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT (3) Building Height. Building height shall not exceed those permitted by the applicable zoning district, as permitted in the Renton Municipal Code. (4) Transportation. (a) Trip Ranges & Niresholds. The number of new PM Peak Hour Trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the EIS are as follows: Total PM Peak Hour Trips Uses or activities that would exceed these maximum trip levels will require additional SEPA review. (b) Concurrency. The determination of transportation impacts shall be based on the City's concurrency management program contained in RMC 4-6-070. (c) Of Mitigation. As provided in the EIS and RMC 4-6-070, in order to mitigate transportation related impacts, all Planned Action Projects shall pay an environmental mitigation fee to participate in and pay a proportionate share of off-site improvements unless otherwise waived by the City Council. Off-site improvements are identified in Attachment B. (d) Director Discretion. The Director of Community and Economic Development or his/her designee shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual accepted by the Director at his sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed under this Planned Action. (5) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of impacts to any of the elements of the environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, shall not qualify as a Planned Action. (6) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted. E_ Planned Aetion Review Criteria. (1) The City's Environmental Review Committee may designate as "planned actions", pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions: (a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance, Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT (b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Section 3.13 of this ordinance; (c) the proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of Section 3.D of this ordinance; (d) the proposal is consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and applicable zoning regulations; (e) the proposal's significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; (f) the proposal's significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable city regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; (g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the Environmental Review Committee determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and (h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1). (2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist, or an alternative form approved by the Department of Ecology, and review of the application and supporting documentation. (3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to qualify and be designated as a planned action, consistent with the requirements or RCW 43.21C,030, WAC 197-11-164 et seq, and this ordinance. F. Effect of Planned Action. (1) Designation as a planned action project means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in accordance with this ordinance and found to be consistent with its development parameters and thresholds, and with the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action EIS. (2) Upon determination by the City's Environmental Review Committee that the proposal meets the criteria of Section 3.1) and qualifies as a planned action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review pursuant to SEPA. G Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process. (1) Development applications shall meet all applicable requirements of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC)_ Applications for planned actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include a SEPA checklist, or an approved Planned Action checklist. Planned Action Ordinance - 6 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT (2) The City's Development Services Division shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in RMC 4-8-100. (3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. The Environmental Review Committee shall notify the applicant of its decision. If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in RMC 4-8-08OG and 4-9, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee regarding qualification as a Planned Action shall be final. (4) Public notice and review for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as provided in RMC 4-8-08OG and 4-9. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying pennit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required by this ordinance. (5) Development Agreement. To provide additional certainty about applicable requirements, the City or an applicant may request consideration and execution of a development agreement for a Planned Action project. The development agreement may address review procedures applicable to a planned action project, permitted uses, mitigation measures, payment of impact fees or provision of improvements through other methods, design standards, phasing, vesting of development rights, and/or any other topic that may properly be considered in a development agreement consistent with RCW 36.7013.170 et seq. (6) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the Environmental Review Committee shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City's SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action. (7) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements_ The Environmental Review Committee may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non -qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 4. - Morzitorinztr and Review. A. The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Sunset Area. B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 5. - Con ict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any mitigation measure imposed thereto, and any ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions of this ordinance shall control EXCEPT that the provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede. SECTION 6. - Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared to be unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION 7. - Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect live (5) days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT EXHIBIT A PLANNED ACTION AREA [Proposed as Figure 2-1, Planned Action Study Area] Planned Action Ordinance - Q Sunset Area Planned Action EIS December 2010 - DRAFT EXHIBIT B PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION MEASURES [Will be based on mitigation measures as summarized in Chapter 11 Planned Action Ordinance - 10 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS Appendix D Environmental Health: EDR Report Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development Sunset Lane NE at NE 10th St Renton, WA 98056 Inquiry Number: 2826208.2s July 28, 2010 4cp Wheelers Farms Read Milford, GT 66461 (rEDR"'� Environmental Data Resources Inc Toll Free 869 35' 0056 www.edinei,com FORM -PRM -ARB TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary_ _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ ES1 Overview Map---------------- ------------------------_-____---- -- 2 DetailMap-------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Map Findings Summary------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 MapFindings----------------- --------------------------------- 7 Orphan Summary --------------------------------------------------_------ . 109 Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR -1 GEOCHECK ADDENDUM Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------------ A-1 Physical Setting Source Summary-------------------------------------------- A-2 Physical Setting SSURGOSoil Map ------------------------------------------- A-6 Physical Setting Source Map _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A-11 Physical Setting Source Map Findings---------------------------------------- A-13 Physical Setting Source Records Searched ------------------------------------ A-19 Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice The EDR FieldChec0%stem enables EDR's customers to make certain online modifications to the maps and text contained in EDR Radius Map Reports. As a result, the maps and text contained in this Report may have been so modified. EDR has not taken any action to verify any such modifications, and this report and the findings set forth herein must be read in light of this fact. The EDR FieldCheck System accesses user -modified records from previously submitted reports. Any user -modified record from a previous report that is plotted outside the search radius of this report may not be included in this report. This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT, Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2010 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TC2826208.2s Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A search of the environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). CH2M HILL, INC. used the EDR FieldCheck System to review andlor revise the results of this search, based on independent data verification by CH2M HILL, INC.. The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate. TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS SUNSET LANE NE AT NE 10TH ST RENTON, WA 98056 COORDINATES Latitude (North): Longitude (West): Universal Tranverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTM Y (Meters): Elevation: 47.500700 - 47° 30'Z5" 122.181800 - 122` 10' 545' Zone 10 561622.4 5260913.0 344 ft. above sea level USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY Target Property Map: Most Recent Revision: South Map: Most Recent Revision: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT 47122-E2 MERCER ISLAND, WA 1983 47122-D2 RENTON, WA 1994 Portions of Photo from: 2005, 2006 Source: USDA TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES No sites were identified in following databases. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list Proposed NPL --------------- Proposed National Priority List Sites TC2826208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NPL LIENS___________________ Federal Superfund Liens Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL--_- ----------------- National Priority List Deletions Federal CERCLIS list CERCLIS--------------------- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System FEDERAL FACILITY ---------- Federal Facility Site Information listing Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List CERC-NFRAP---------------. CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF----------------- RCRA-Treatment, Storage and Disposal Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG------------------ RCRA - Large Quantity Generators Federal institutional controls /engineering controls registries US ENG CONTROLS --------- Engineering Controls Sites List US INST CONTROL --------- Sites with Institutional Controls Federal ERNS list ERNS________________________ Emergency Response Notification System State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF---------------------- Solid Waste Facility Database State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST------------------------. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site List INDIAN LUST---------------- Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land State and tribal registered storage tank fists AST- - ------------------------ Aboveground Storage Tank Locations INDIAN UST------------------ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land FEMA UST____________ ______ Underground Storage Tank Listing State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries INST CONTROL-------------. Institutional Control Site List State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites INDIAN VCP----------------- Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing TC2826208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY State and tribal Brownfields sites BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Sites Listing ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL. RECORDS Local Brownfield lists US 13ROWNFIELDS__________ A Listing of Brownfields Sites Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites ODI__________________________ Open Dump Inventory DEBRIS REGION 9 ----------- Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations SWTIRE---------------------- Solid Waste Tire Facilities INDIAN ODI__________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites US CDL______________________ Clandestine Drug Labs CDL_________________________ Clandestine Drug Lab Contaminated Site List HIST CDL____________________ List of Sites Contaminated by Clandestine Drug Labs US HIST CDL________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register Local Land Records LIENS 2____________________ CERCLA Lien Information LUCIS________________________ Land Use Control Information System Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS_______________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System SPILLS_______________________ Reported Spills Other Ascertainable Records DOT OPS____________________ Incident and Accident Data DOD_________________________ Department of Defense Sites FUDS________________________ Formerly Used Defense Sites CONSENT__________________ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees UMTRA______________________ Uranium Mill Tailings Sites MINES_______________________ Mines Master Index File TRIS_________________________ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA________________________ Toxic Substances Control Act FTTS------------------------- FI FRAI TSCA Tracking System - F I FRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) HIST FTTS___________________ FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing SSTS________________________ Section 7 Tracking Systems ICIS__________________________ Integrated Compliance Information System PADS________________________ PCB Activity Database System MILTS________________________ Material Licensing Tracking System RADINFO____________________ Radiation Information Database FINDS -____ _________________. Facility Index System/Facility Registry System TC2826208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RAATS_______________________ RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System UIC__________________________ Underground Injection Wells Listing DRYCLEANERS------------- Drycleaner List NPDES----------------------- Water Quality Permit System Data AIRS_________________________ Washington Emissions Data System INDIAN RESERV_____________ Indian Reservations SCRD DRYCLEANERS______ State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing COAL ASH___________________ Coal Ash Disposal Site Listing PCS TRANSFORMER-------- PCB Transformer Registration Database COAL ASH EPA-------------- Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List COAL ASH DOE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sleam-Electric Plan Operation Data EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS EDR Proprietary Records Manufactured Gas Plants_____ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases. Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property. Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL Also known as Superfund, the National Priority List database is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. An online review and analysis by CI -12M HILL, INC. of the NPL list, as provided by EDR, and dated 0313112010 has revealed that there is 1 NPL site within approximately 1 mile of the target property. EquallHigher Elevation Address Direction I Distance Map ID Page PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. 1400 NORTH 4TH STREET SW 112 - 1 (0.713 mi.) T02826208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-SQG: RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the RCRA-SQG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02117/2010 has revealed that there is 1 RCRA-SQG site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation Address Direction 1 Distance Map ID Page COLPETTS DEVELOPMENT 936 HARRINGTON AVE NE S 118 - 114 (0.213 mi.) D19 68 RCRA-CESQG: RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the RCRA-CESQG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/1712010 has revealed that there is 1 RCRA-CESQG site within approximately 0 2 miles of the target property. EquallHigher Elevation Address Direction l Distance Map ID Page RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC 2806 NE 10TH SE 0 - 118 (0.077 mi.) 89 45 State- and tribal - equivalent NFL HSL: The Hazardous Sites List is a subset of the CSCSL Report. It includes sites which have been assessed and ranked using the Washington Ranking Method (WARM). An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the HSL list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there is 1 HSL site within approximately 1 mile of the target property. EquallHigher Elevation Address Direction l Distance Map ID Page PACIFIC CAR 8 FOUNDRY CO. 1400 NORTH 4TH STREET SIN 112 - 1(0.713 mi.) Facility Type: Hazardous Sites List State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS CSCSL: The State Hazardous Waste Sites records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by T02826208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY potentially responsible parties. The data come from the Department of Ecology's Confirmed & Suspected Contaminated Sites List. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the CSCSL list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04!2612010 has revealed that there are 3 CSCSL sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction I Distance PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. 1400 NORTH 4TH STREET S W 112 - 1 (0.713 mi.) LEARNING CENTER 4101 NE SUNSET BLVD ENE 112 - 1 (0.937 mi.) Lower Elevation Address Direction I Distance RENTON HIGHLANDS LANDFILL NE 3RD ST / NE4TH ST SSE 1/2 - 1 (0.860 mi.) State and tribal registered storage tank lists Map ID Page 0 7 33 106 Map ID Page 32 105 UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data come from the Department of Ecology's Statewide UST Site/Tank Report. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/24/2010 has revealed that there are 4 UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction 1 Distance Map ID SUNSET BLVD SHELL JC MART MCKNIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL Lower Elevation RENTON MARINE 2800 NE SUNSET BLVD 2801 NE SUNSET BLVD 2600 NE 12TH S T AAA - 900 HARRINGTON AVE NE SE 0 - 1/8 (0.077 mi,) B3 SE 0 - 118 (0.077 mi) 85 NNW 1/8 - 114 (0.196 mi.) 15 Direction i Distance Map ID S 118 - 114 (0.201 mi.) D16 Page 32 37 52 Page 53 State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites VCP: Sites that have entered either the Voluntary Cleanup Program or its predecessor Independent Remedial Action Program. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the VCP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/2212 01 0 has revealed that there is 1 VCP site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. EquallHigher Elevation Address Direction 1 Distance Map ID Page JC MART 2801 NE SUNSET BLVD SE 0 - 1/8 {0.077 mi.) S5 37 TC2826206.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ICR: These are remedial action reports Ecology has received from either the owner or operator of the site. These actions have been conducted without department oversight or approval and are not under an order or decree. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the ICR list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/01/2002 has revealed that there are 3 ICR sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target properly. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction 1 Distance Map ID Page JC MART 2801 NE SUNSET BLVD. SE 0 - 118 (0.077 mi.) B6 40 CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 3002 SUNSET BL VD NE NE 1/8 - 114 (0.203 mi.) E17 56 ARCO #4400 3123 NE SUNSET BLVD. NE 1/4 - 112 (0.315 mi.) F26 75 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites ALLSITES: Information on facilities and sites of interest to the Department of Ecology. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the ALLSITES list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/1212010 has revealed that there are 19 ALLSITES sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation CLEANING SHOPPE SUNSET BLVD SHELL JC MART HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC PLAID PANTRIES INC MCKNIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 RITE AID STORE 5203 ARCO STATION 4400 DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLV BUSY BEE CLEANERS NORTH HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CENT Lower Elevation RENTON MARINE COLPETTS DEVELOPMENT FRIENDLY FUELS INC RENTON RENTON FIRE STATION 12 MIKE POTOSHNIK JR KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Address 2830 SUNSET BLVD NE 2800 NE SUNSET BLVD 2801 NE SUNSET BLVD 2808 NE 10TH 2806 NE 10TH 2801 SUNSET BLVD NE 2600 NE 12TH ST 3002 SUNSET BLVD NE 3116 NE SUNSET BLVD 3123 NW SUNSET BLVD 3155 NE SUNSET BLVD 3164 SUNSET BLVD NE 3000 NE 16TH ST Address 900 HARRINGTON AVE NE 936 HARRINGTON AVE NE 1190 SUNSET BLVD NE STE 901 HARRINGTON AVE NE 1105 SUNSET BLVD NE 1601 N. STH ST_ Direction I Distance Map ID Page ESE 0 - 118 (0.076 mi.) A2 29 SE 0 - 118 (0.077 mi.) B3 32 SE 0 - 1/8 (0.077 mi.) B5 37 SE 0 - 1/8 (0.077 mi.) B8 41 SE 0 - 1/8 (0.077 mi.) B9 45 SE 0 - 118 (0.078 mi.) A11 49 NNW 118 - 114 (0.196 mi.) 15 52 NE 118 - 114 (0.203 mi) E17 56 NE 114 - 112 (0.308 mi) F24 73 NE 114 - 112 (0.315 mi.) F25 74 NE 114 - 112 (0.358 mi.) G28 77 NE 114 - 112 (0.372 mi.) G29 83 NNE 114 - 112 (0.442 mi.) 30 87 Direction 1 Distance Map ID Page S 118 - 114 (0.201 mi.) D16 53 S 118 - 114 (0.213 mi.) D20 69 WNW 114 - 112 (0.264 mi.) 22 70 S 114 - 112 (0.270 mi.) 23 71 W 114 - 112 (0.351 mi.) 27 76 SW 114 - 112 (0.446 mi.) 31 88 TC2626208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CSCSL NFA: The data set contains information about sites previously on the Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites list that have received a No Further Action (NFA) determination. Because it is necessary to maintain historical records of sites that have been investigated and cleaned up, sites are not deleted from the database when cleanup activities are completed. Instead a No Further Action code is entered based upon the type of NFA determination the site received. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the CSCSL NFA list, as provided by EDR, and dated 0412612010 has revealed that there are 3 CSCSL NFA sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page JC MART 2801 NE SUNSET BLVD SE 0 - 1/8 (0.077 mi.) B5 37 CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 3002 SUNSET BLVD NE NE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.203 mi.) E17 56 ARCO STATION 4400 3123 NW SUNSET BLVD NE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.315 mi.) F25 74 Other Ascertainable Records RCRA-NonGen: RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the RCRA-NonGen list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there are 5 RCRA-NonGen sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction I Distance Map ID Page CLEANING SHOPPE 2830 SUNSET BLVD NE FSE 0 - 1/8 (0.076 mi.) A2 29 HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN 2808 NE 10TH SE 0 - 1/8 (0.077 mi.) B8 41 PLAID PANTRIES INC 2801 SUNSET BLVD NE SE 0 - 1/8 (0.078 mi.) All 49 CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 3002 SUNSET BLVD NE NE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.203 mi.) E17 56 Lower Elevation Address Direction I Distance Map ID Page RENTON MARINE 900 HARRINGTON AVE NE S 118 - 114 (0.201 mi.) D16 53 ROD: Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid the cleanup. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the ROD list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/2912010 has revealed that there is 1 ROD site within approximately 1 mile of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction I Distance Map ID Page PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. 1400 NORTH 4TH STREET SW 1/2 - 1 (0.713 mi.) TC2826208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MANIFEST: Hazardous waste manifest information. An online review and analysis by CH2M HELL, INC. of the MANIFEST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/31/2009 has revealed that there is 1 MANIFEST site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction i Distance Map ID Page CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 3002 SUNSET BLVD NE NE 118 - 114 (0.203 mi.) E17 56 Inactive Drycleaners: A listing of inactive drycleaner facility locations An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the Inactive Drycleaners list, as provided by EDR, and dated 1213112009 has revealed that there are 3 Inactive Drycleaners sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction i Distance Map ID Page CLEANING SHOPPE 2830 SUNSET BLVD NE ESE 0 - 118 (0.076 mi.) A2 29 HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN 2808 NE 10TH SE 0 - 1/8 (0.077 mi.) B8 41 RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC 2806 NE 10TH SE 0 - 1/8 (0.077 mi.) B9 45 EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS EDR proprietary Records EDR Historical Auto Stations: EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include gas stationlfilling stationtservice station establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station, filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the EDR Historical Auto Stations list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 5 EDR Historical Auto Stations sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction 1 Distance GULL SERVICE STATION 2800 NE SUNSET BLVD SE 0 - 118 (0.077 mi.) HIGHLANDS TEXACO 3005 NE SUNSET BLVD NE 118 - 114 (0.203 mi.) I purer Pleunfinn AAA,... D' tI' 1 D' t HIGHLAND AUTOMOTIVE MICHL SCH 2615 NE SUNSET BLVD FARRELL S SERVICE SHOP 960 HARRINGTON AVE FARRELL S SERVICE SHOP 950 HARRINGTON AVE lrec on Is ante SW 118 - 114 (0.145 mi.) S 118 - 1/4 (0.178 mi.) S118-114(0.193mi,) Map ID Page B4 37 E18 67 Map ID Page 12 51 C13 51 C14 52 TC2826208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EDR Historical Cleaners: EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaningllaundry, wash & dry etc. An online review and analysis by CH2M HILL, INC. of the EDR Historical Cleaners list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 4 EDR Historical Cleaners sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction 1 Distance Map ID Page CLEANING SHOPPE THE SUNG KANO 2830 NE SUNSET BLVD ESE 0 - 118 (0.076 mi.) Al 28 RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER DONA 2806 NE 10TH ST SE 0 - 118 (0.077 mi.) B7 41 HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR MARTINIZING 2808 NE 10TH ST SE 0 - 118 (0.077 mi.) B10 49 Lower Elevation Address Direction ! Distance Map ID Page SPARKLE DRY CLEANING AND LAUND 927 HARRINGTON AVE NE S 118 - 114 (0.229 mi.) 21 69 TC2826208.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name Database(s) WA DOT HAZEL WA DOT 140515 TO SR 169 WA DOT BRIDGE 90020 RENTON SERVICE CENTER SUNSET MATERIALS INC RENTON WA ECY SUNSET SPILL WASTE MOBILE COLLECTIONS MCMICKEN HEIGHTS RENTON JUNCTION (MONSTER ROAD) CORLISS ABANDONED LANDFILL BOW LAKE ABANDONED LANDFILL PUYALLUPIKIT CORNER ABANDONED LANDFILL NORTH BEND VASHON ISLAND REDONDO PIT RENTON HIGHLANDS SUNSET PARK ENUMCLAW TUKWILA PACIFIC CITY AUBURN (M & R STREET SITE) HOUGHTON CARTON & BORTH AUBURN (ROTARY PARK SITE) FACTORIA PIT (SUNSET RAVINE PARK) PUYALLUPIKIT CORNER BOW LAKE M.H. OLESON KENT ABANDONED LANDFILL (MILL CREEK CANYON PARK) CORLISS LANDFILL EASTGATE ABANDONED LANDFILL SKYKOMISH HOUGHTON ABANDONED LANDFILL FALL CITY ABANDONED LANDFILL MAPLE VALLEY BP SUNSET MATERIALS INC RENTON WA ECY SUNSET SPILL ALLSITES ALLSITES RCRA-NonGen, FINDS, ALLSITES CSCSL, ALLSITES ALLSITES, NPDES RCRA-NonGen, ALLSITES SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF SWFILF UST FINDS FINDS TC2626206.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 OVERVIEW MAP - 2826208,2s t-.. _ ti A, �1 •,1111`.., � � ��� ��. � '' �, ;� 1 y��_.. _ ,� 1 3 * Target Property A, Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property • Sites at elevations lower than the target property A Manufactured Gas Plants National Priority List Sites Dept. Defense Sites T ,1, rJ { — C 0 114 1/2 1 Wes .,t, This report includes Interactive Map Layers to display and/or hide map information. The legend includes only those icons for the default map view. SITE NAME: Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development CLIENT: CH2M Hill, Inc. ADDRESS: Sunset Lane NE at NE 10th St CONTACT. Jessie Yap Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY #: 2826208.2s LAT/LONG: 47.5007/122.1818 DATE: July 28, 2010 12:34 pm Capyrlghl O 2010 EUR, Inc, � 201D Tela Atlas Rel. 0712009, Indian Reservations BIA Power transmission lines oil & Gas pipelines ioo-year flood zone boo -year flood zone ■ National Wetland Inventory .,t, This report includes Interactive Map Layers to display and/or hide map information. The legend includes only those icons for the default map view. SITE NAME: Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development CLIENT: CH2M Hill, Inc. ADDRESS: Sunset Lane NE at NE 10th St CONTACT. Jessie Yap Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY #: 2826208.2s LAT/LONG: 47.5007/122.1818 DATE: July 28, 2010 12:34 pm Capyrlghl O 2010 EUR, Inc, � 201D Tela Atlas Rel. 0712009, DETAIL MAP - 2826208.2s G cA 1411124 ... HI MI[3El E 5�4fDaLY� S 1 HE 1 2 1 II St ' I+ I� L 1 i _.._._... II I6O14LAN US S:ONVALESCENi ENOEH ill WHLANbScaNVALEs NTctNjyCR A Tow e V HE7911HINR GHLASH LT4I;iRCATH H ElIa r r Nr NFOWHII.LSHEALI REHAo —� g� , l HI -N ION QTY IIl�ti CAli �}J,fui � Z \ / AI HILANDS GENE L MFOKAL.r�LINIG WI:HH 111"111N N[: .fl "All I � , d N T N — -NE 10[ h Pi��- I 1- o I�14 m �0 •� — - �m D 1116 is 1/4 Miles Indian Reservations BIA Power transmission lines Oil & Gas pipelines 1DO-yea r flood zone 500 -year flood zone This report includes Interactive Map Layers to display and/or hide map information. The legend includes only those icons for the default map view. 31TE NAME: Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development CLIENT: CH2M Hill, Inc. NDDRESS: Sunset Lane NE at NE loth St CONTACT: Jessie Yap Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY#: 2826208.2s AT/LONG: 47.50071122.1818 DATE: July 26, 2010 12:34 pm CupNlobt 0 2010 EDR, Inc. s 2010 Tele Atlas Rel. NOR Target Property Sites at elevations higher than or equal to the target property • Sites at elevations lower than the target property A Manufactured Gas Plants Sensitive Receptors National Priority List Sites Dept. Defense Sites D 1116 is 1/4 Miles Indian Reservations BIA Power transmission lines Oil & Gas pipelines 1DO-yea r flood zone 500 -year flood zone This report includes Interactive Map Layers to display and/or hide map information. The legend includes only those icons for the default map view. 31TE NAME: Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development CLIENT: CH2M Hill, Inc. NDDRESS: Sunset Lane NE at NE loth St CONTACT: Jessie Yap Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY#: 2826208.2s AT/LONG: 47.50071122.1818 DATE: July 26, 2010 12:34 pm CupNlobt 0 2010 EDR, Inc. s 2010 Tele Atlas Rel. NOR MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY TC2826208.2s Page 4 Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 118 118 - 114 114 - 112 112 - 1 > 1 Platted STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL 1.000 0 0 0 1 NR 1 Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 NPL LIENS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Federal CERCLIS list CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 FEDERAL FACILITY 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List CERC-NFRAP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 RCRA-SQG 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 RCRA-CESQG 0.250 1 0 NR NR NR 1 Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries US ENG CONTROLS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 US INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 Federal ERNS list ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 State- and tribal - equivalent NPL HSL 1.000 0 0 0 1 NR 1 State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS CSCSL 1.000 0 0 0 3 NR 3 State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 INDIAN LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 TC2826208.2s Page 4 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists Search US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid 0 Waste Disposal Sites 0 Target Distance DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500 SWTIRE 0.500 INDIAN ODI Total Database Property (Miles) < V8 118-1/4 114 - 112 112 - 1 > 1 Plotted State and tribal registered storage tank lists CDL TP HIST CDL TP US HIST CDL TP UST 0.250 2 2 NR NR NR 4 AST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 FEMA UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 State and tribal institutional 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 control /engineering control registries 0 0 NR NR 0 NR NR INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites 0 3 2 NR NR NR 5 VCP 0.500 1 0 0 NR NR 1 INDIAN VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 ICR 0.500 1 1 1 NR NR 3 State and tribal Browntrelds sites BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists 0 US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid 0 Waste Disposal Sites 0 ODI 0.500 DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500 SWTIRE 0.500 INDIAN ODI 0.500 Local Lists of Hazardous waste / 0 Contaminated Sites 0 US CDL TP ALLSITES 0.500 CSCSL NFA 0.500 CDL TP HIST CDL TP US HIST CDL TP Local Land Records NR LIENS 2 TP LUCIS 0.500 Records of Emergency Release Reports NR HMIRS TP SPILLS TP Other Ascertainable Records NR RCRA-NonGen 0.250 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 6 4 9 NR NR 19 1 1 1 NR NR 3 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 3 2 NR NR NR 5 TC2826208.2s Page 5 MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY EDR Proprietary Records Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 EDR Historical Auto Stations 0.250 1 4 NR NR NR 5 EDR Historical Cleaners 0.250 3 1 NR NR NR 4 NOTES: TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database TC2826208.2s Page 6 Search Target Distance Total Database Property (Miles) < 118 1/8-1/4 114 - 112 112 - 1 > 1 Plotted DOT OPS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 ROD 1.000 0 0 0 1 NR 1 UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 HIST FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 ICIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RADINFO TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 UIC TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 MANIFEST 0.250 0 1 NR NR NR 1 DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0 NPDES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 AIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 Inactive Drycleaners 0.250 3 0 NR NR NR 3 INDIAN RESERV 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 COAL ASH 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 PGB TRANSFORMER TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 COAL ASH EPA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0 COAL ASH DOE TP NR NR NR NR NR 0 EDR Proprietary Records Manufactured Gas Plants 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0 EDR Historical Auto Stations 0.250 1 4 NR NR NR 5 EDR Historical Cleaners 0.250 3 1 NR NR NR 4 NOTES: TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database TC2826208.2s Page 6 Map ID Currently on the Final NPL MAP FINDINGS PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. Site Status: Direction Site Zip- 98055 Site City: RENTON Distance WA Federal Site: No EDR ID Number Elevation Site 10 Database(s) EPA ID Number NPL PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. NPL 1000251921 Region 1400 NORTH 4TH STREET CERCLIS WAD009249210 SW RENTON, WA 98055 RCRA-NonGen 112-1 ROD 3763 ft. FINDS CSCSL HSL ALLSITES MANIFEST INST CONTROL NPL: EPA ID: WAD00924921C EPA Region: 10 Federal: N Final Date: Not reported Category Details: NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Category Description: Depth To Aquifer-> 50 And <= 100 Feet Category Value: 75 FTBGS NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Category Description: Distance To Nearest Population -0 Miles (On Site) Category Value: 0 Site Details: Currently on the Final NPL Site Name: PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. Site Status: Final Site Zip- 98055 Site City: RENTON Site State: WA Federal Site: No Site County: KING EPA Region: 10 Date Proposed: 06/24/88 Date Deleted: Not reported Date Finalized: 02/21/90 Substance Details: Currently on the Final NPL NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: Not reported Substance: Not reported CAS #: Not reported Pathway: Not reported Scoring: Not reported NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A005 Substance: ARSENIC AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: GROUND WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 4 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A006 Substance: BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported TC2826206.2s Page 7 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 Pathway: GROUND WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 3 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A006 Substance: BARIUM AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: SURFACE WATER PATHWAY Scoring- 3 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A011 Substance: BERYLLIUM AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A020 Substance: CHROMIUM AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: GROUND WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 4 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A020 Substance: CHROMIUM AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: SURFACE WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 3 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A038 Substance: NICKEL AND COMPOUNDS GAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A046 Substance: POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS CAS #: 1336-36-3 Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: A049 Substance: SILVER AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: C151 Substance: IRON AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED TC2826208.2s Page 8 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance FDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR 8 FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: C156 Substance: ALUMINUM AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: C178 Substance: COPPER AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status- Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: C212 Substance: PHENOLS AND PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: C247 Substance: ZINC AND COMPOUNDS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status, Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: 0460 Substance: MERCURY CAS #: 7439-97-6 Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scaring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID, D004 Substance: ARSENIC CAS #: 7440-38-2 Pathway: SURFACE WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 3 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: D006 Substance: CADMIUM (CD) CAS #: 7440-43-9 Pathway: GROUND WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 3 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: D006 Substance: CADMIUM (CD) CAS #: 7440-43-9 Pathway: SURFACE WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 3 TC2826208.2s Page 9 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) MAP FINDINGS NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: D008 Substance: LEAD (PB) CAS #: 7439-92-1 Pathway: GROUND WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 4 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: D008 Substance: LEAD (PB) CAS #: 7439-92-1 Pathway: SURFACE WATER PATHWAY Scoring: 3 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: W002 Substance: VOLATILE ORGANICS CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: W012 Substance: PESTICIDES CAS #: Not reported Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Substance ID: W031 Substance: POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS CAS #: 130498-29-2 Pathway: NO PATHWAY INDICATED Scoring: 1 Summary Details: EDR 1D Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Conditions at proposal June 24, 1988): Pacific Car Foundry Co. manufactures trucks, winches, military equipment, railroad cars, and anodes on 97 acres in an industrial area of Renton, King County, Washington. The facility operated during1907-24 and from 1934 to the present. The company is a division of PACCAR, Inc. An inactive company landfill occupies the northwest quarter of the property. Until 1964, the facility deposited waste materials, including foundry sand, wood, metal, paints, solvents, and oils, in a marshy area underlain by peat and clay. The wastes are estimated to have been buried up to 7 feet below the surface. Sand and gravel have been used to cover the abandoned landfill. In February1986, PACCAR, Inc., detected lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium in on-site soil and in shallow ground water. Renton has wells in an aquifer connected to the shallow contaminated aquifer. An estimated 37,200 people obtain drinking water from municipal wells within 3 miles of the site. In November 1987, PACCAR, Inc., removed some contaminated soil containing hydrocarbons and lead and transported it to a ha ardous waste facility regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. A ditch on the site drains into the Cedar River and John s Creek. The Cedar River flows into Lake Washington, which is within 3 miles downstream of the site and is used for recreational activities. Status February 21, 1990): In August 1988, under a Consent Decree with the Washington Department of Ecology, PACCAR 1000251921 TC2826208.2s Page 10 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 began a remedial investigation/feasibility study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. The work is scheduled to be completed in early 1990. Site Status Details- NPL Status: Final Proposed Date: 06124/1988 Final Date: 02/2111990 Deleted Date: Not reported Narratives Details: NPL Name: PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. City: RENTON State: WA CERCLIS: PACCAR Site ID: 1000614 Federal Facility: Not a Federal Facility NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL Non NPL Status: Not reported CERCLIS Site Alias Name(s) Alias Name: PACCAR Alias Address: Not reported Date Completed: WA Alias Name: PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO Alias Address: Not reported Date Started: KING, WA Alias Name: PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO Alias Address: Not reported Not reported Alias Name: PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. Alias Address: 1400 N 4TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 Site Description: Not reported CERCLIS Assessment History: Action: DISCOVERY Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 06/05/81 Priority Level: Not reported Action: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Date Started: 12105/84 Date Completed: 04/24/85 Priority Level: Higher priority for further assessment Action- SITE INSPECTION Date Started: 08/27186 Date Completed: 09117186 Priority Level: Higher priority for further assessment Action- HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM PACKAGE Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 04102/87 Priority Level: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 11 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Action: PROPOSAL TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 06/24188 Priority Level: Not reported Action: REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONIFEASIBILITY STUDY NEGOTIATIONS Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 11107!88 Priority Level: Not reported Action: STATE CONSENT DECREE Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 11/07188 Priority Level: Not reported Action: FINAL LISTING ON NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 02/21/90 Priority Level: Not reported Action: REMOVAL ASSESSMENT Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 09/11/90 Priority Level: Not reported Action: COMBINED REMEDIAL INVESTIGAT IONIFEASIBILITY STUDY Date Started: 08/19/88 Date Completed: 09/06/91 Priority Level Not reported Action: RECORD OF DECISION Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 09106/91 Priority Level: Final Remedy Selected at Site Action: REMEDIAL DESIGNIREMEDIAL ACTION NEGOTIATIONS Date Started: 05101/91 Date Completed: 11108191 Priority Level: Not reported Action: STATE CONSENT DECREE Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 11108191 Priority Level: Not reported Action: REMOVAL ASSESSMENT Date Started: 12102/92 Date Completed: 12/02192 Priority Level: Not reported Action: REMEDIAL ACTION Date Started: 11/08/91 Date Completed: 08/05/96 Priority Level: Not reported Action: REMEDIAL DESIGN Date Started: 11/08/91 1000251921 TC2826208.2s Page 12 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) Date Completed: 08/05/96 Priority Level: Not reported Action: PRELIMINARY CLOSE-OUT REPORT PREPARED Date Started: Not reported Date Completed: 08105/96 Priority Level: Not reported RCRA-NonGen: PACCAR INC Date form received by agency: 0212212008 Facility name: PACCAR INC Facility address: 1400 N 4TH ST US RENTON, WA 980551535 EPA ID: WAD009249210 Mailing address: PO BOX 1518 Operator BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 Contact: VICKI ZUMBRUNNEN Contact address: PO BOX 1518 BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (425)468-7055 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Land type: Private Classification: Non -Generator Description: Handler: Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste Owner/Operator Summary Ownerloperator name: PACCAR INC Ownerloperator address: PO BOX 1518 BELLEVUE, WA 98009 Ownerloperator country: US Owner/operator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private OwnerlOperalor Type: Operator Owner/Op start date: 12131!2007 OwnerlOp end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): Recycler of hazardous waste: Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, starer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-site burner exemption - Furnace exemption: Used oil fuel burner: Used oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown 1000251921 TC2826208.2s Page 13 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 Historical Generators: Date form received by agency: 12/3112007 Facility name: PACCAR INC Classification: Not a generator, verified Date form received by agency: 12/31/2005 Facility name: PACCAR INC Classification: Not a generator, verified Date form received by agency: 12/31/2003 Facility name: PACCAR INC Classification: Not a generator, verified Date form received by agency: 1 213 1 11 99 0 Facility name: PACCAR INC Site name: PACIFIC CAR AND FOUNDRY Classification: Large Quantity Generator Facility Has Received Notices of Violations: Regulation violated: Not reported Area of violation: Generators - General Date violation determined: 0 411 711 984 Date achieved compliance: 0812811984 Violation lead agency: State Enforcement action: WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action dale: 07108/1984 Enf. disposition status: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enforcement lead agency: State Proposed penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Evaluation Action Summary: Evaluation date: 04117/1984 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - General Date achieved compliance: 08/2811984 Evaluation lead agency: State ROD: Full -text of USEPA Record of Decision(s) is available from EDR. FINDS: Registry ID: 110002150038 Environmental Interest/Information System Washington Facility l Site Identification System (WA-FSIS) provides a means to query and display data maintained by the Washington Department of Ecology. This system contains key information for each facility/site that is currently, or has been, of interest to the Air Quality, Dam Safety, Hazardous Waste, Toxics Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. NCDB (National Compliance Data Base) supports implementation of the TC2826208.2s Page 14 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The system tracks inspections in regions and states with cooperative agreements, enforcement actions, and settlements. US EPA TRIS (Toxics Release Inventory System) contains information from facilities on the amounts of over 300 listed toxic chemicals that these facilities release directly to air, water, land, or that are transported off-site. RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System) is the Superfund database that is used to support management in all phases of the Superfund program. The system contains information on all aspects of hazardous waste sites, including an inventory of sites, planned and actual site activities, and financial information. CSCSL: Facility ID: Facility Type: Region: Ecology Status Code: Entered Date: Updated Date: Brownfield Status: Rank Status: PSI Status: Clean Method: Drinking Water Type: Cleanup Standard: Acres Remediated: Latitude: Longitude: Lat/Long- Lat/Long (dms): Media Status Desc: Affected Media: Affected Media Status: Pesticides: Petroleum Products: Phenolic Compounds: Reactive Wastes: Corrosive Wastes: Radioactive Wastes: Asbestos: Responsible Unit: Arsenic Code: MTBE Code: UXO Code: 2065 Program Plan Northwest 5 3!1!1988 7/912008 0 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 47.488568 -122.198868 47.488568 / -122.198868 47 29 18.845 1-122 11 55.925 1/1/0001 Groundwater Confirmed Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported NORTHWEST Not reported Not reported Not reported 1000251921 TC2826208.2s Page 15 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) Dioxin: Not reported Non -Halogenated Solvents: Not reported Base/Neutral/Acid Organics: Not reported Halogenated Organic Compounds: Confirmed EPA Priority Pollutants - Metals and Cyanide: Confirmed Metals - Other non-priority pollutant medals: Not reported Polychlorinated biPhenyls (PCBs): Not reported Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH): Not reported Conventional Contaminants, Organic: Not reported Conventional Contaminants, Inorganic: Not reported Tibutyl Tin Contaminant Group: Not reported Bioassay/Benthic Failures Contaminant Group: Not reported Wood Debris Contaminant Group: Not reported Other Deleterious Substance Group: Not reported Ecology Site Status (MTCA cleanup process): Construction Completed Facility ID: 2065 Facility Type: Program Plan Region: Northwest Ecology Status Code: 5 Entered Date: 311/1988 Updated Date: 71912008 Brownfield Status: 0 Rank Status? 0 PSI Status: Not reported Clean Method: Solidification/Stabilization Drinking Water Type: Not reported Cleanup Standard: Not reported Acres Remediated: Not reported Latitude: 47.488568 Longitude: -122.198868 LatlLong: 47.4885681-122.198868 Lat/Long (dms): 47 29 18.8451-122 11 55.925 Media Status Desc: 1/110001 Affected Media: Soil Affected Media Status: Confirmed Pesticides: Not reported Petroleum Products: Confirmed Phenolic Compounds: Confirmed Reactive Wastes: Not reported Corrosive Wastes: Not reported Radioactive Wastes: Not reported Asbestos: Not reported Responsible Unit: NORTHWEST Arsenic Code: Not reported MTBE Code: Not reported UXO Cade: Not reported Dioxin: Not reported Non -Halogenated Solvents: Confirmed Base/Neutral/Acid Organics: Not reported Halogenated Organic Compounds: Confirmed EPA Priority Pollutants - Metals and Cyanide: Confirmed Metals - Other non-priority pollutant medals: Confirmed Polychlorinated biPhenyls (PCBs): Confirmed Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH): Confirmed Conventional Contaminants, Organic: Not reported Conventional Contaminants, Inorganic: Confirmed EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number O & M Underway 1000251921 TC2826208.2s Page 16 Map #D Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 Tibutyi Tin Contaminant Group: Not reported BioassaylBenthic Failures Contaminant Group: Not reported Wood Debris Contaminant Group: Not reported Other Deleterious Substance Group: Not reported Ecology Site Status (MTCA cleanup process): Construction Completed, 0 & M Underway HSL: FCS edr_fstat: WA edr_fzip: Not reported edr fcnty: KING edr_zip: Not reported Facility Type: Hazardous Sites List Facility Status: Construction Completed, O&M underway FSID Number: 2065 Rank: 0 Region: NW ALLSITES: FCS Facility Id: 2065 Federal (Superfund) Cleanup St Latitude: 47.488568000000001 A Longitude: -122.198868 WAD009249210 Geographic location identifier (alias (acid): 2065 Facility Name: PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.488568000000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.198868 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 99 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 8 Location Verified Code: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: FCS Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Federal (Superfund) Cleanup St Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAD009249210 Interaction Start Date: 1/1/1900 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: CONSTGP Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Construction SW GP Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAR002460 Interaction Start Date: 9115!1995 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAD009249210 Interaction Start Date: 12/3112009 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: TRI TC2826208.2s Page 17 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Toxics Release Inventory Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD009249210 Interaction Start Date: 1!111988 Interaction End Date: 10/3/2002 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: Federal Program Indentifier: WAD009249210 Interaction Start Date: 8/11/1980 Interaction End Date: 202004 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: TIER2 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: EmergencylHaz Chem Rpt TIER2 Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAD009249210 Interaction Start Date: 11111989 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: Not reported Interaction Start Date: 2/29/2000 Interaction End Date: 5/3/2000 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWOTHER Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Haz Waste Management Activity Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD009249210 Interaction Start Date: 12/31/2003 Interaction End Date: 12!3112009 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier. 6609 Interaction Start Date: 1/29/1992 Interaction End Date: 51312000 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2065 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: TRI Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Toxics Release Inventory Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD009249210 Interaction Start Date: 6/3011988 Interaction End Date: 7/1/1988 WA MANIFEST: Facility Site ID Number: 2065 TC2826208.2s Page 18 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: The site address in Renton cover PACCAR's former Pacific Car and Foundry operation. Hazardous (Dangerous) Waste generated after the plant shutdown in 1988 up to 1997 from site remediation was reported under this number. The number is kept open shoulThe site address in Renton covers PACCAR's former Pacific Car & Foundry operation. Hazardous (Dangerous) Waste generated after the plant shutdown in 1988 up to 1997 from site remediation was reported under this number. The number is kept open shouldadditionaI Dangerous Waste be generated during repairs or new constructional additional Dangerous Waste be generated during repairs or new construction. Data Year: Not reported Permit by Rule: False Treatment by Generator: False Mixed radioactive waste: False Importer of hazardous waste: False Immediate recycler: False Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: False Generator of dangerous fuel waste: False Generator marketing to burner: False "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": False Utility boiler burner: False Industry boiler burner: False Industrial Furnace: False Smeller defferaL False Universal waste - batteries - generate: False Universal waste - thermostats - generate: False Universal waste - mercury - generate: False Universal waste - lamps - generate: False Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: False Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: False Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: False Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: False Destination Facility for Universal Waste: False Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: False EPA ID: WAD009249210 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 177000505 NAICS CD: 331513 BUSINESS TYPE: Truck manufacturing MAIL NAME: PACCAR Inc MAIL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 216!1996 LAND ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen TC2826208.2s Page 19 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LAND ADDR LINE2: 777 106th Ave NE LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 OPERATOR ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7400 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 SITE CONTACT ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: XQG MONTHLY GENERATION: False BATCH GENERATION: False ONE TIME GENERATION: False TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: False TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: False RECYCLER ONSITE: False TRANSFER FACILITY: False OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: False USED OIL TRANSPORTER: False USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: False USED OIL PROCESSOR: False USED OIL REREFINER: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: False EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000251921 Facility Site ID Number: 2065 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: The site address in Renton cover PACCAR's former Pacific Car and Foundry operation. Hazardous (Dangerous) Waste generated after the {dant shutdown in 1988 up to 1997 from site remediation was reported under this number. The number is kept open shoulThe site address in Renton covers PACCAR's former Pacific Car & Foundry operation. Hazardous (Dangerous) Waste generated after the plant shutdown in 1988 up to 1997 from site remediation was reported under this number. The number is kept open shouldadditional Dangerous Waste be generated during repairs or new construction.d additional Dangerous Waste be generated during repairs or new construction. Data Year: Not reported Permit by Rule: No Treatment by Generator: No TC2826208.2s Page 20 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance FDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 Mixed radioactive waste: No Importer of hazardous waste: No Immediate recycler: No Treatment/StoragelDisposallRecycling Facility: No Generator of dangerous fuel waste: No Generator marketing to burner: No "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": No Utility boiler burner: No Industry boiler burner: No Industrial Furnace: No Smelter defferal: No Universal waste - batteries - generate: No Universal waste - thermostats - generate: No Universal waste - mercury - generate: No Universal waste - lamps - generate: No Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: No Universal waste -thermostats - accumulate: No Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: No Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: No Destination Facility for Universal Waste: No Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: No Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: No Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: No EPA ID: WAD009249210 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 177000505 NAICS CD: 331513 BUSINESS TYPE: Truck manufacturing MAIL NAME: PACCAR Inc MAIL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1 PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 21611996 LAND ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc LAND ORO TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen LAND ADDR LINE1: PQ Box 1518 LAND ADDR LINE2: 777 106th Aye NE LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 OPERATOR DRG NAME: PACCAR Inc OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7400 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 SITE CONTACT ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 TC2826208.2s Page 21 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98409-1518 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: XQG MONTHLY GENERATION: No BATCH GENERATION: No ONE TIME GENERATION: No TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE; No TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: No RECYCLER ONSITE: No TRANSFER FACILITY: No OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: No USED OIL TRANSPORTER: No USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY- No USED OIL PROCESSOR: No USED OIL REREFINER: No USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: No USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: No Facility Site ID Number: 2065 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: D008 - Lead Form Comm: The site address in Renton covers the former Pacific Car & Foundry operation. Hazardous (Dangerous) Waste generated after the plant shutdown in 1988 up to 1997 from site remediation was reported under this number. The number is kept open should additional Dangerous Waste be generated during repairs or new construction. Data Year: 2009 Permit by Rule: False Treatment by Generator: False Mixed radioactive waste: False Importer of hazardous waste: False Immediate recycler: False Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: False Generator of dangerous fuel waste: False Generator marketing to burner: False "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": False Utility boiler burner: False Industry boiler burner: False Industrial Furnace: False Smelter defferal: False Universal waste - batteries - generate: False Universal waste - thermostats - generate: False Universal waste - mercury - generate: False Universal waste - lamps - generate: False Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: False Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: False Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: False Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: False Destination Facility for Universal Waste: False TC2826208.2s Page 22 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site Databases) PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: False EPA ID: WAD009249210 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR 177000505 NAICS CD: 331513 BUSINESS TYPE: Truck manufacturing MAIL NAME: PACCAR Inc MAIL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINEII: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 2!6!1996 LAND ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LANDADDRLINE2: 777 106th Ave NE LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 OPERATOR ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc OPERATOR ORO TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7400 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 SITE CONTACT ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: vickiaumbrunnen@paccar.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: MQG MONTHLY GENERATION: False BATCH GENERATION: Faise ONE TIME GENERATION: True TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: False TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: False RECYCLER ONSITE: False TRANSFER FACILITY: False OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: False USED OIL TRANSPORTER: False EDR ID Number EPA ID Number 1000251921 TC2826208.2s Page 23 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: False USED OIL PROCESSOR: False USED OIL REREFINER: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: False Facility Site ID Number: 2065 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: The site address in Renton cover PACCAR's former Pacific Car and Foundry operation. Hazardous (Dangerous) Waste generated after the plant shutdown in 1988 up to 1997 from site remediation was reported under this number. The number is kept open should additional Dangerous Waste be generated during repairs or new construction. Data Year: 2008 Permit by Rule: False Treatment by Generator: False Mixed radioactive waste: False Importer of hazardous waste: False Immediate recycler: False Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: False Generator of dangerous fuel waste: False Generator marketing to burner: False "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": False Utility boiler burner: False Industry boiler burner False Industrial Furnace: False Smelter defferal: False Universal waste - batteries - generate: False Universal waste - thermostats - generate: False Universal waste - mercury - generate: False Universal waste - lamps - generate: False Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: False Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: False Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: False Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: False Destination Facility for Universal Waste: False Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: False EPA ID: WAD009249210 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 1 77 000 505 NAICS CD: 331513 BUSINESS TYPE: Truck manufacturing MAIL NAME: PACCAR Inc MAIL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CtTY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY; UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/6/1996 LAND ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc TC2826208.2s Page 24 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LAND ADDR LINE2: 777 106th Ave NE LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98049-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 OPERATOR ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc OPERATOR ORG TYPE Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98049 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PRONE NBR: (425) 468-7400 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 SITE CONTACT ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98049-1518 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.00m FORM CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY; UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: XQG MONTHLY GENERATION: False BATCH GENERATION: False ONE TIME GENERATION: False TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE; False TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: False RECYCLER ONSITE: False TRANSFER FACILITY: False OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: False USED OIL TRANSPORTER: False USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY; False USED OIL PROCESSOR: False USED OIL REREFINER: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: False EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000251921 Facility Site ID Number: 2065 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: The site address in Renton cover PACCAR's former Pacific Car and Foundry operation. Hazardous (Dangerous) Waste generated after the plant shutdown in 1988 up to 1997 from site remediation was reported under this number. The number is kept open shoulThe site address in Renton covers PACCAR's former Pacific Car & Foundry operation. Hazardous (Dangerous) Waste generated after the plant shutdown in 1988 up to 1997 from site remediation was reported under this number. The number is kept open shouldadditional Dangerous Waste be generated during repairs or new constructional additional Dangerous Waste be generated during repairs or new construction. Data Year: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 25 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 Permit by Rule: FALSE Treatment by Generator: FALSE Mixed radioactive waste: FALSE Importer of hazardous waste: FALSE Immediate recycler: FALSE TreatmentlStoragelDisposal/Recycling Facility: FALSE Generator of dangerous fuel waste: FALSE Generator marketing to burner: FALSE "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": FALSE Utility boiler burner: FALSE Industry boiler burner: FALSE Industrial Furnace: FALSE Smelter defferal: FALSE Universal waste - batteries - generate: FALSE Universal waste -thermostats - generate: FALSE Universal waste - mercury - generate: FALSE Universal waste - lamps -generate: FALSE Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: FALSE Destination Facility for Universal Waste: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: FALSE EPA ID: WAD009249210 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 177000505 NAICS CD: 331513 BUSINESS TYPE: Truck manufacturing MAIL NAME: PACCAR Inc MAIL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1 51 8 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/6/1996 LAND ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LAND ADDR LINE2: 777 106th Ave NE LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7055 OPERATOR ORG NAME: PACCAR Inc OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7400 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen TC2826208.2s Page 26 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) 1000251921 SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE -I: PO BOX 1518 SITE CONTACT ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Vicki ZumBrunnen FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 1518 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 468-7055 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: vicki.zumbrunnen@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: XQG MONTHLY GENERATION: FALSE BATCH GENERATION: FALSE ONE TIME GENERATION: FALSE TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: FALSE TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: FALSE RECYCLER ONSITE: FALSE TRANSFER FACILITY: FALSE OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: FALSE USED OIL TRANSPORTER: FALSE USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: FALSE USED OIL PROCESSOR: FALSE USED OIL REREFINER: FALSE USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: FALSE USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: FALSE ri�r k th G h^narlink while viewing on your computer to access additional WA MANIFEST: detail in the EDR Site Report. INST CONTROL: Facility Site ID: 2065 Decision Type: Consent Decree (CD) Document Type: Restrictive Covenant County Filing # For Individual IC Doc: 199111262431 Filing Date Of Individual IC Doc: Not reported Status: Active Status Date: Not reported Anchorage Restrictions: No Drinking Water Restrictions: No Education Programs: No Financial Assurance: No Finfish Harvesting Restrictions: No Groundwater Restriction: Yes Maintenance Requirements: No No Dredge Zone: No No Wake Zone: No Physical Measures: Yes Property Use Restriction: Yes Restrictive Signage: No Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions: No Soil Restriction: No Surface Water Restriction: No Swimming Restriction: No Vessel Draft Restriction: No TC2826208.2s Page 27 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO. (Continued) Facility Site ID: 2065 Decision Type. Consent Decree (CD) Document Type: Restrictive Covenant County Filing # For Individual IC Doc: Not reported Filing Date Of Individual IC Doc: Not reported Status- Active Status Date: Not reported Anchorage Restrictions: No Drinking Water Restrictions: No Education Programs: No Financial Assurance: No Finfish Harvesting Restrictions: No Groundwater Restriction: Yes Maintenance Requirements: No No Dredge Zone: No No Wake Zone: No Physical Measures: Yes Property Use Restriction: Yes Restrictive Signage: No Shellfish Harvesting Restrictions: No Soil Restriction: No Surface Water Restriction: No Swimming Restriction: No Vessel Draft Restriction: No Al CLEANING SHOPPE THE SUNG KANG ESE 2830 NE SUNSET BLVD a 118 RENTON, WA 0.076 mi. 400 ft. Site 1 of 3 in cluster A Relative: EDR Historical Cleaners: Higher Name: CLEANING SHOPPE THE Year: 1977 Actual: Type: Laundries Self Serve 350 ft. Name: CLEANING SHOPPE THE Year: 1980 Type: Laundries Self Serve Name- CLEANING SHOPPE THE Yea r: 1985 Type: Laundries Self Serve Name: CLEANING SHOPPE THE SUNG KANG Year: 1991 Type: Laundries - Self Serve EOR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000251921 EOR Historical Cleaners 10096i3o69 NIA TC2826208.2s Page 28 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation A2 ESE < 118 0.076 mi. 400 ft. Site CLEANING SHOPPE 1830 SUNSET BLVD NE RENTON, WA 98056 Site 2 of 3 in cluster A Relative: RCRA-NonGen- MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number RCRA-NonGen 1000107853 FINDS WAD980986996 ALLSITES Inactive Drycleaners Higher Date form received by agency: 08/22/1986 Facility name: CLEANING SHOPPE Actual: Facility address: 2830 SUNSET BLVD NE 350 ft. RENTON, WA 98056 EPA ID: WAD980986996 Mailing address: 2830 NE SUNSET BLVD Private RENTON, WA 98056-3106 Contact: SUNG KANG Contact address: 2830 NE SUNSET BLVD Not reported RENTON, WA 98056-3106 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (425)228-4653 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Classification: Non -Generator Description: Handler: Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste Owner/Operator Summary. Owner/operator name: CLEANING SHOPPE Owner/operator address: 2830 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON, WA 98056 Ownerloperator country: US Owner/operator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private Owner/Operator Type: Owner OwnerlOp start date: 08/2211986 Owner/Op end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): Recycler of hazardous waste: Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, storer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-site burner exemption: Furnace exemption: Used oil fuel burner: Used Oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Registry ID: 110005339507 TC2826208.2s Page 29 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CLEANING SHOPPE (Continued) 1000107853 Environmental Interest/Information System RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. ALLSITES: Facility Id: 19537445 Latitude: 47.500540000000001 Longitude: -122.1814 Geographic location identifier (alias (acid): 19537445 Facility Name: Cleaning Shoppe Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.500540000000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.1814 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 99 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 99 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 19537445 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD980986996 Interaction Start Date: 8/2211986 Interaction End Date: 1/20/1987 Inactive Drycleaners: EPA L WAD980986996 FS Id: 2617 Facility ID: WAD980986996 NAICS Code: 81232 Fed Waste Code Desc: Not reported State Waste Code Desc: Not reported TAX REG NBR: Not reported BUSINESS TYPE: Not reported MAIL NAME: Not reported MAIL LINES: Not reported MAIL LINE2: Not reported MAIL CITY; Not reported MAIL STATE: Not reported MAIL ZIP: Not reported MAIL COUNTRY: Not reported LEGAL ORG NAME: Not reported LEGAL PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported LEGAL PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported LEGAL PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported LEGAL LINE1: Not reported LEGAL LINE2: Not reported LEGAL CITY: Not reported LEGAL STATE: Not reported LEGAL ZIP: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 30 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CLEANING SHOPPE (Continued) 1000107853 LEGAL COUNTRY: Not reported LEGAL PHONE NBR: Not reported LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported LEGAL ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported LAND ORG NAME: Not reported LAND PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported LAND PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported LAND PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported LAND LINEI: Not reported LAND LINE2: Not reported LAND CITY: Not reported LAND STATE: Not reported LAND ZIP: Not reported LAND COUNTRY: Not reported LAND PHONE NBR: Not reported LAND ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported OPERATOR ORG NAME: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported OPERATOR LINE1: Not reported OPERATOR LINE2: Not reported OPERATOR CITY: Not reported OPERATOR STATE: Not reported OPERATOR ZIP: Not reported OPERATOR COUNTRY: Not reported OPERATOR PHONE NBR: Not reported OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported OPERATOR ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported SITE CONTACT FIRST NAME- Not reported SITE CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: Not reported SITE CONTACT LAST NAME: Not reported SITE CONTACT LINE1: Not reported SITE CONTACT LINE2: Not reported SITE CONTACT CITY: Not reported SITE CONTACT STATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT ZIP: Not reported SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: Not reported SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: Not reported SITE CONTACT EMAIL: Not reported FORM CONTACT FIRST NAME: Not reported FORM CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: Not reported FORM CONTACT LAST NAME: Not reported FORM CONTACT LINE1: Not reported FORM CONTACT LINE2: Not reported FORM CONTACT CITY: Not reported FORM CONTACT STATE: Not reported FORM CONTACT ZIP: Not reported FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: Not reported FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: Not reported FORM CONTACT EMAIL- Not reported GEN STATUS CD: Not reported MONTHLY GENERATION: Not reported BATCH GENERATION: Not reported ONE TIME GENERATION: Not reported TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: Not reported TRANSPORTS OTHERS WASTE: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 31 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site CLEANING SHOPPE (Continued) RECYCLER ONSITE: Not reported TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported PBR: Not reported TBG: Not reported MIXED RADIOACTIVE: Not reported IMPORTER: Not reported TSDR FACILITY: Not reported IMMEDIATE RECYCLER: Not reported GEN DANG FUEL: Not reported GEN MARKET TO BURNER: Not reported GEN OTHER MARKETERS: Not reported UTILITY BOILER BURNER: Not reported INDUSTRY BOILER BURNER: Not reported FURNACE BURNER: Not reported SMELTER DEFERRAL: Not reported SMALL QTY EXEMPTION: Not reported OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: Not reported UW THERMOSTATS GEN: Not reported UW MERCURY GEN: Not reported UW LAMPS GEN: Not reported UW BATTERY ACCUM: Not reported UW THERMOSTATS ACCUM: Not reported UW MERCURY ACCUM: Not reported UW LAMPS ACCUM: Not reported UW DESTINATION FACILITY: Not reported OFF SPEC UTILITY BOILER: Not reported OFF SPEC INDUSTRY BOILER: Not reported OFF SPEC FURNACE: Not reported USED OIL TRANSPORTER: Not reported USED OIL TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported USED OIL PROCESSOR: Not reported USED OIL REREFINER: Not reported USED OIL FUEL MARKETER DIR SHIPMENTS: Not reported USED OIL FUEL MARKETER MEETS SPECS: Not reported Comments: Not reported B3 SUNSET BLVD SHELL SE 2800 NE SUNSET BLVD K 118 RENTON, WA 98056 0.077 mi. 404 ft. Site 1 of 8 in cluster B Relative: ALLSITES: Higher Facility Id: 93513387 Latitude: 47.503402000000001 Actual: Longitude: -122.177902 345 ft. Geographic location identifier (alias (acid): 93513387 Facility Name: SUNSET BLVD SHELL Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.503402000000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -1122.177902 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 93513387 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Ake Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000107853 ALLSITES 0000593777 UST NIA TC2826208.2s Page 32 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number SUNSET BLVD SHELL_ (Continued) U000593777 Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: 9559 Interaction Start Date: 3/20/2000 Interaction End Date: Not reported UST: Facility ID: 93513387 Site ID: 9559 Lat Deg: 47 Lat Min: 30 Lat Sec: 12.2472000000045 Long Deg: -122 Long Min: 10 Long Sec: 40.4472000000112 UBI: 6019873830010001 Phone Number: 4252270587 TanklD: 33359 Tank Name: 1 Install Date: 12/31/1964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 111/0001 TankSystem Status: Removed TankSystem Status Change Date:812611996 Tank Status: Removed Tank Permit Expiration Date: 12/31/1998 Tank Closure Date: 111/0001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Impressed Current Pipe Material: Fiberglass Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 8/611996 Tag Number: A4370 TanklD: 33403 Tank Name: 5 Install Date: 1213111964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 111/0001 TankSystem Status: Removed TankSystem Status Change Dale:812611996 Tank Status: Removed Tank Permit Expiration Date: 1/110001 Tank Closure Date: 1/1/0001 TC2826208.2s Page 33 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number SUNSET BLVD SHELL (Continued) 0000593777 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection- Not reported Pipe Material: Fiberglass Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 816/1996 Tag Number: A4370 TanklD: 33474 Tank Name: 3 Install Date: 12/31/1964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 111!0001 TankSystem Status: Removed TankSystem Status Change Date:812611996 Tank Status: Removed Tank Permit Expiration Date: 11110001 Tank Closure Date: 1/110001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material; Steel Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Impressed Current Pipe Material: Fiberglass Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 8/611996 Tag Number: A4370 TanklD: 33519 Tank Name: 2 Install Date: 12/31/1964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 1/1/0001 TankSystem Status: Removed TankSystem Status Change Date:8/26/1996 Tank Status: Removed Tank Permit Expiration Date: 12/31/1998 TC2826208.2s Page 34 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance FDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number SUNSET BLVD SHELL (Continued) 0000593777 Tank Closure Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: impressed Current Pipe Material: Fiberglass Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 8/6/1996 Tag Number: A4370 TanklD: 33630 Tank Name: 4 Install Date: 12/31/1964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 111/0001 TankSystem Status: Removed TankSystem Status Change Date:8126/1996 Tank Status: Removed Tank Permit Expiration Date: 111/0001 Tank Closure Date: 1!110001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Impressed Current Pipe Material: Fiberglass Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection- Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 81611996 Tag Number: A4370 TanklD: 412489 Tank Name: A Install Date: 10/1 511996 Capacity: 10,000 to 19,999 Gallons Tank Upgrade Date: 10/15119,36 TankSystem Status: Operational TankSystem Status Change Date:1I110001 Tank Status: Operational TC2826208.2s Page 35 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA 1D Number SUNSET BLVD SHELL (Continued) U000593777 Tank Permit Expiration Dale: 10/31/2010 Tank Closure Date: 1!110001 Tank Pumping System: Pressurized System Tank Spill Prevention: Spill Bucket/Spill Box Tank Overfill Prevention: Sall Float Valve (vent line) Tank Material; Coated Steel Tank Construction: Double Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Sacrificial Anode Pipe Material: Flexible Piping Pipe Construction: Double Wall Pipe Pipe Primary Release Detection: Automatic Line Leak Detection Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Tank Primary Release Detection: Automatic Tank Gauging Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Annual Tank Actual Status Date: 5/15/1997 Tag Number: A4370 TanklD: 412490 Tank Name: B Install Date: 10115/1996 Capacity: 10,000 to 19,999 Gallons Tank Upgrade Date: 10/15/1996 TankSystem Status: Operational TankSystem Status Change Date:11110001 Tank Status: Operational Tank Permit Expiration Date: 10!3112010 Tank Closure Date: 11110001 Tank Pumping System: Pressurized System Tank Spill Prevention: Spill Bucket/Spill Box Tank Overfill Prevention: Ball Float Valve (vent line) Tank Material: Coated Steel Tank Construction: Double Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Sacrificial Anode Pipe Material: Flexible Piping Pipe Construction: Double Wall Pipe Pipe Primary Release Detection: Automatic Line Leak Detection Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Tank Primary Release Detection: Automatic Tank Gauging Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Annual Tank Actual Status Date: 5715!1997 Tag Number: A4370 TC2826208.2s Page 36 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS B4 GULL SERVICE STATION Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: 5E 2800 NE SUNSET BLVD 2801 NE SUNSET BLVD < 118 RENTON, WA < 118 0.077 mi. Interaction End Date: UST 404 ft. Site 2 of 8 in cluster S Relative: EDR Historical Auto Stations: Higher Name: HIGHLAND EXXON PRODUCTS Relative: Year: 1977 Actual: Type: Gasoline Stations 345 ft. Latitude: 47.503402000000001 Name: HIGHLAND EXXON SERV Actual: Year: 1980 Type: Gasoline Stations 79696523 Name: GULL SERVICE STATION Facility Name: Year: 1985 Type: Gasoline Stations EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number EDR Historical Auto Stations 1009615255 NIA B5 JC MART Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: ALLSITES SE 2801 NE SUNSET BLVD Federal Program Indentifier: CSCSL NFA < 118 RENTON, WA 98056 Interaction End Date: UST 0.077 mi. VCP 404 ft. Site 3 of 8 in cluster B Relative: ALLSITES: Higher Facility Id: 79696523 Latitude: 47.503402000000001 Actual: Longitude: -122.177902 345 ft. Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 79696523 Facility Name: JC MART Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.503402000000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.177902 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 79696523 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier. 7021 Interaction Start Date: 6/15/1987 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid)T 79696523 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: VOLCLNST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Voluntary Cleanup Sites Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 7021 Interaction Start Date: 4!3!1998 Interaction End Date: 4110/2000 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 79696523 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: LUST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: LUST Facility Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 7021 Interaction Start Date: 5/31/1997 0003027996 N/A TC2826208.2s Page 37 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number JC MART (Continued) U003027996 Interaction End Date: 411012000 CSCSL NFA: 37326 Facility/Site Id: 79696523 NFA Type: NFA after assessment, TRAP, or VCP NFA Date: 411012000 Rank: Not reported VCP: Y UST: 37326 Facility ID: 79696523 Site ID: 7021 Lat Deg: 47 Lat Min: 30 Lai Sec: 12.2472000000045 Long Deg: -122 Long Min: 10 Long Sec: 40.4472000000112 U61: 6026634100010001 Phone Number: 4252279340 TanklD: 37326 Tank Name: 2 Install Date: 611511987 Capacity: 10,000 to 19,999 Gallons Tank Upgrade Date: 813/1998 TankSystem Status: Operational TankSystem Status Change Date:611112001 Tank Status: Operational Tank Permit Expiration Date: 10131/2010 Tank Closure Date: 11110001 Tank Pumping System: Pressurized System Tank Spill Prevention: Spill Bucket/Spill Box Tank Overfill Prevention: Automatic Shutoff (fill pipe) Tank Material: Steel Tanis Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not Performed Tank Corrosion Protection: Sacrificial Anode Pipe Material: Flexible Piping Pipe Construction: Double Wall Pipe Pipe Primary Release Detection: Automatic Line Leak Detection Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Tank Primary Release Detection: Automatic Tank Gauging Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Annual Tank Actual Status Date: 8/6/1996 Tag Number: A3784 TanklD: 37398 Tank Name: 3 Install Date: 6115/19B7 Capacity: 10,000 to 19,999 Gallons Tank Upgrade Date: 813/1998 TC2826208.2s Page 38 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number JC MART (Continued) 0003027996 TankSystem Status: Operational TankSystem Status Change Date:6M 112001 Tank Status: Operational Tank Permit Expiration Date: 10/3112010 Tank Closure Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Pumping System: Pressurized System Tank Spill Prevention: Spill BucketlSpill Box Tank Overfill Prevention: Automatic Shutoff (fill pipe) Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not Performed Tank Corrosion Protection: Sacrificial Anode Pipe Material: Flexible Piping Pipe Construction: Double Wail Pipe Pipe Primary Release Detection: Automatic Line Leak Detection Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrasion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Tank Primary Release Detection: Automatic Tank Gauging Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Annual Tank Actual Status Date: 8!611996 Tag Number A3784 Tank ID: 37424 Tank Name: 1 Install Date: 6115/1987 Capacity: 10,000 to 19,999 Gallons Tank Upgrade Date: 813/1998 TankSystem Status: Operational TankSystem Status Change Date:6J1112001 Tank Status: Operational Tank Permit Expiration Date: 10/3112010 Tank Closure Date: 111/0001 Tank Pumping System: Pressurized System Tank Spill Prevention: Spill Bucket/Spill Box Tank Overfill Prevention: Automatic Shutoff (fill pipe) Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not Performed Tank Corrosion Protection: Sacrificial Anode Pipe Material Flexible Piping Pipe Construction: Double Wall Pipe Pipe Primary Release Detection: Automatic Line Leak Detection Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Tank Primary Release Detection: Automatic Tank Gauging Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Annual Tank Actual Status Date: 8/6/1996 Tag Number: A3784 VCP: edr_fstat: WA edr_fzip: 98056 edr_fcnty: KING edr zip: 98056-3105 TC2826208.2s Page 39 Map ID Petroleum products MAP FINDINGS Soil Direction Tank Region: North Western Distance Final cleanup report Site Register Issue: EDR ID Number Elevation Site Contact: Database(s) EPA ID Number Report Title: JC MART (Continued) 0003027996 Facility ID: 79696523 VCP Status: Not reported VCP: Y Ecology Status: Not reported NFA Type: NFA after assessment, IRAP, or VCP Date NFA: 411012000 Rank: Not reported lib JC MART ICR S104873007 SE 2801 NE SUNSET BLVD. NIA < 118 NEWCASTLE, WA 98056 0.077 mi. 404 ft. SIte 4 of 8 in cluster B Relative: ICR: Higher Date Ecology Received Report: 01/20/98 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Actual: Media Contaminated: Soil 345 ft. Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 95-18 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 01!05100 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Final cleanup report Site Register Issue: 98-26 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 10121/99 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 98-26 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 08!30199 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 98-26 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 40 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation B7 SE < 118 0.077 mi 409 ft. Relative: Higher Actual: 345 ft. Site JC MART (Continued) Date Ecology Received Report: Contaminants Found at Site: Media Contaminated: Waste Management- Region: Type of Report Ecology Received Site Register Issue: County Code: Contact: Report Title: MAP FINDINGS 06/03199 Petroleum products Soil Tank North Western Interim cleanup report 98-31 17 Not reported Ground Water Sampling Report - First Quarter 1999 RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER DONALD M MALONE 2806 NE 10TH ST RENTON, WA Site 5 of 8 in cluster B EDR Historical Cleaners: Name: Year: Type: Name: Year: Type: Name: Year: Type: Name Year: Type: RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER 1977 Laundries Self Serve RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER 1980 Laundries Self Serve RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER 1985 Laundries Self Serve EDR ID Number Daiabase(s) EPA ID Number S104873007 EDR Historical Cleaners 1009613062 NIA RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER DONALD M MALONE 1991 Laundries - Self Serve 68 HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN SE 2808 NE 10TH < 1I8 RENTON, WA 98056 0.077 mi. 409 ft. Site 6 of 8 in cluster B Relative: RCRA-NonGen: Higher Date form received by agency: 01/04/1989 Facility name: HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN Actual: Facility address: 2808 NE 10TH 345 ft. RENTON: WA 98056 EPA ID: WAD982654717 Mailing address: 10257 17TH AVE SW SEATTLE, WA 98146-1304 Contact: LEWIS YAYOI Contact address: 10257 17TH AVE SW SEATTLE, WA 98146-1304 Contact country: u5 Contact telephone: (206)762-1368 Contact email Not reported EPA Region: 10 Classification: Non -Generator RCRA-NonGen 1000242447 FINDS WAD982654717 ALLSITES Inactive Drycleaners TC2826208.2s Page 41 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN (Continued) EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number Description: Handler: Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste Owner/Operator Summary Ownerloperator name: HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS INC Owner/operator address: 10257 17TH AVE SW SEATTLE, WA 98146 Owner/operator country: US Ownerloperator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private Owner/Operator Type: Owner Owner/Op start date: 01/04/1989 Owner/Op end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): Recycler of hazardous waste: Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, Storer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-site burner exemption: Furnace exemption: Used oil fuel burner: Used oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Registry ID: 110005346376 Environmental Interestllnformation System RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. ALLSITES: Facility Id: 64311383 Latitude: 47.499780000000001 Longitude: -122.18066 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 64311383 Facility Name: Highlands One Hour Cleaners IN Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.499780000000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.18066 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 99 1000242447 TC2826208.2s Page 42 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance FDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA iD Number HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN (Continued) 1000242447 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 99 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 64311383 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD982654717 Interaction Start Date: 11411989 Interaction End Date: 912311991 Inactive Drycleaners: EPA I: WAD982654717 FS Id: 7292 Facility ID: WAD982654717 NAICS Code: 81232 Fed Waste Code Desc: Not reported State Waste Code Desc: Not reported TAX REG NBR: Not reported BUSINESS TYPE: Not reported MAIL NAME: Not reported MAIL LINE1: Not reported MAIL LINE2: Not reported MAIL CITY: Not reported MAIL STATE: Not reported MAIL ZIP: Not reported MAIL COUNTRY: Not reported LEGAL ORG NAME: Not reported LEGAL PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported LEGAL PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported LEGAL PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported LEGAL LINE1: Not reported LEGAL LINE2: Not reported LEGAL CITY: Not reported LEGAL STATE: Not reported LEGAL ZIP7 Not reported LEGAL COUNTRY: Not reported LEGAL PHONE NBR: Not reported LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported LEGAL ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported LAND ORG NAME: Not reported LAND PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported LAND PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported LAND PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported LAND LINE1: Not reported LAND LINE2: Not reported LAND CITY: Not reported LAND STATE: Not reported LAND ZIP: Not reported LAND COUNTRY: Not reported LAND PHONE NBR: Not reported LAND ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported OPERATOR ORG NAME: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 43 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA 1D Number HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN (Continued) 1000242447 OPERATOR LINE1: Not reported OPERATOR LINE2: Not reported OPERATOR CITY: Not reported OPERATOR STATE: Not reported OPERATOR ZIP: Not reported OPERATOR COUNTRY: Not reported OPERATOR PHONE NBR: Not reported OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported OPERATOR ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported SITE CONTACT FIRST NAME: Not reported SITE CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: Not reported SITE CONTACT LAST NAME: Not reported SITE CONTACT LINE1: Not reported SITE CONTACT LINE2: Not reported SITE CONTACT CITY: Not reported SITE CONTACT STATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT ZIP: Not reported SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: Not reported SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: Not reported SITE CONTACT EMAIL: Not reported FORM CONTACT FIRST NAME: Not reported FORM CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: Not reported FORM CONTACT LAST NAME: Not reported FORM CONTACT LINE1: Not reported FORM CONTACT LINE2: Not reported FORM CONTACT CITY: Not reported FORM CONTACT STATE: Not reported FORM CONTACT ZIP: Not reported FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: Not reported FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: Not reported FORM CONTACT EMAIL: Not reported GEN STATUS CD: Not reported MONTHLY GENERATION: Not reported BATCH GENERATION: Not reported ONE TIME GENERATION: Not reported TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: Not reported TRANSPORTS OTHERS WASTE: Not reported RECYCLER ONSITE: Not reported TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported PBR: Not reported TBG: Not reported MIXED RADIOACTIVE: Not reported IMPORTER: Not reported TSDR FACILITY: Not reported IMMEDIATE RECYCLER: Not reported GEN RANG FUEL: Not reported GEN MARKET TO BURNER: Not reported GEN OTHER MARKETERS: Not reported UTILITY BOILER BURNER: Not reported INDUSTRY BOILER BURNER: Not reported FURNACE BURNER: Not reported SMELTER DEFERRAL: Not reported SMALL CITY EXEMPTION: Not reported OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: Not reported UW THERMOSTATS GEN: Not reported UW MERCURY GEN: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 44 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR CLEANERS IN (Continued) UW LAMPS GEN: Not reported UW BATTERY ACCUM: Not reported UW THERMOSTATS ACCUM: Not reported UW MERCURY ACCUM: Not reported UW LAMPS ACCUM- Not reported UW DESTINATION FACILITY: Not reporled OFF SPEC UTILITY BOILER: Not reported OFF SPEC INDUSTRY BOILER: Not reported OFF SPEC FURNACE: Not reported USED OIL TRANSPORTER: Not reported USED OIL TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported USED OIL PROCESSOR: Not reported USED OIL REREFINER: Not reported USED OIL FUEL MARKETER DIR SHIPMENTS: Not reported USED OIL FUEL MARKETER MEETS SPECS: Not reported Comments: Not reported EDR ED Number Database(s) EPA ID Number B9 RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC RCRA-CESQG SE 2806 NE 10TH FINDS a 118 RENTON, WA 98056 ALLSITES 0.077 mi. Inactive Drycleaners 409 ft. Site 7 of 8 in cluster B Relative: RCRA-CESQG: Higher Date form received by agency: 06/2812004 Facility name: RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC Actual; Facility address- 2806 NE 10TH 345 ft. RENTON, WA 98056 EPA ID: WAD980988117 Mailing address: PO BOX 390 BLACK DIAMOND, WA 98010-0390 Contact: ROBERT L MALONE Contact address: PO BOX 390 BLACK DIAMOND, WA 98010-0390 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (360)825-0449 Contact email- Not reported EPA Region: 10 Classification: Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Description: Handler: generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste per calendar month, and accumulates 1000 kg or less of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 1 kg or less of acutely hazardous waste per calendar month, and accumulates at any time: 1 kg or less of acutely hazardous waste; or 100 kg or less of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste; or generates 100 kg or less of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulates at any time: 1 kg or less of acutely hazardous waste; or 100 kg or less of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste OwnerlOperator Summary: Owner/operator name: ROBERT MALONE Owner/operator address: PO BOX 390 BLACK DIAMOND, WA 98010 1000242447 1004793759 WAD980988117 TC2826208.2s Page 45 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC (Continued) Ownerloperator country: US Ownerloperator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private Owner/Operator Type: Operator Owner/Op start date: 05121/1996 Owner/Op end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): Recycler of hazardous waste: Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, scorer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-sile burner exemption: Furnace exemption: Used oil fuel burner: Used oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Historical Generators: Date form received by agency: 12/3112003 Facility name: RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC Classification: Not a generator, verified Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Registry ID: 110005339883 Environmental Interest/information System Washington Facility I Site Identification System (WA -FSIs) provides a means to query and display data maintained by the Washington Department of Ecology. This system contains key information for each facilitylsite that is currently, or has been, of interest to the Air Quality, Dam Safely, Hazardous Waste, Toxics Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. ALLSITES: Facility Id: 73177425 Latitude: 47.499780400000001 Longitude: -122.18068 1004793759 TC2826208.2s Page 46 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC (Continued) Geographic location identifier (alias facid): Facility Name: Latitude Decimal Degrees: Longitude Decimal Degrees: Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: Horizontal Accuracy Code: Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code Location Verified Code: 73177425 Renton Highlander Center Inc 47.499780000000001 -122.18068 99 99 99 N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 73177425 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD980988117 Interaction Start Date: 912211986 Interaction End Date: 12/3112003 Inactive Drycleaners: EPA I: WAD980988117 FS Id: 8202 Facility ID: WAD980988117 NAICS Code: 81232 Fed Waste Code Desc: Not reported State Waste Code Desc: Not reported TAX REG NBR: Not reported BUSINESS TYPE: Not reported MAIL NAME: Not reported MAIL LINE1: Not reported MAIL LINE2: Not reported MAIL CITY: Not reported MAIL STATE: Not reported MAIL ZIP: Not reported MAIL COUNTRY: Not reported LEGAL ORG NAME: Not reported LEGAL PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported LEGAL PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported LEGAL PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported LEGAL LINE1: Not reported LEGAL LINE2: Not reported LEGAL CITY: Not reported LEGAL STATE: Not reported LEGAL ZIP: Not reported LEGAL COUNTRY: Not reported LEGAL PHONE NBR: Not reported LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported LEGAL ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported LAND ORG NAME: Not reported LAND PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported LAND PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported LAND PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported LAND LINE - Not reported LAND LINE2: Not reported LAND CITY: Not reported LAND STATE: Not reported LAND ZIP: Not reported LAND COUNTRY- Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1004793759 TC2826208.2s Page 47 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC (Continued) 1004793759 LAND PHONE NBR: Not reported LAND ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported OPERATOR ORO NAME: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported OPERATOR LINEi: Not reported OPERATOR LINE2: Not reported OPERATOR CITY: Not reported OPERATOR STATE: Not reported OPERATOR ZIP: Not reported OPERATOR COUNTRY: Not reported OPERATOR PHONE NBR: Not reported OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported OPERATOR ORGANIZATION TYPE- Not reported SITE CONTACT FIRST NAME: Not reported SITE CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: Not reported SITE CONTACT LAST NAME: Not reported SITE CONTACT LINE1: Not reported SITE CONTACT LINE2: Not reported SITE CONTACT CITY: Not reported SITE CONTACT STATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT ZIP: Not reported SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: Not reported SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: Not reported SITE CONTACT EMAIL: Not reported FORM CONTACT FIRST NAME: Not reported FORM CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: Not reported FORM CONTACT LAST NAME: Not reported FORM CONTACT LINE1: Not reported FORM CONTACT LINE2: Not reported FORM CONTACT CITY: Not reported FORM CONTACT STATE: Not reported FORM CONTACT ZIP: Not reported FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: Not reported FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: Not reported FORM CONTACT EMAIL: Not reported GEN STATUS CD: Not reported MONTHLY GENERATION: Not reported BATCH GENERATION: Not reported ONE TIME GENERATION- Not reported TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: Not reported TRANSPORTS OTHERS WASTE: Not reported RECYCLER ONSITE: Not reported TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported PBR: Not reported TBG: Not reported MIXED RADIOACTIVE: Not reported IMPORTER: Not reported TSDR FACILITY: Not reported IMMEDIATE RECYCLER: Not reported GEN DANG FUEL: Not reported GEN MARKET TO BURNER: Not reported GEN OTHER MARKETERS: Not reported UTILITY BOILER BURNER: Not reported INDUSTRY BOILER BURNER: Not reported FURNACE BURNER: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 48 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site RENTON HIGHLANDER CENTER INC (Continued) SMELTER DEFERRAL: Not reported SMALL QTY EXEMPTION: Not reported OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: Not reported UW THERMOSTATS GEN: Not reported UW MERCURY GEN: Not reported UW LAMPS GEN: Not reported UW BATTERY ACCUM: Not reported UW THERMOSTATS ACCUM: Not reported UW MERCURY ACCUM: Not reported UW LAMPS ACCUM: Not reported UW DESTINATION FACILITY: Not reported OFF SPEC UTILITY BOILER: Not reported OFF SPEC INDUSTRY 801LER: Not reported OFF SPEC FURNACE: Not reported USED OIL TRANSPORTER: Not reported USED OIL TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported USED OIL PROCESSOR: Not reported USED OIL REREFINER: Not reported USED OIL FUEL MARKETER DIR SHIPMENTS: Not reported USED OIL FUEL MARKETER MEETS SPECS: Not reported Comments: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1004793759 B10 HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR MARTINIZING ROLAND AND YAYOI L EDR Historical Cleaners 1009613064 SE 2808 NE 10TH ST NIA < 118 RENTON, WA 0.077 mi. 409 ft. Site 8 of 8 in cluster B Relative: EDR Historical Cleaners: Higher Name: HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR MARTINIZING Year: 1977 Actual: Type: Cleaners And Dyers 345 ft. Name: HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR MARTINIZING Year: 1980 Type: Cleaners And Dyers Name: HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR MARTINIZING Year: 1985 Type: Cleaners And Dyers Name: HIGHLANDS ONE HOUR MARTINIZING ROLAND AND YAYOI L Year: 1991 Type: Cleaners And Dyers All PLAID PANTRIES INC RCRA-NonGen 1000247676 SE 2801 SUNSET BLVD NE FINDS WAD981764095 c 118 RENTON, WA 98056 ALLSITES 0.078 mi. 410 ft. Site 3 of 3 in cluster A Relative: RCRA-NonGen: Higher Date farm received by agency: 04/0111987 Facility name: PLAID PANTRIES INC Actual: Facility address: 2801 SUNSET BLVD NE 347 H. RENTON, WA 98056 TC2826208.2s Page 49 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site PLAID PANTRIES INC (Continued) MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number EPA ID: WAD981764095 Mailing address: 601 VALLEY ST STE 309 SEATTLE, WA 98109-4229 Contact: RICHARD PIACENTINI Contact address: 601 VALLEY ST STE 309 Legal status: SEATTLE, WA 98109-4229 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (206)282-2734 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Classification: Non -Generator Description: Handler: Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste Owner/Operator Summary Ownerloperator name: PLAID PANTRIES INC Owner/operator address: 601 VALLEY ST STE 309 SEATTLE, WA 98109 Owner/operator country: US Owner/operator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private Owner/Operator Type: Owner Owner/Op start date: 04/01/1987 Owner/Op end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): Recycler of hazardous waste: Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, slorer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-site burner exemption: Furnace exemption: Used oil fuel burner: Used oil processor: User oil refiner- Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Registry ID: 110005341193 Environmental Interest/Information System RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. 1000247676 TC2826208.2s Page 5G Map ID Direction D+stance Elevation 12 Sw 118-114 0.145 mi. 763 ft. Relative: Lower Actual 310 ft. MAP FINDINGS Site PLAID PANTRIES INC (Continued) ALLSITES. FARRELL S SERVICE SHOP Facility Id: 1542985 960 HARRINGTON AVE Latitude: 47.500430000000001 RENTON, WA Longitude: -122.18151 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 1542985 Facility Name- Plaid Pantries Inc Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.500430000000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.18151 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 99 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 99 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 1542985 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD981764095 Interaction Start Dale: 4/1/1987 Interaction End Date: 211 811 98 8 HIGHLAND AUTOMOTIVE MICHL SCHIMMEL 2615 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON, WA EDR Historical Auto Stations: Name: HIGHLAND TIRE AND AUTOMOTIVE Year: 1985 Type: Automobile Repairing EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1400247676 EDR Historical Auto Stations 1009615198 NIA Name: HIGHLAND AUTOMOTIVE MICHL SCHIMMEL Year: 1991 Type: Automobile Repairing C13 FARRELL S SERVICE SHOP South 960 HARRINGTON AVE 118-114 RENTON, WA 0.178 mi. 941 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster C Relative: EDR Historical Auto Stations? Lower Name: FARRELL S SERVICE SHOP Year: 1977 Actual: Type: Automobile Repairing 319 ft. EDR Historical Auto Stations 1009616126 NIA TC2826208.2s Page 51 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS C14 FARRELL S SERVICE SHOP South 950 HARRINGTON AVE 118-114 RENTON, WA 0.193 mi. 1017 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster C Relative: EDR Historical Auto Stations: Lower Name: FARRELL S SERVICE SHOP Year: 1980 Actual: Type: Automobile Repairing 317 ft. EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number EDR Historical Auto Stations 1009616115 NIA 15 MCKNIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: NNW 2600 NE 12TH ST I 118-114 RENTON, WA 98055 Interaction Start Date: 0.196 mi. Interaction End Date: 5/3/2000 1036 ft. Tank Status: Closure in Process Relative: ALLSITES: Higher Facility Id: 61253889 Latitude: 47.502651999999998 Actual: Longitude: -122.185462 349 ft. Geographic location identifier (alias faci# 61253889 Facility Name: MCKNIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.502651999999998 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.185462 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 61253889 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 102245 Interaction Start Date: 3/14/1994 Interaction End Date: 5/3/2000 UST: Facility ID: Site ID: Lat Deg: Lat Min: Lat Sec: Long Deg: Long Min: Long Sec: UBI: Phone Number: 61253889 102245 47 30 9.54719999999156 -122 11 7.66320000000405 Not reported 2062352326 TanklD: 14085 Tank Name: 1 Install Date: 1 2/3 111 964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 1!110001 TankSystem Status: Closure in Process TankSystem Status Change Date -.8/26/1996 Tank Status: Closure in Process ALLSITES 0001778202 UST NIA TC2826208.2s Page 52 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site MCKNIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL (Continued) Tank Permit Expiration Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Closure Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Not reported Tank Construction: Not reported Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Not reported Pipe Material: Not reported Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 8/6/1996 Tag Number: Not reported D16 RENTON MARINE South 900 HARRINGTON AVE NE 118-114 RENTON, WA 98056 0.201 mi. RENTON, WA 98056 1059 ft. Site 1 of 3 in cluster D Relative: RCRA-NonGen EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 0001778202 RCRA-NonGen 1000417421 FINDS WAD980983134 ALLSITES UST Lower Date form received by agency: W25/1986 Facility name: RENTON MARINE Actual: Facility address: 900 HARRINGTON AVE NE 317 ft. RENTON, WA 98056 EPA ID: WAD980983134 Contact: DONALD BUSHORE Contact address: 900 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056-3012 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (425)226-1288 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Classification: Non -Generator Description: Handler: Non -Generators do not presently generale hazardous waste Owner/Operator Summary: Ownerloperator name: Ownerloperator address Owner/operator country: Ownerloperator telephone: Legal status: Owner/Operator Type: Owner/Op start dale: Owner/Op end date: RENTON MARINE 900 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056 US Not reported Private Owner 0 412 511 98 6 Not reported Handier Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: No Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): No Recycler of hazardous waste: No TC2826208.2s Page 53 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number RENTON MARINE (Continued) Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, slorer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-site burner exemption: Furnace exemption: Used oil fuel burner: Used oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Registry ID: 110005338045 Environmental Inlerestllnformation System Washington Facility! Site Identification System (WA-FSIS) provides a means to query and display data maintained by the Washington Department of Ecology. This system contains key information for each facilitylsite that is currently, or has been, of interest to the Air Quality, Dam Safety, Hazardous Waste, Toxics Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. ALLSITES: HWG Facility Id: 44562671 Hazardous Waste Generator Latitude: 47.497452000000003 I Longitude: -122,182982 WAD980983134 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 44562671 Facility Name: Renton Marine Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.497452000000003 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.182982 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 44562671 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD980983134 Interaction Start Date: 4125/1986 Interaction End Date: 4/22/1989 1000417421 TC2826208.2s Page 54 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site RENTON MARINE (Continued) Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 44562671 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 9198 Interaction Start Date: 2/29/2000 Interaction End Date: 51312000 UST: Facility ID: Site ID: Lat Deg: Lat Min: Lat Sec: Long Deg: Long Min: Long Sec: UBI: Phone Number: 44562671 9198 47 29 50.8272000000096 -122 10 58.7351999999839 Not reported 2062261288 TanklD: 42167 Tank Name: 1 Install pate: 12131/1964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 11110001 TankSystem Status: Closed in Place TankSystem Status Change Date:812611996 Tank Status: Closed in Place Tank Permit Expiration Date: 11110001 Tank Closure Date: 1!1!0001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Not reported Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Not reported Pipe Material: Steel Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 8!611996 Tag Number: Not reported TanklD: 42277 Tank Name: 2 Install Date: 12131/1964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 11110001 TankSyslem Status: Closed in Place TankSyslem Status Change Date:$!2611996 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000417421 TC2826208.2s Page 55 Map ID KAYO OIL MAP FINDINGS 600 NORTH DAIRY ASHFORD Direction Ownerloperator country: US Owner/operator telephone: Not reported Distance Private FDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number Owner/Op end date: Not reported RENTON MARINE (Continued) 1000417421 Tank Status: Closed in Place Tank Permit Expiration Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Closure Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Not reported Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Not reported Pipe Material: Steel Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 8/6/1996 Tag Number: Not reported E17 CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 RCRA-NonGen 1000659047 NE 3002 SUNSET BLVD NE ALLSITES WADS88487096 118-114 RENTON, WA 98056 CSCSL NFA 0.203 mi. MANIFEST 1073 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster E ICR Relative: RCRA-NonGen: Higher Date form received by agency: 02106/2008 Facility name: CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 Actual: Facility address: 3002 SUNSET BLVD NE 364 ft. RENTON, WA 98056 EPA ID: WAD988487096 Mailing address: 600 NORTH DAIRY ASHFORD HOUSTON, TX 77079 Contact: TIANA ANDRIAMANARIVO Contact address: 600 NORTH DAIRY ASHFORD HOUSTON, TX 77079 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (510)245-5176 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Land type: Private Classification: Non -Generator Description: Handler: Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste OwnerlOperator Summary Ownerloperator name: KAYO OIL Ownerloperator address: 600 NORTH DAIRY ASHFORD HOUSTON, TX 77079 Ownerloperator country: US Owner/operator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private Owner/Operator Type: Operator Owner/Op start date: 0311411997 Owner/Op end date: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 56 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) Handler Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): Recycler of hazardous waste: Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, storer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-site burner exemption: Furnace exemption: Used oil fuel burner: Used oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Historical Generators: Date form received by agency: 12/31/2007 Facility name: CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 Classification: Not a generator, verified Date form received by agency: 12/3112005 Facility name: CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 Classification: Not a generator, verified Date form received by agency: 12/31/2003 Facility name: CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 Classification: Not a generator, verified Violation Status: No violations found Evaluation Action Summary Evaluation date: 07/1511991 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE VISIT Area of violation: Not reported Date achieved compliance: Not reported Evaluation lead agency: State ALLSITES: Facility Id: 5448 Latitude: 47.502662999999998 Longitude: -122.178291 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 5448 Facility Name: ConocoPhillips 2705509 Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.502662999999998 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.178291 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code? 13 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 8 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 5448 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWOTHER interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Haz Waste Management Activity EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000659047 TC2826208.2s Page 57 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier. WAD988487096 Interaction Start Date: 1213112004 Interaction End Date: 1213112DOB Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 5448 Interaction (Aka Env Ent) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD988487096 Interaction Start Date: 5/2211991 Interaction End Date: 1213112004 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 5448 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: TIER2 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Emergency/Haz Chem Rpl TIER2 Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAD988487096 Interaction Start Date: 1/1/1988 Interaction End Date: 7/411776 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid), 5448 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: IRAP Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Independent Remedial Actn Prg Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: Not reported Interaction Start Date: 3/3011997 Interaction End Date: 3/31/1997 Facility Id: 13912313 LUST Latitude: 47.5028396882688 LUST Facility Longitude: -122.178067035966 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 13912313 Facility Name: 8P STORE 5509 Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.502839680000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.17606702999999 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 8 Location Verified Code: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 13912313 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: LUST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: LUST Facility Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 8684 Interaction Start date: 11/1/1991 Interaction End Date: 8/19/1996 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 13912313 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Ink) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: 8684 Interaction Start Date: 3/20/2000 Interaction End Date: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 58 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILLiPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 CSCSL NFA: Facility/Site Id: 5448 NFA Type: NFA after assessment, TRAP. or VCP NFA Date: 8/19/1996 Rank: Not reported VCP: Not reported WA MANIFEST: Facility Site ID Number- 5448 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: Not reported Data Year: Not reported Permit by Rule: False Treatment by Generator: False Mixed radioactive waste: False Importer of hazardous waste: False Immediate recycler: False Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: False Generator of dangerous fuel waste: False Generator marketing to burner: False "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": False Utility boiler burner: False Industry boiler burner: False Industrial Furnace: False Smeller defferal: False Universal waste - batteries - generate: False Universal waste - thermostats - generate: False Universal waste - mercury - generate: False Universal waste - lamps - generate: False Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: False Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: False Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: False Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: False Destination Facility for Universal Waste: False Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: False EPA ID: WAD988487096 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 600115909 NAILS CD: 44719 BUSINESS TYPE: Not reported MAIL NAME: ConocoPhillips Company MAIL ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford MAIL C1TY,ST.ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: ConoccPhillips Company LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: 281-293-1000 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/31/2003 LAND ORG NAME: ConocoPhillips Company LAND ORG TYPE: Private TC2826208.2s Page 59 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: 281-293-1000 OPERATOR ORG NAME: Kayo Oil OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: 1380 San Pablo Ave OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: Rodeo, CA 94572 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: 510-245-5176 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 03/14/97 SITE CONTACT NAME: Tiana Andriamanarivo SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE -I: 1380 San Pablo Ave SITE CONTACT ZIP: Rodeo, CA 94572 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: 510-245-5176 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: Irene.I.Jimenez@Con000Phillips.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Thomas R Border FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford, TA1026B FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: 281-293-4335 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: thomas.r.border@conocophillips.com GEN STATUS CD: XQG MONTHLY GENERATION: False BATCH GENERATION: False ONE TIME GENERATION: False TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: False TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: False REOYCLER ONSITE: False TRANSFER FACILITY: False OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: False USED OIL TRANSPORTER: False USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: False USED OIL PROCESSOR: False USED OIL REREFINER: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: False Facility Site ID Number: 5448 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: Not reported Data Year: Not reported Permit by Rule: FALSE Treatment by Generator: FALSE Mixed radioactive waste: FALSE Importer of hazardous waste: FALSE Immediate recycler: FALSE Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: FALSE Generator of dangerous fuel waste: FALSE Generator marketing to burner: FALSE "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": FALSE Utility boiler burner: FALSE Industry boiler burner: FALSE TC2826208.2s Page 60 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 Industrial Furnace: FALSE Smelter defferal: FALSE Universal waste - batteries - generate: FALSE Universal waste - thermostats - generate: FALSE Universal waste - mercury - generate: FALSE Universal waste - lamps - generate: FALSE Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: FALSE Destination Facility for Universal Waste: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: FALSE EPA ID: WAD988487096 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 600115909 NAICS CD: 44719 BUSINESS TYPE: Not reported MAIL NAME: ConocoPhillips Company MAIL ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: ConocoPhillips Company LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: 281-293-1000 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 1213112003 LAND ORG NAME: ConocoPhillips Company LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: 281-293-1000 OPERATOR ORG NAME: Kayo Oil OPERATOR ORO TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: 1380 San Pablo Ave OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: Rodeo, CA 94572 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: 510-245-5176 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 3/1411997 SITE CONTACT NAME: Tiana Andriamanarivo SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 1380 San Pablo Ave SITE CONTACT ZIP: Rodeo, CA 94572 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: 510-245-5176 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: Irene.I.Jimenez@ConocoPhitlips.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Thomas R Border FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford, TA1026B FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: 281-293-4335 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: thomas.r.border@conocophillips.com GEN STATUS CD: XQG TC2826208.2s Page 61 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 MONTHLY GENERATION: FALSE BATCH GENERATION: FALSE ONE TIME GENERATION: FALSE TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: FALSE TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: FALSE RECYCLER ONSITE: FALSE TRANSFER FACILITY; FALSE OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: FALSE USED OIL TRANSPORTER: FALSE USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: FALSE USED OIL PROCESSOR: FALSE USED OIL REREFINER: FALSE USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS; FALSE USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: FALSE Facility Site ID Number: 5448 SWC Desc; Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: Not reported Data Year: Not reported Permit by Rule: No Treatment by Generator: No Mixed radioactive waste: No Importer of hazardous waste: No Immediate recycler: No Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: No Generator of dangerous fuel waste: No Generator marketing to burner: No "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": No Utility boiler burner: No Industry boiler burner: No Industrial Furnace: No Smelter defferal: No Universal waste - batteries - generate: No Universal waste - thermostats - generate: No Universal waste - mercury - generate: No Universal waste - lamps - generate: No Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: No Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: No Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: No Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: No Destination Facility for Universal Waste: No Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: No Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: No Off -specification used oil burner - industrial fumace: No EPA ID: WAD988487096 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 600115909 NAICS CD: 44719 BUSINESS TYPE: Not reported MAIL NAME: ConocoPhillips Company MAIL ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: ConocoPhillips Company LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private TC2826208.2s Page 62 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 LEGAL ADDR LINF1: 600 North Dairy Ashford LEGAL CITY,STZIP: Houston, TX 77079 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: 281-293-1000 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 1213112003 LAND ORG NAME: ConocoPhillips Company LAND ORO TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NSR- 281-293-1000 OPERATOR ORG NAME: ConocoPhillips OPERATOR ORO TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: 1380 San Pablo Ave OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: Rodeo, CA 94572 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: 510-245-5176 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 3114/1997 SITE CONTACT NAME: Tiana Andriamanarivo SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1 - 1380 San Pablo Ave SITE CONTACT ZIP: Rodeo, CA 94572 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: 510-245-5176 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: Irene.I.Jimenez@ConocoPhillips.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Marina Tishkova FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford TA1026B FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: 281-293-4335 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: Marina.A.Tishkova@conocophillips.com GEN STATUS CD: XQG MONTHLY GENERATION: Yes BATCH GENERATION: No ONE TIME GENERATION: No TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: No TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: No RECYCLER ONSITE: No TRANSFER FACILITY: No OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW 13ATTERY GEN: No USED OIL TRANSPORTER: No USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: No USED OIL PROCESSOR: No USED OIL REREFINER: No USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: No USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: No Facility Site ID Number: 5448 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: Site Sold Data Year: 2008 Permit by Rule: False Treatment by Generator: False Mixed radioactive waste False Importer of hazardous waste: False TC2826208.2s Page 63 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 Immediate recycles False Treatment!Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: False Generator of dangerous fuel waste: False Generator marketing to burner: False "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc,)": False Utility boiler burner: False Industry boiler burner: False Industrial Furnace: False Smelter defferal: False Universal waste - batteries - generate: False Universal waste - thermostats - generate: False Universal waste - mercury - generate: False Universal waste - lamps - generate: False Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: False Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: False Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: False Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: False Destination Facility for Universal Waste: False Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: False EPA ID: WAD988487096 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 600115909 NAICS CD; 44719 BUSINESS TYPE: Not reported MAIL NAME: ConocoPhillips Company MAIL ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME- ConocoPhillips Company LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: 281-293-1000 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 12131/2003 LAND ORG NAME: ConocoPhillips Company LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: 281-293-1000 OPERATOR ORG NAME: Kayo Oil OPERATOR ORG TYPE; Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: 1380 San Pablo Ave OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: Rodeo, CA 94572 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: 510-245-5176 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 311411997 SITE CONTACT NAME: Tiana Andriamanarivo SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 1380 San Pablo Ave SITE CONTACT ZIP: Rodeo, CA 94572 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: 510-245-5176 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: Irene.I.Jimenez@ConocoPhillips.com TC2826208.2s Page 64 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILt_IPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 FORM CONTACT NAME: Thomas R Border FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 600 North Dairy Ashford, TA1026B FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: Houston, TX 77079 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: 281-293-4335 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: thomas.r.border@conocophillips.com GEN STATUS CD: XQG MONTHLY GENERATION? False BATCH GENERATION: False ONE TIME GENERATION: False TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: False TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: False RECYCLER ONSITE: False TRANSFER FACILITY: False OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: False USED OIL TRANSPORTER: False USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: False USED OIL PROCESSOR? False USED OIL REREFINER: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: False ICR: Petroleum products Date Ecology Received Report: 1 1 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 93-09 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received- Final cleanup report Site Register Issue: 93-48 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 05121192 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 92-25 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 65 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) 1000659047 Date Ecology Received Report: 03/29193 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 92-52 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 05/05193 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 92-52 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 02118/94 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 93-21 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Dale Ecoiogy Received Report: 06/09194 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 93-30 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 12/07194 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 93-48 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 02123/95 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products TC2826208.2s Page 66 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site CONOCOPHILLIPS 2705509 (Continued) Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Final cleanup report Site Register Issue: 94-15 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 04112/95 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Final cleanup report Site Register Issue: 94-15 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 11/12/91 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 92-11 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Date Ecology Received Report: 07109/96 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Groundwater, Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Final cleanup report Site Register Issue: 94-50 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported E18 HIGHLANDS TEXACO NE 3005 NE SUNSET BLVD 118-114 RENTON, WA 0.203 mi. 1073 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster E Relative: EDR Historical Auto Stations: Higher Name: HIGHLANDS TEXACO Year 1977 Actual: Type: Gasoline Stations 364 ft. EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000659047 EDR Historical Auto Stations 1009615318 NIA TC2826208.2s Page 67 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation D19 South 1l8-114 0.213 mi. 1127 ft. Site COLPETTS DEVELOPMENT 936 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056 Site 2 of 3 in cluster D Relative: RCRA-SQG MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number RCRA-SQG 1010788379 WAH000031757 Lower Date form received by agency: 08130/2007 Facility name: COLPETTS DEVELOPMENT Actual: Facility address: 936 HARRINGTON AVE NE 315 ft. RENTON, WA 98056 EPA ID: WAH000031757 Mailing address: 2256 38TH PLACE E Private SEATTLE, WA 98112 Contact: RICHARD SENSENEY Contact address: 2256 38TH PLACE E Not reported SEATTLE, WA 98112 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (206)322-1381 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Classification: Small Small Quantity Generator Description: Handler: generates more than 100 and less than 1000 kg of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste at any time Owner/Operator Summary Ownerloperator name: RICHARD SENSENEY Owner/operator address: 2256 38TH PLACE E SEATTLE, WA 98112 Ownerloperator country: US Ownerloperator telephone: Not reported Legal status? Private Owner/Operator Type: Operator Owne00p start date: 12131/2001 Owner/Op end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary: U.S, importer of hazardous waste: Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): Recycier of hazardous waste: Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, storer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-site burner exemption: Furnace exemption - Used oil fuel burner: Used oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner. Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: OH -site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Violation Status: No violations found TC2826208.2s Page 68 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS FDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number D20 COLPETTS DEVELOPMENT South 936 HARRINGTON AVE NE 118-1/4 RENTON, WA 98056 0.213 mi. 1127 ft. Site 3 of 3 in cluster D Relative: FINDS: Lower Registry ID: 110035443455 Actual: 315 ft. Environmental Interestlinformation System RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. ALLSITES: HWG Facility Id: 9077381 Hazardous Waste Generator Latilude: 47.499429999999997 A Longitude: -122 1788 WAH000031757 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 9077381 Facility Name: Coipetts Development Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.499429999999997 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.1788 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 99 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 8 Location Verified Code: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 9077381 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAH000031757 Interaction Start Date: 8/3012007 Interaction End Date: Not reported FINDS 1011399816 ALLSITES N/A 21 SPARKLE DRY CLEANING AND LAUNDROMAT BETTY ALTON EDR Historical Cleaners 1009613474 South 927 HARRINGTON AVE NE NIA 118.1/4 RENTON, WA 0.229 mi. 1212 ft. Relative: EDR Historical Cleaners: Lower Name: SPARKLE DRY CLEANING AND LAUNDROMAT BETTY ALTON Year: 1991 Actual: Type: Cleaners And Dyers 314 ft. TC2826208.2s Page 69 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS 22 FRIENDLY FUELS INC RENTON WNW 1190 SUNSET BLVD NE STE F 114-112 RENTON, WA 98056 0.264 mi. 503611 1396 ft. 611511999 Relative: ALLSITES: Lower Facility Id: 43675956 Operational Latitude: 47.500563 Actual: Longitude: -122.187499 265 ft. Geographic location identifier (alias facid): Pressurized System Facility Name: Spill Bucket/Spill Box Latitude Decimal Degrees: Ball Float Valve (vent line) Longitude Decimal Degrees: Steel Clad with Corrosion Resistant Composite Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: Double Wall Tank Horizontal Accuracy Code: Annual Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: Corrosion Resistant Location Verified Code: 43675956 FRIENDLY FUELS INC RENTON 47.500563 -122.187499 4 6 5 N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 43675956 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: 503611 Interaction Start Date: 611511999 Interaction End Date: Not reported UST: Facility ID: Site ID: Let Deg: Lai Min: Lai Sec: Long Deg: Long Min: Long Sec: UBI: Phone Number: 43675956 503611 47 30 2.02679999999873 -122 11 14.9964000000091 6016199940010001 4252281825 TanklD: 503646 Tank Name: 1 Install Date: 6115/1999 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 6/15/1999 TankSyslem Status: Operational TankSyslem Status Change Date:11110001 Tank Status: Operational Tank Permit Expiration Date: 4/30/2011 Tank Closure Date: 111/0001 Tank Pumping System: Pressurized System Tank Spill Prevention: Spill Bucket/Spill Box Tank Overfill Prevention: Ball Float Valve (vent line) Tank Material: Steel Clad with Corrosion Resistant Composite Tank Construction: Double Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Annual Tank Corrosion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Pipe Material: Flexible Piping Pipe Construction: Double Wall Pipe FDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number ALLSITES U003604980 UST NIA TC2826208.2s Page 70 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site FRIENDLY FUELS INC RENTON (Continued) Pipe Primary Release Detection: Automatic Line Leak Detection Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Tank Primary Release Detection: Automatic Tank Gauging Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Every 3 Years (suction tank check valve) Tank Actual Status Date: 12/10/1999 Tag Number: A4990 TanklD: 503647 Tank Name: 2 Install Date: 6115/1999 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 611511999 TankSystem Status: Operational TankSystem Status Change Date:11110001 Tank Status: Operational Tank Permit Expiration Date: 4/30/2011 Tank Closure Date: 111/0001 Tank Pumping System: Pressurized System Tank Spill Prevention: Spill Bucket/Spill Box Tank Overfill Prevention: Ball Float Valve (vent line) Tank Material: Steel Clad with Corrosion Resistant Composite Tank Construction: Double wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Annual Tank Corrosion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Pipe Material: Flexible Piping Pipe Construction: Double wall Pipe Pipe Primary Release Detection: Automatic Line Leak Detection Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Corrosion Resistant Tank Primary Release Detection: Automatic Tank Gauging Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Every 3 Years (suction tank check valve) Tank Actual Status Date: 12110/1999 Tag Number: A4990 23 RENTON FIRE STATION 12 South 901 HARRINGTON AVE NE 114-112 RENTON, WA 98056 0.270 mi. 1423 ft. Relative: ALLSITES: Lower Facility Id: 27921777 Latitude: 47.497402000000001 Actual: Longitude: -122.182972(10000001 309 ft. Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 27921777 Facility Name: RENTON FIRE STATION 12 Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.497402000000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.18297200000001 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 27921777 EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number U003604980 ALLSITES 0004040801 UST NIA TC2826208.2s Page 71 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site RENTON FIRE STATION 12 (Continued) Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Interaction Status: Federal Program Indentifier: Interaction Start Date: Interaction End Date: UST: Facility ID: Site ID: Lat Deg: Lat Min: Lat Sec: Long Deg: Long Min: Long Sec: UBI: Phone Number: MAP FINDINGS UST Underground Storage Tank 1 4790 2129/2000 513/2000 27921777 4790 47 29 50.6472000000036 -122 10 58.6992000000237 Not reported 2062352525 TanklD: 21414 Tank Name: 1 Install Date: 12131/1964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 1/110001 TankSystem Status: Removed TankSystem Status Change Date:812611996 Tank Status: Removed Tank Permit Expiration Date: 1/1/0001 Tanis Closure Date: 1/110001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Not reported Pipe Material: Steel Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 816/1996 Tag Number: Not reported TanklD: 21559 Tank Name: 2 Install Date: 12/3111964 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 111!0001 TankSystem Status: Removed TankSystem Status Change Date:8126l1996 Tank Status: Removed EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number U004040801 TC2826208.2s Page 72 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number RENTON FIRE STATION 12 (Continued) U004040801 Tank Permit Expiration Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Closure Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Single Wall Tank Tanis Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Not reported Pipe Material: Steel Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 816!1996 Tag Number: Not reported F24 RITE AID STORE 5203 ALLSITES U003665933 NE 3116 NE SUNSET BLVD UST N/A 114-1/2 RENTON, WA 98056 Interaction Start Dale: 0.308 mi. Interaction End Date: 511 812 0 0 0 1625 ft. Site 1 of 3 in cluster F Long Min: Relative: ALLSITFS: 36.3936000000137 Higher Facility Id: 3943952 Latitude: 47.504533000000002 Actual: Longitude: -122.176776 372 ft. Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 3943952 Facility Name: RITE AID STORE 5203 Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.504533000000002 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.176776 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 3943952 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 511357 Interaction Start Dale: 9/811999 Interaction End Date: 511 812 0 0 0 UST: Facility ID: 3943952 Site ID: 511357 Lat Deg: 47 Lat Min: 30 Lat Sec: 16.3188000000076 Long Deg: -122 Long Min: 10 Long Sec: 36.3936000000137 TC2826208.2s Page 73 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number RITE AID STORE 5203 (Continued) 0003665933 UBI: Not reported Phone Number: Not reported TanklD: 511359 Tank Name: UST#2 Install Date: 111/1900 Capacity: Not reported Tank Upgrade Date: 111/0001 TankSystem Status: Removed TankSystem Status Change Date:911711999 Tank Status: Removed Tank Permit Expiration Date: 111/0001 Tank Closure Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported Tank Material: Not reported Tank Construction: Not reported Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Not reported Pipe Material: Not reported Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Dale: 12/1011999 Tag Number: Not reported F25 ARCO STATION 4400 ALLSITES 5104971552 NE 3123 NW SUNSET BLVD CSCSL NFA NIA 114.1/2 RENTON, WA Interaction Start Date: 0.315 mi. Interaction End Date: 1/25/1996 1665 ft. Site 2 of 3 in cluster F Relative: ALLSITES: Higher Facility Id: 2559 Latitude: 47.504491999999999 Actual: Longitude: -122.176682 373 ft. Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 2559 Facility Name: ARCO STATION 4400 Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.504491999999999 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.176682 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2559 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: LUST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: LUST Facility Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 8764 Interaction Start Date: 12/15/1989 Interaction End Date: 1/25/1996 TC2626208.2s Page 74 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site ARCO STATION 4400 (Continued) Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2559 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: 8764 Interaction Start Date: 312012000 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2559 Interaction (Aka Env Ink) Type Code: TIER2 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: EmergencylHaz Chem Rpt TIER2 Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: CRK000000680 Interaction Start Date: 1111/1988 Interaction End Dale: 714/1776 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2559 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: IRAP Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Independent Remedial Actn Prg Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: Not reported Interaction Start Date: 9/6/1995 Interaction End Date: 9/6/1995 CSCSL NFA: ARCO #4400 Facility/Site Id: 2559 NFA Type: NFA after assessment, IRAP, or VCP NFA Date: 9/6/1995 Rank: Not reported VCP: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S104971552 F26 ARCO #4400 ICR S104873044 NE 3123 NE SUNSET BLVD. NIA 114-112 NEWCASTLE, WA 98056 Type of Report Ecology Received: 0.315 mi. Site Register Issue: 92-28 1665 ft. Site 3 of 3 in cluster F Relative: ICR- Higher Date Ecology Received Report: 09/05/91 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Actual: Media Contaminated: Soil 373 ft. Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 92-06 County Code: 17 Contact: Not reported Report Title: Not reported Dale Ecology Received Report: 07/06/92 Contaminants Found at Site: Petroleum products Media Contaminated: Soil Waste Management: Tank Region: North Western Type of Report Ecology Received: Interim cleanup report Site Register Issue: 92-28 TC2826208.2s Page 75 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation 27 West 114-1l2 0.351 mi. 1853 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 256 ft. Site ARCO #4400 (Continued) County Code: Contact: Report Title: Date Ecology Received Report: Contaminants Found at Site: Media Contaminated: Waste Management: Region: Type of Report Ecology Received: Site Register Issue: County Code: Contact: Report Title: MIKE POTOSHNIK JR 1105 SUNSET BLVD NE RENTON, WA 98056 FINDS: MAP FINDINGS 17 Not reported Not reported 03122195 Petroleum products Soil Tank North Western Interim cleanup report 94-19 17 Not reported Not reported Registry ID: 110015422194 Environmental Interestlinformation System Washington Facility 1 Site Identification System (WA-FSIS) provides a means to query and display data maintained by the Washington Department of Ecology. This system contains key information for each facility/site that is currently, or has been, of interest to the Air Quality, Dam Safety, Hazardous Waste, Toxics Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. ALLSITES: Facility Id: 75569533 Latitude: 47.501102000000003 Longitude: -122.188812 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 75569533 Facility Name: MIKE POTOSHNIK JR Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.501102000000003 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.188812 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verged Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 75569533 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 3033 Interaction Start Date: 111!1973 Interaction End Date: 5/312000 EOR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number S104873044 FINDS 1007065647 ALLSITES NIA TC2826208.2s Page 76 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site G28 DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLVD NE 3155 NE SUNSET BLVD 114-1/2 RENTON, WA 98056 0.358 mi. EPA ID: 1892 ft. Site 1 of 2 in cluster G Relative: RCRA-LQG: MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number RCRA-LOG 1 001 2341 05 FINDS WAH000005173 ALLSITES MANIFEST Inactive Drycleaners Higher Date form received by agency: 03/15/2006 Facility name: DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLVD Actual: Facility address: 3155 NE SUNSET BLVD 382 ft. RENTON, WA 98056 EPA ID: WAH004005173 Mailing address: 10115 214TH AVE NE Private REDMOND, WA 98053 Contact: HELEN FERRELLI Contact address: 10115 214TH AVE NE Not reported REDMOND, WA 98053 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (425)868-8528 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Classification: Large Quantity Generator Description: Handler: generates 1,000 kg or more of hazardous waste during any calendar month; or generates more than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month; or generates more than 100 kg of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month; or generates 1 kg or less of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 100 kg of that material at any time Owner/Operator Summary Owner/operator name: HELEN FERRELLI Ownerloperator address: 10115 214TH AVE NE Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): REDMOND, WA 98053 Ownerloperator country: US Owner/operator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private Owner/Operator Type: Operator OwnerlOp start date: 02118!1996 Owner/Op end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary - U.S. importer of hazardous waste: No Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): No Recycler of hazardous waste: No Transporter of hazardous waste: No Treater, slorer or disposer of HW: No Underground injection activity: No On-site burner exemption: No Furnace exemption: No Used oil fuel burner: No Used oil processor: No User oil refiner: No TC2826208.2s Page 77 Map ID NEAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLVD (Continued) Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No Commercial status unknown Historical Generators: Date form received by agency: 12131/2005 Facility name: DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLVD Classification: Large Quantity Generator Date form received by agency: 12/31/2003 Facility name: DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLVD Classification: Small Quantity Generator Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Registry ID: 110005392743 Environmental Interest/Information System Washington Facility 1 Site Identification System (WA-FSIS) provides a means to query and display data maintained by the Washington Department of Ecology. This system contains key information for each facilitylsite that is currently, or has been, of interest to the Air Quality, Dam Safety, Hazardous Waste, Toxics Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. ALLSITES: Facility Id: 99651338 Latitude: 47.499152247015701 Longitude: -122.184732375514 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 99651338 Facility Name: Daniels Drycleaners Sunset Blvd Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.499152240000001 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.18473237000001 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 99 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 8 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 99551338 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAH000005173 Interaction Start Date: 5/1111998 Interaction End Date: 12131/2005 1001234105 TC2826208.2s Page 78 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLVD (Continued) 1001234105 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 99651338 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWP Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Planner Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: WAH000005173 Interaction Start Date: 1/1/2002 Interaction End Date: 9/6/2006 WA MANIFEST: Facility Site ID Number: 99651338 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: On June 16th 2006 at 12:30PM our business burned down it was started by a roofer. The good news was that all the chemicals suNvived the fire. The bad new was the we had to pay thousands of dollars for the chemical to be disposed. 'Please Note' 2445lbs of perch lorethylene was not sludge but clean chemical that was pumped out. And 270 lbs of filters not usesd up. Data Year: Not reported Permit by Rule: No Treatment by Generator: No Mixed radioactive waste: No Importer of hazardous waste: No Immediate recycler; No Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: No Generator of dangerous fuel waste: No Generator marketing to burner: No "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": No Utility boiler burner: No Industry boiler burner: No Industrial Furnace: No Smelter defferal: No Universal waste - batteries - generate: No Universal waste - thermostats - generate: No Universal waste - mercury - generate: No Universal waste - lamps - generate: No Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: No Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: No Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: No Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: No Destination Facility for Universal Waste: No Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: No Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler; No Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: No EPA ID: WAH000005173 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 600550005 NAICS CD- 81232 BUSINESS TYPE: drycleaning MAIL NAME: Daniels Drycleaners MAIL ADDR LINEI: 10115 214th Ave NE MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: Redmond, WA 98053 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Not reported LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: 10115 214th Ave NE TC2826208.2s Page 79 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS S ite EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number DANIELS DRYCLEANER5 SUNSET BLVD (Continued) 1001234105 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: REDMOND, WA 98053 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)868-8528 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 2118/1986 LAND ORG NAME: Not reported LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Daniel & Helen Ferrelli LAND ADDR LINE1: 10115 214th Ave NE LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: REDMOND, WA 98053 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)868-8528 OPERATOR ORG NAME: Not reported OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: 10115 214th Ave NE OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: Redmond, WA 98053 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: (425)868-8528 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 21 1 81 1 9 96 SITE CONTACT NAME: Helen Ferrelli SITE CONTACT AD DR LINE1: 10115 214th Ave NE SITE CONTACT ZIP: Redmond, WA 98053 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425)868-8528 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: danieljandhelenj@comcast.net FORM CONTACT NAME: Helen Ferrelli FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 10115 214th Ave NE FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: Redmond, WA 98053 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425)868-8528 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: danieljandhelenj@oomcast.net GEN STATUS CD: LOG MONTHLY GENERATION: Yes BATCH GENERATION: No ONE TIME GENERATION: No TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: No TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: No RECYCLER ONSITE: No TRANSFER FACILITY: No OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: No USED OIL TRANSPORTER: No USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: No USED OIL PROCESSOR: No USED OIL REREFINER: No USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: No USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: No Inactive Drycleaners: EPA I: WAH000005173 FS Id: 99651338 Facility ID: WAH000005173 NAICS Code: 81232 Fed Waste Code Desc: Not reported State Waste Code Desc: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 600550005 BUSINESS TYPE: drycleaning MAIL NAME: Daniels Drycleaners TC2826208.2s Page 80 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLVD (Continued) MAIL LINE1: MAIL LINE2: MAIL CITY: MAIL STATE: MAIL ZIP: MAIL COUNTRY: LEGAL ORG NAME: LEGAL PERSON FIRST NAME: LEGAL PERSON MIDDLE INIT: LEGAL PERSON LAST NAME: LEGAL LINE1: LEGAL LINE2: LEGAL CITY: LEGAL STATE: LEGAL ZIP: LEGAL COUNTRY: LEGAL PHONE NBR: LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: LEGAL ORGANIZATION TYPE: LAND ORG NAME: LAND PERSON FIRST NAME: LAND PERSON MIDDLE INIT: LAND PERSON LAST NAME: LAND LINE1: LAND LINE2: LAND CITY: LAND STATE: LAND ZIP: LAND COUNTRY: LAND PHONE NBR'. LAND ORGANIZATION TYPE: OPERATOR ORG NAME: OPERATOR PERSON FIRST NAME: OPERATOR PERSON MIDDLE INIT: OPERATOR PERSON LAST NAME: OPERATOR LINE1: OPERATOR LINE2: OPERATOR CITY: OPERATOR STATE: OPERATOR ZIP: OPERATOR COUNTRY. OPERATOR PHONE NBR: OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: OPERATOR ORGANIZATION TYPE: SITE CONTACT FIRST NAME: SITE CONTACT MIDDLE INIT. SITE CONTACT LAST NAME - SITE CONTACT LINE1: SITE CONTACT LINE2: SITE CONTACT CITY: SITE CONTACT STATE: SITE CONTACT ZIP: SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: SITE CONTACT EMAIL: FORM CONTACT FIRST NAME: FORM CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: 10115 214th Ave NE Not reported Redmond WA 98053 UNITED STATES Not reported Daniel & Not reported Ferrelli 10115 214th Ave NE Not reported REDMOND WA 98053 UNITED STATES (425)868-8528 2/1811986 Private Not reported Daniel & Not reported Ferrelli 10115 214th Ave NE Not reported REDMOND WA 98053 UNITED STATES (425)868-8528 Private Not reported Helen Not reported Ferrelli 10115 214th Ave NE Not reported Redmond WA 98053 UNITED STATES (425)868-8528 2118!1996 Private Helen Not reported Ferrelli 10115 214th Ave NE Not reported Redmond WA 98053 UNITED STATES (425)868-8528 danieljandhelenj@comcast.net Helen Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1041234105 TC2826208.2s Page 81 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR 0 Number Database(s) EPA ID Number DANIELS DRYCLEANERS SUNSET BLVD (Continued) 1001234105 FORM CONTACT LAST NAME: Ferrelli FORM CONTACT LINE1: 10115 214th Ave NE FORM CONTACT LINE2: Not reported FORM CONTACT CITY: Redmond FORM CONTACT STATE: WA FORM CONTACT ZIP: 98053 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425)86$-8528 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: danieljandhelenj@comcast.net GEN STATUS CD: LOG MONTHLY GENERATION: Yes BATCH GENERATION: No ONE TIME GENERATION: No TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: No TRANSPORTS OTHERS WASTE: No RECYCLER ONSITE: No TRANSFER FACILITY: No PBR: No TBG: No MIXED RADIOACTIVE: No IMPORTER: No TSDR FACILITY: No IMMEDIATE RECYCLER: No GEN DANG FUEL: No GEN MARKET TO BURNER: No GEN OTHER MARKETERS: No UTILITY BOILER BURNER: No INDUSTRY BOILER BURNER: No FURNACE BURNER: No SMELTER DEFERRAL: No SMALL QTY EXEMPTION: Not reported OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: No UW THERMOSTATS GEN: No UW MERCURY GEN: No UW LAMPS GEN: No UW BATTERY ACCUM: No UW THERMOSTATS ACCUM: No UW MERCURY ACCUM: No UW LAMPS ACCUM: No UW DESTINATION FACILITY: No OFF SPEC UTILITY BOILER: No OFF SPEC INDUSTRY BOILER: No OFF SPEC FURNACE: No USED OIL TRANSPORTER: No USED OIL TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported USED OIL PROCESSOR: No USED OIL REREFINER: No USED OIL FUEL MARKETER DIR SHIPMENTS: No USED OIL FUEL MARKETER MEETS SPECS: No Comments: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 82 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number G29 BUSY BEE CLEANERS RCRA-CESQG NE 3164 SUNSET BLVD NE FINDS 114-112 RENTON, WA 98056 ALLSITES 0.372 mi. Legal status: Inactive Drycleaners 1962 ft. Site 2 of 2 in cluster G Owner/Op start date: Relative: RCRA-CESQG: Not reported Higher Dale form received by agency: 0 212 311 996 Facility name: BUSY BEE CLEANERS Actual: Facility address: 3164 SUNSET BLVD NE 383 ft. RENTON, WA 98056 EPA ID- WAD980984322 Mailing address: 3164 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON, WA 98056-3337 Contact, IL SUNG JUN Contact address: 3164 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON, WA 98056-3337 Contact country: US Contact telephone: (425)271-9380 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Classification: Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Description: Handler: generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste per calendar month, and accumulates 1000 kg or less of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 1 kg or less of acutely hazardous waste per calendar month, and accumulates at any time: 1 kg or less of acutely hazardous waste; or 100 kg or less of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste; or generates 100 kg or less of any residue or contaminated soil. waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulates at any time: 1 kg or less of acutely hazardous waste; or 100 kg or less of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste Owner/Operator Summary Ownerloperator name: IL SUNG JUN Ownerloperalor address: 3164 NE SUNSET BLVD Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): RENTON, WA 98056 Ownerloperator country; US Ownerloperator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private Owner/Operator Type: Operator Owner/Op start date: 02123/1996 Owner/Op end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: No Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): No Recycler of hazardous waste: No Transporter of hazardous waste: No Treater, storer or disposer of HW: No Underground injection activity: No On-site burner exemption: No Fumace exemption: No Used oil fuel burner: No 1001490399 WAD980984322 TC2826208.2s Page 83 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Site MAP FINDINGS EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number BUSY BEE CLEANERS (Continued) Used oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Historical Generators: Date form received by agency: 09/01/1993 Facility name: BUSY BEE CLEANERS Classification: Large Quantity Generator Violation Status: No violations found FINDS: Registry ID: 110005338508 Environmental Interest/Information System Washington Facility 1 Site Identification System (WA-FSIS) provides a means to query and display data maintained by the Washington Department of Ecology. This system contains key information for each facilitylsite that is currently, or has been, of interest to the Air Quality, Dam Safety, Hazardous Waste, Toxics Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. ALLSITES: HWG Facility Id: 31853355 Hazardous Waste Generator Latitude: 47,504739999999998 I Longitude: -122.17541 WAD980984322 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 31853355 Facility Name: Busy Bee Cleaners Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.504739999999998 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.17541 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 99 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Cade: 99 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 31853355 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indenlifier: WAD980984322 Interaction Start Date: 7/1111986 Interaction End Date: 12/3111994 1001490399 TC2826208.2s Page 84 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site FDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number BUSY BEE CLEANERS (Continued) 1001490399 Inactive Drycleaners: EPA I: WAD980984322 FS Id: 14021 Facility ID: WAD980984322 NAICS Code: 81232 Fed Waste Code Desc: Not reported State Waste Code Desc: Not reported TAX REG NBR: Not reported BUSINESS TYPE: Not reported MAIL NAME: Not reported MAIL LINE1: Not reported MAIL LINE2: Not reported MAIL CITY- Not reported MAIL STATE: Not reported MAIL ZIP; Not reported MAIL COUNTRY: Not reported LEGAL ORG NAME; Not reported LEGAL PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported LEGAL PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported LEGAL PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported LEGAL LINE1: Not reported LEGAL LINE2: Not reported LEGAL CITY: Not reported LEGAL STATE: Not reported LEGAL ZIP: Not reported LEGAL COUNTRY: Not reported LEGAL PHONE NBR: Not reported LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported LEGAL ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported LAND ORG NAME: Not reported LAND PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported LAND PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported LAND PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported LAND LINE1: Not reported LAND LINE2: Not reported LAND CITY: Not reported LAND STATE: Not reported LAND ZIP: Not reported LAND COUNTRY: Not reported LAND PHONE NBR: Not reported LAND ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported OPERATOR ORG NAME: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON FIRST NAME: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON MIDDLE INIT: Not reported OPERATOR PERSON LAST NAME: Not reported OPERATOR LINE1: Not reported OPERATOR LINE2; Not reported OPERATOR CITY: Not reported OPERATOR STATE: Not reported OPERATOR ZIP: Not reported OPERATOR COUNTRY: Not reported OPERATOR PHONE NBR: Not reported OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: Not reported OPERATOR ORGANIZATION TYPE: Not reported SITE CONTACT FIRST NAME? Not reported SITE CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: Not reported SITE CONTACT LAST NAME: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 85 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number BUSY BEE CLEANERS (Continued) 1001490399 SITE CONTACT LINE1: Not reported SITE CONTACT LINE2: Not reported SITE CONTACT CITY: Not reported SITE CONTACT STATE: Not reported SITE CONTACT ZIP: Not reported SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: Not reported SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: Not reported SITE CONTACT EMAIL: Not reported FORM CONTACT FIRST NAME: Not reported FORM CONTACT MIDDLE INIT: Not reported FORM CONTACT LAST NAME: Not reported FORM CONTACT LINE1: Not reported FORM CONTACT LINE2: Not reported FORM CONTACT CITY: Not reported FORM CONTACT STATE: Not reported FORM CONTACT ZIP: Not reported FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: Not reported FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: Not reported FORM CONTACT EMAIL: Not reported GEN STATUS CD: Not reported MONTHLY GENERATION: Not reported BATCH GENERATION: Not reported ONE TIME GENERATION: Not reported TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: Not reported TRANSPORTS OTHERS WASTE: Not reported RECYCLER ONSITE: Not reported TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported PBR: Not reported TBG: Not reported MIXED RADIOACTIVE: Not reported IMPORTER: Not reported TSDR FACILITY: Not reported IMMEDIATE RECYCLER: Not reported GEN DANG FUEL: Not reported GEN MARKET TO BURNER: Not reported GEN OTHER MARKETERS: Not reported UTILITY BOILER BURNER: Not reported INDUSTRY BOILER BURNER: Not reported FURNACE BURNER: Not reported SMELTER DEFERRAL: Not reported SMALL QTY EXEMPTION: Not reported OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: Not reported UW THERMOSTATS GEN: Not reported UW MERCURY GEN: Not reported UW LAMPS GEN: Not reported UW BATTERY ACCUM: Not reported UW THERMOSTATS ACCUM: Not reported UW MERCURY ACCUM: Not reported UW LAMPS ACCUM: Not reported UW DESTINATION FACILITY: Not reported OFF SPEC UTILITY BOILER: Not reported OFF SPEC INDUSTRY BOILER: Not reported OFF SPEC FURNACE: Not reported USED OIL TRANSPORTER: Not reported USED OIL TRANSFER FACILITY: Not reported USED OIL PROCESSOR: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 86 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site BUSY BEE CLEANERS (Continued) USED OIL REREFINER: Not reported USED OIL FUEL MARKETER DIR SHIPMENTS: Not reported USED OIL FUEL MARKETER MEETS SPECS: Not reported Comments: Not reported 30 NORTH HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CENTER NNE 3000 NE 16TH ST 114-112 RENTON, WA 98056 0.442 m i. 2336 ft. Relative: ALLSITES: EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1001490399 ALLSITES U001123766 UST NIA Higher Facility Id: 57537131 UST Latitude: 47.506841999999999 Actual: Longitude: -122.180122 Interaction Status: 379 ft. Geographic location identifier (alias (acid): 57537131 Facility Name: NORTH HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CENTER Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.506841999999999 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.180122 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 57537131 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 4787 Interaction Start Date: 2/2912000 Interaction End Date: 51312000 UST: Facility ID: Site ID: Lat Deg: Lat Min: Lat Sec: Long Deg: Long Min: Long Sec: UBI: Phone Number: 57537131 4787 47 30 24.6311999999961 -122 10 48.43919999999 Not reported 2062352513 TanklD: 13581 Tank Name: 1 Install Date: 12!3111964 capacity: 111 TO 1,100 Gallons Tank Upgrade Date: 1!110001 TankSystem Status: Exempt TankSystem Status Change Date:8J26M 996 Tank Status: Exempt Tank Permit Expiration Date: 1/1/0001 Tank Closure Date: 1!1!0001 Tank Pumping System: Not reported Tank Spill Prevention: Not reported Tank Overfill Prevention: Not reported TC2826208.2s Page 87 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site NORTH HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CENTER (Continued) Tank Material: Steel Tank Construction: Not reported Tank Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Corrosion Protection: Not reported Pipe Material: Not reported Pipe Construction: Not reported Pipe Primary Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Corrosion Protection: Not reported Tank Primary Release Detection: Not reported Tank Second Release Detection: Not reported Pipe Tightness Test: Not reported Tank Actual Status Date: 8/611996 Tag Number: Not reported 31 KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON SW 1601 N. 8TH ST. 114-1l2 RENTON, WA 98055 0.446 mi. 2354 ft. EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number U001123766 RCRA-LQG 1000838973 TRIS 98055KNWRT16 FINDS ALLSITES MANIFEST NPDES Relative: Lower RCRA-LQG: Date form received by agency: 0211112 00 8 Actual: Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON 248 ft. Facility address: 1601 N 8TH ST RENTON, WA 98057 EPA ID: WAD988517934 Contact: RICHARD A SKLAR Contact address: 1601 N 8TH ST RENTON, WA 98057-9001 Contact country: us Contact telephone: (425)227-5818 Contact email: Not reported EPA Region: 10 Land type: Private Classification: Large Quantity Generator Description: Handler: generates 1,000 kg or more of hazardous waste during any calendar month; or generates more than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month; or generates more than 100 kg of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month; or generates 1 kg or less of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of any residue or contaminated soil, waste or other debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill, into or on any land or water, of acutely hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 100 kg of that material at any time Owner/Operator Summary Ownerloperator name: KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY Ownerloperator address: 1601 N 8TH ST RENTON, WA 98057 Ownerloperator country: u5 Ownerloperator telephone: Not reported Legal status: Private TC2826208.2s Page 88 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) Owner/Operator Type: Operator OwnerlOp start date: 01101/1993 Owner/Op end date: Not reported Handler Activities Summary: U.S. importer of hazardous waste: Mixed waste (haz. and radioactive): Recycler of hazardous waste: Transporter of hazardous waste: Treater, storer or disposer of HW: Underground injection activity: On-site burner exemption: Furnace exemption: Used oil fuel burner: Used oil processor: User oil refiner: Used oil fuel marketer to burner: Used oil Specification marketer: Used oil transfer facility: Used oil transporter: Off-site waste receiver: No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Commercial status unknown Historical Generators: Date form received by agency: 12131/2007 Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Classification: Large Quantity Generator Date form received by agency: 12/3112005 Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Classification: Large Quantity Generator Date form received by agency: 12/31/2003 Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Classification: Large Quantity Generator Date form received by agency: 02128/2002 Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Classification: Large Quantity Generator Date form received by agency: 03106/2000 Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Classification: Large Quantity Generator Date form received by agency: 03/02/1!998 Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Classification: Large Quantity Generator Date form received by agency: 03/0111996 Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Site name: KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY - RENTON Classification: Large Quantity Generator Date form received by agency: 0313111994 Facility name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Site name: KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY Classification: Large Quantity Generator EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA 1D Number 1000838973 TC2826208.2s Page 89 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 Biennial Reports: Last Biennial Reporting Year: 2009 Annual Waste Handled: Waste code: D001 Waste name: IGNITABLE HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE THOSE WASTES WHICH HAVE A FLASHPOINT OF LESS THAN 140 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT AS DETERMINED BY A PENSKY-MARTENS CLOSED CUP FLASH POINT TESTER. ANOTHER METHOD OF DETERMINING THE FLASH POINT OF A WASTE IS TO REVIEW THE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET, WHICH CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF THE MATERIAL, LACQUER THINNER IS AN EXAMPLE OF A COMMONLY USED SOLVENT WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS IGNITABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE. Amount (Lbs): 95266 Waste code: D006 Waste name: CADMIUM Amount (Lbs): 15284 Waste code: D007 Waste name: CHROMIUM Amount (Lbs): 11672 Waste code: 0035 Waste name: METHYL ETHYL KETONE Amount (Lbs): 16135 Waste code: F001 Waste name: THE FOLLOWING SPENT HALOGENATED SOLVENTS USED IN DEGREASING: TETRACHLOROETHYLENE, TRICHLOROETHYLENE, METHYLENE CHLORIDE, 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE, CARBON TETRACHLORIDE, AND CHLORINATED FLUOROCARBONS; ALL SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURES/BLENDS USED IN DEGREASING CONTAINING, BEFORE USE, A TOTAL OF TEN PERCENT OR MORE (BY VOLUME) OF ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE HALOGENATED SOLVENTS OR THOSE SOLVENTS LISTED IN F002, F004, AND F005, AND STILL BOTTOMS FROM THE RECOVERY OF THESE SPENT SOLVENTS AND SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURES. Amount (Lbs): 4146 Waste code: F003 Waste name: THE FOLLOWING SPENT NON -HALOGENATED SOLVENTS: XYLENE, ACETONE, ETHYL ACETATE, ETHYL BENZENE, ETHYL ETHER, METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE, N -BUTYL ALCOHOL, CYCLOHEXANONE, AND METHANOL; ALL SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURESIBLENDS CONTAINING, BEFORE USE, ONLY THE ABOVE SPENT NON -HALOGENATED SOLVENTS; AND ALL SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURESIBLENDS CONTAINING, BEFORE USE, ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE NON -HALOGENATED SOLVENTS, AND, A TOTAL OF TEN PERCENT OR MORE (BY VOLUME) OF ONE OR MORE OF THOSE SOLVENTS LISTED IN F001, F002, F004, AND F005, AND STILL BOTTOMS FROM THE RECOVERY OF THESE SPENT SOLVENTS AND SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURES. Amount (Lbs): 105947 Waste code: F005 Waste name: THE FOLLOWING SPENT NON -HALOGENATED SOLVENTS: TOLUENE, METHYL ETHYL KETONE, CARBON DISULFIDE, ISOBUTANOL, PYRIDINE, BENZENE, 2-ETHOXYETHANOL, AND 2-NITROPROPANE; ALL SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURESIBLENDS CONTAINING, BEFORE USE, A TOTAL OF TEN PERCENT OR MORE (BY VOLUME) OF ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE NON -HALOGENATED SOLVENTS OR THOSE SOLVENTS LISTED IN F001, F002, OR F004: AND STILL BOTTOMS FROM THE RECOVERY OF TC2826208.2s Page 90 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Databases) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 THESE SPENT SOLVENTS AND SPENT SOLVENT MIXTURES. Amount (Lbs): 25414 Facility Has Received Notices of Violations: Regulation violated: Not reported Area of violation: Generators - Pre -transport Date violation determined: 12/12/2007 Date achieved compliance: 01/11/2008 Violation lead agency: State Enforcement action: WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action date: 42/27/2007 Enf. disposition status: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enforcement lead agency: State Proposed penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Regulation violated: Not reported Area of violation: Generators - Pre -transport Date violation determined: 1 211 2/200 7 Date achieved compliance: 01118/2008 Violation lead agency: State Enforcement action: WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action date: 1 212 712 00 7 Enf. disposition status: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enforcement lead agency: State Proposed penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Regulation violated: Not reported Area of violation: Universal Waste - Small Quantity Handlers Date violation determined: 1 211 212 00 7 Date achieved compliance: 01/11/2008 Violation lead agency: State Enforcement actionT WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action date: 12127/2007 Enf. disposition status: Not reported Enf. disp. status date: Not reported Enforcement lead agency: State Proposed penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Regulation violated: Not reported Area of violation: Universal Waste - Small Quantity Handlers Date violation determined: 12f 1 212 00 7 Date achieved compliance: 01109/2008 Violation lead agency: State Enforcement action: WRITTEN INFORMAL Enforcement action date: 12/2712007 Enf. disposition status: Not reported Enf_ disp. status date: Not reported Enforcement lead agency: State TC2826208.2s Page 91 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) Proposed penalty amount: Not reported Final penalty amount: Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Regulation violated: Area of violation: Date violation determined: Date achieved compliance: Violation lead agency: Enforcement action: Enforcement action date: Enf, disposition status: Enf. disp. status date: Enforcement lead agency: Proposed penalty amount: Final penalty amount: Paid penalty amount: Regulation violated: Area of violation: Date violation determined: Date achieved compliance: Violation lead agency: Enforcement action: Enforcement action date: Enf. disposition status: Enf. disp. status date: Enforcement lead agency: Proposed penalty amount: Final penalty amount: Paid penalty amount: Regulation violated: Area of violation: Date violation determined: Date achieved compliance: Violation lead agency: Enforcement action: Enforcement action date: Enf. disposition status: Enf. disp. status date: Enforcement lead agency - Proposed penalty amount: Final penalty amount: Paid penalty amount: Regulation violated: Area of violation: Date violation determined: Date achieved compliance: Violation lead agency: Enforcement action: Enforcement action date: Enf. disposition status: Enf, disp. status date: Enforcement lead agency: Proposed penalty amount: SR - -330(2) / -200(1)(e) Generators - Records/Reporting 0 812 512 00 4 11;0212004 State WRITTEN INFORMAL 08/30/2004 Not reported Not reported State Not reported Not reported Not reported SR - -515(6) Generators - General 08/25/2004 0 910 312 00 4 State WRITTEN INFORMAL 08130/2004 Not reported Not reported State Not reported Not reported Not reported SR - -630(5)(a) / -200(1)(b) Generators - General 0 812 512 00 4 09103/2004 State WRITTEN INFORMAL 08130/2004 Not reported Not reported State Not reported Not reported Not reported SR - -573(10) Generators - General 08/25/2004 09/30/2004 State WRITTEN INFORMAL 08130/2004 Not reported Not reported State Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000838973 TC2826208.2s Page 92 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) Final penalty amount Not reported Paid penalty amount: Not reported Regulation violated: Area of violation: Date violation determined: Date achieved compliance: Violation lead agency: Enforcement action: Enforcement action date: Enf. disposition status: Ent. disp. status date: Enforcement lead agency: Proposed penalty amount: Final penalty amount: Paid penalty amount: Regulation violated: Area of violation: Date violation determined: Date achieved compliance: Violation lead agency: Enforcement action: Enforcement action date: Enf. disposition status: Enf. disp status date: Enforcement lead agency: Proposed penalty amount: Final penalty amount: Paid penalty amount: Regulation violated: Area of violation: Date violation determined: Date achieved compliance: Violation lead agency: Enforcement action: Enforcement action date: Enf. disposition status: Enf. disp. status date: Enforcement lead agency: Proposed penalty amount: Final penalty amount: Paid penalty amount: Regulation violated: Area of violation: Date violation determined: Date achieved compliance: Violation lead agency: Enforcement action: Enforcement action date: Enf. disposition status: Enf. disp. status date: Enforcement lead agency. Proposed penalty amount: Final penalty amount: SR - -200(2) Generators - General 03/0712001 03/19/2001 State WRITTEN INFORMAL 05/29/2001 Not reported Not reported State Not reported Not reported Not reported SR - -170(1) 1 070 Generators - General 03/07/2001 07!3012001 State WRITTEN INFORMAL 0512912001 Not reported Not reported State Not reported Not reported Not reported SR - 630(6) Generators - General 07/3111996 08112/1996 State WRITTEN INFORMAL 0713111996 Not reported Not reported State Not reported Not reported Not reported SR - 200(c)(d) Generators - General 0713111996 08101/1996 State WRITTEN INFORMAL 07131/1996 Not reported Not reported State Not reported Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000838973 TC2826208.2s Page 93 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) Paid penalty amount: Evaluation Action Summary; Evaluation date: Evaluation: Area of violation: Date achieved compliance: Evaluation lead agency: Not reported 1010512009 COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE VISIT Not reported Not reported State Evaluation date: 12/1212007 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Universal Waste - Small Quantity Handlers Date achieved compliance: 01109/2008 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 12/1212007 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Universal Waste - Small Quantity Handlers Dale achieved compliance: 01/11/2008 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 12/12/2007 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - Pre -transport Date achieved compliance: 0 111 812 00 8 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 1 211 212 00 7 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - Pre -transport Date achieved compliance: 01/11/2008 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 08125!2004 Evaluation; COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - General Date achieved compliance: 09/30/2004 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 08/2512004 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - RecordslReporting Date achieved compliance: 11/0212004 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 08/2512004 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - General Date achieved compliance: 0910312004 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 0310712001 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - General Date achieved compliance: 0713012001 Evaluation lead agency: State EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000838973 TC2826208.2s Page 94 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 Evaluation date: 03/07/2001 Evaluations COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - General Date achieved compliance: 03/1912001 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 07/31/1996 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - General Date achieved compliance: 08112/1996 Evaluation lead agency: State Evaluation date: 07131/1996 Evaluation: COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION ON-SITE Area of violation: Generators - General Date achieved compliance: 08101/1996 Evaluation lead agency: State FINDS: Registry ID: 110004489301 Environmental Interestlinformation System Washington Facility 1 Site Identification System (WA-FSIS) provides a means to query and display data maintained by the Washington Department of Ecology. This system contains key information for each facilitylsite that is currently, or has been, of interest to the Air Quality, Dam Safety, Hazardous Waste, Toxics Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. AFS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) Facility Subsystem) replaces the former Compliance Data System (CDS), the National Emission Data System (NEDS). and the Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD). AIRS is the national repository for information concerning airborne pollution in the United States. AFS is used to track emissions and compliance data from industrial plants. AFS data are utilized by states to prepare State Implementation Plans to comply with regulatory programs and by EPA as an input for the estimation of total national emissions. AFS is undergoing a major redesign to support facility operating permits required under Title V of the Clean Air Act. The NEI (National Emissions Inventory) database contains information on stationary and mobile sources that emit criteria air pollutants and their precursors, as well as hazardous air pollutants (HAPS). US EPA TRIS (Toxics Release Inventory System) contains information from facilities on the amounts of over 300 listed toxic chemicals that these facilities release directly to air, water, land, or that are transported off-site. RCRAInfo is a national information system that supports the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program through the tracking of events and activities related to facilities that generate, transport, and treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo allows RCRA program staff to track the notification, permit, compliance, and corrective action activities required under RCRA. TC2826208.2s Page 95 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS S ite EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 PCS (Permit Compliance System) is a computerized management information system that contains data on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holding facilities. PCS tracks the permit, compliance, and enforcement status of NPDES facilities. ALLSITES: HWG Facility Id: 13289817 Hazardous Waste Generator Latitude: 47.491390000000003 A Longitude: -122.191391 WAD988517934 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 13289817 Facility Name: KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.491390000000003 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.191391 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 99 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 99 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 13289817 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: TRI Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Toxics Release Inventory Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAD988517934 Interaction Start Date: 1/111993 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 13289817 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWG Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Generator Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAD988517934 Interaction Start Date: 2116/1993 Interaction End Dale: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid)- 13289817 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: HWP Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Hazardous Waste Planner Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAD988517934 Interaction Start Date: 11111995 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 13289817 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: INDUSTGP Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Industrial SW GP Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier. WAR000858 Interaction Start Date: 311211993 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 13289817 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: AQOPS Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Air Qual Oper Permit Source Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: Not reported Interaction Start Date: 11111977 TC2826208.2s Page 96 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 13289817 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: TIER2 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: EmergencylHaz Chem Rpt TIER2 Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: WAD988517934 Interaction Start Date: 1/111993 Interaction End Date: Not reported WA MANIFEST: Facility Site ID Number: 13289817 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: Not reported Data Year: Not reported Permit by Rule: False Treatment by Generator: False Mixed radioactive waste: False Importer of hazardous waste: False Immediate recycler: False Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: False Generator of dangerous fuel waste: False Generator marketing to burner: False "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": False Utility boiler burner: False Industry boiler burner: False Industrial Furnace: False Smelter defferal: False Universal waste - batteries - generate: False Universal waste - thermostats - generate: False Universal waste - mercury - generate: False Universal waste - lamps - generate: False Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: False Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: False Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: False Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: False Destination Facility for Universal Waste: False Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: False EPA ID: WAD988517934 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 177000505 NAICS CD: 33612 BUSINESS TYPE: Heavy Duty Truck Assembly MAIL NAME: Kenworth Truck Co MAIL ADDR LINES: 1601 N 8th St MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 TC2826208.2s Page 97 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 1!1/1993 LAND ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 OPERATOR ORG NAME: KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: 1601 N 8th St OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 01/01/93 SITE CONTACT NAME: Richard A Sklar SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 1601 N 8th ST $ITE CONTACT ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: rich.skiar@paccar.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Richard Sklar FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: 1601 N 8th ST FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: rich.sklar@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: LQG MONTHLY GENERATION: False BATCH GENERATION: False ONE TIME GENERATION: False TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: False TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: False RECYCLER ONSITE: False TRANSFER FACILITY: False OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: False USED OIL TRANSPORTER: False USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: False USED OIL PROCESSOR: False USED OIL REREFINER: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: False Facility Site ID Number: 13289817 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: Not reported Data Year; Not reported Permit by Rule: No Treatment by Generator: No Mixed radioactive waste: No Importer of hazardous waste: No Immediate recycler: No Treatmen!/Storage/DisposallRecycling Facility: No Generator of dangerous fuel waste: No Generator marketing to burner: No TC2826208.2s Page 98 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site Database(s) KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) "Other marketers (i e., blender, distributor. etc.)": No Utility boiler burner: No Industry boiler burner No Industrial Furnace: No Smelter defferal: No Universal waste - batteries - generate: No Universal waste - thermostats - generate: No Universal waste - mercury - generate: No Universal waste - lamps - generate: No Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: No Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: No Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: No Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: No Destination Facility for Universal Waste: No Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: No Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: No Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: No EPA ID: WAD988517934 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 177000505 NAICS CD: 33612 BUSINESS TYPE: Heavy Duty Truck Assembly MAIL NAME: Kenworth Truck Co MAIL ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 9001 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98 009-1 51 8 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/1/1993 LAND ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LAND CITY,ST.ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 OPERATOR ORG NAME: KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 9001 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 111/1993 SITE CONTACT NAME: Richard A Sklar SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 9001 SITE CONTACT ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: rich. sklar@paccar.corn FORM CONTACT NAME: Richard Sklar FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 9001 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES EDR ID Number EPA ID Number 1000838973 TC2826208.2s Page 99 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: rich.sklar@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: LQG MONTHLY GENERATION: Yes BATCH GENERATION: No ONE TIME GENERATION: No TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: No TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: No RECYCLER ONSITE: No TRANSFER FACILITY: No OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: No USED OIL TRANSPORTER: No USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: No USED OIL PROCESSOR: No USED OIL REREFINER: No USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: No USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: No Facility Site ID Number: 13289817 SWC Desc: WT02, WP02 FWC Desc: D001, D004, D005, D006, D007, D008, D010, D035, F003, F005 Form Comm: Not reported Data Year: 2009 Permit by Rule: False Treatment by Generator: False Mixed radioactive waste: False Importer of hazardous waste: False Immediate recycler: False Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: False Generator of dangerous fuel waste: False Generator marketing to burner: False "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": False Utility boiler burner: False Industry boiler burner: False Industrial Furnace: False Smelter defferaI! False Universal waste - batteries - generate: False Universal waste - thermostats - generate: False Universal waste - mercury - generate: False Universal waste - lamps - generate: False Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: False Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: False Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: False Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: False Destination Facility for Universal Waste: False Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: False EPA ID: WAD968517934 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 177000505 NAICS CD: 336120 BUSINESS TYPE: Heavy Duty Truck Assembly MAIL NAME: Kenworlh Truck Co MAIL ADDR LINE1: P.O. Box 9001 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 1000838973 TC2826208.2s Page 100 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 11111993 LAND ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LAND CITY,STZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 OPERATOR DRG NAME: KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: P.Q. Box 9001 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: (425) 227-5818 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/1/1993 SITE CONTACT NAME: Richard A Sklar SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: P.O. Box 9001 SITE CONTACT ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 227-5818 SITE CONTACT EMAIL- rich.sklar@paccar.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Richard A Sklar FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: P.O. Box 9001 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 227-5818 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: rich,sklar@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: LQG MONTHLY GENERATION: True BATCH GENERATION: False ONE TIME GENERATION: False TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: False TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: False RECYCLER ONSITE False TRANSFER FACILITY: False OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: False USED OIL TRANSPORTER: False USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: False USED OIL PROCESSOR: False USED OIL REREFINER: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: False Facility Site ID Number: 13289817 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: Not reported Data Year: 2008 Permit by Rule: False TC2826208.2s Page 101 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Dalabase(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1004838973 Treatment by Generator: False Mixed radioactive waste: False Importer of hazardous waste: False Immediate recycler: False Treatment/Storage/Disposal/Recycling Facility: False Generator of dangerous fuel waste: False Generator marketing to burner: False "Other marketers (i.e.. blender, distributor, etc.)": False Utility boiler burner: False Industry boiler burner: False Industrial Furnace: False Smelter defferal: False Universal waste - batteries - generate: False Universal waste - thermostats - generate: False Universal waste - mercury - generate: False Universal waste - lamps - generate: False Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: False Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: False Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: False Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: False Destination Facility for Universal Waste: False Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: False Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: False EPA ID: WAD988517934 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 177000505 NAICS CD: 33612 BUSINESS TYPE: Heavy Duty Truck Assembly MAIL NAME: Kenworth Truck Co MAIL ADDR LINE1: P.O. Box 9001 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY, ST„ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/1/1993 LAND ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LAND ORG TYPE: Private LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 OPERATOR ORG NAME: KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: P.O. Box 9001 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98457-9001 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: (425) 227-5818 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 111/1993 SITE CONTACT NAME: Richard A Sklar SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: P.O. Box 9001 SITE CONTACT ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 TC2826208.2s Page 102 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 227-5818 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: rich.sklar@paccar.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Richard Sklar FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: P.O. Box 9001 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: (425) 227-5818 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: rich.sklar@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: LOG MONTHLY GENERATION: True BATCH GENERATION: False ONE TIME GENERATION: False TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: False TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: False RECYCLER ONSITE: False TRANSFER FACILITY: False OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: False USED OIL TRANSPORTER: False USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: False USED OIL PROCESSOR: False USED OIL REREFINER: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: False USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: False Facility Site ID Number: 13289817 SWC Desc: Not reported FWC Desc: Not reported Form Comm: Not reported Data Year: Not reported Permit by Rule: FALSE Treatment by Generator: FALSE Mixed radioactive waste: FALSE Importer of hazardous waste: FALSE Immediate recycler: FALSE TreatmentlStoragelDisposal/Recycling Facility: FALSE Generator of dangerous fuel waste: FALSE Generator marketing to burner: FALSE "Other marketers (i.e., blender, distributor, etc.)": FALSE Utility boiler burner: FALSE Industry boiler burner: FALSE Industrial Furnace: FALSE Smelter defferal: FALSE Universal waste - batteries - generate: FALSE Universal waste - thermostats - generate: FALSE Universal waste - mercury - generate: FALSE Universal waste - lamps - generate: FALSE Universal waste - batteries - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - thermostats - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - mercury - accumulate: FALSE Universal waste - lamps - accumulate: FALSE Destination Facility for Universal Waste: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - utility boiler: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - industrial boiler: FALSE Off -specification used oil burner - industrial furnace: FALSE EPA ID: WAD988517934 TC2826208.2s Page 103 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance EDR ID Number Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) 1000838973 Facility Address 2: Not reported TAX REG NBR: 177000505 NAICS CD: 33612 BUSINESS TYPE: Heavy Duty Truck Assembly MAIL NAME: Kenworth Truck Co MAIL ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 9001 MAIL CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 MAIL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL ORG NAME: Paccar Inc LEGAL ORG TYPE: Private LEGAL ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LEGAL CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LEGAL COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LEGAL PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 LEGAL EFFECTIVE DATE: 111/1993 LAND ORO NAME: Paccar Inc LAND ORG TYPE? Private LAND PERSON NAME: Not reported LAND ADDR LINE1: PO Box 1518 LAND CITY,ST,ZIP: BELLEVUE, WA 98009-1518 LAND COUNTRY: UNITED STATES LAND PHONE NBR: (425)468-7400 OPERATOR ORO NAME: KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY OPERATOR ORG TYPE: Private OPERATOR ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 9001 OPERATOR CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 OPERATOR COUNTRY: UNITED STATES OPERATOR PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 OPERATOR EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/111993 SITE CONTACT NAME? Richard A Sklar SITE CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 9001 SITE CONTACT ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 SITE CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES SITE CONTACT PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 SITE CONTACT EMAIL: dch.sklar@paccar.com FORM CONTACT NAME: Richard Sklar FORM CONTACT ADDR LINE1: PO BOX 9001 FORM CONTACT CITY,ST,ZIP: RENTON, WA 98057-9001 FORM CONTACT COUNTRY: UNITED STATES FORM CONTACT PHONE NBR: 425227-5818 FORM CONTACT EMAIL: hr-h.sklar@paccar.com GEN STATUS CD: LQG MONTHLY GENERATION: FALSE BATCH GENERATION: FALSE ONE TIME GENERATION: FALSE TRANSPORTS OWN WASTE: FALSE TRANSPORTS OTHRS WASTE: FALSE RECYCLER ONSITE: FALSE TRANSFER FACILITY: FALSE OTHER EXEMPTION: Not reported UW BATTERY GEN: FALSE USED OIL TRANSPORTER: FALSE USED OIL TRANSFER FACLTY: FALSE USED OIL PROCESSOR: FALSE USED OIL REREFINER: FALSE USED OIL FUEL MRKTR DIRECTS SHPMNTS: FALSE USED OIL FUEL MRKTR MEETS SPECS: FALSE TC2826208.2s Page 104 Map ID MAP FINDINGS Direction Distance Elevation Site KENWORTH TRUCK CO RENTON (Continued) Clink this hyperlink while viewing on your computer to access additional WA MANIFEST: detail in the EDR Site Report. NPDES: Facility Type: Latitude: Longitude: Contact Name: Contact Phone Number: Permit ID: Permit Issue Date: Facility Size: Ecology Contact: WRIA: Permit Expiration Date: Effective Date: Stormwater Industrial 47.496389999999998 122.18889 Richard A. Sklar 425.227.5818 WAR000868E 1012112009 General Permits Jeff Killelea Cedar-Sammamish 1!1!2015 111/2010 32 RENTON HIGHLANDS LANDFILL SSE NE 3RD ST I NE 4TH ST 1I2-1 RENTON, WA 98056 0.860 mi. 4540 ft. Relative: Lower Actual 315 ft. CSCSL: Facility ID: Facility Type: Region: Ecology Status Code: Entered Date: Updated Date: Brownfield Status: Rank Status: PSI Status: Clean Method Drinking Water Type: Cleanup Standard: Acres Remediated: Latitude: Longitude: LatlLong: LaULong (dms): Media Status Desc: Affected Media: Affected Media Status: Pesticides: Petroleum Products: Phenolic Compounds: Reactive Wastes: Corrosive Wastes: Radioactive Wastes: Asbestos: Responsible Unit: Arsenic Code: MTBE Code: Ux0 Code: Dioxin: 2128 Not reported Northwest 3/1/1968 6/23/2009 0 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported 47.486305 -122.180749 47.4863051-122.180749 47 29 10,698; -122 10 50.696 1!110001 Soil Suspected Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported NORTHWEST Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 1000838573 CSCSL S102258295 ALLSITES NIA TC2826208.2s Page 105 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site RENTON HIGHLANDS LANDFILL (Continued) Non -Halogenated Solvents: Not reported BaselNeutrallAcid Organics: Not reported Halogenated Organic Compounds: Not reported EPA Priority Pollutants - Metals and Cyanide: Not reported Metals - Other non-priority pollutant medals: Not reported Polychlorinated biPhenyls (PCBs): Not reported Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH): Not reported Conventional Contaminants, Organic: Suspected Conventional Contaminants, Inorganic: Suspected Tibutyl Tin Contaminant Group: Not reported BioassaylBenlhic Failures Contaminant Group: Not reported Wood Debris Contaminant Group: Not reported Other Deleterious Substance Group: Not reported Ecology Site Status (MTCA cleanup process): Awaiting SHA ALLSITES: LEARNING CENTER Facility Id: 2128 ENE Latitude: 47.486305000000002 CSCSL Longitude: -122.18074900000001 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 2128 Facility Name: RENTON HIGHLANDS LANDFILL Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.486305000000002 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.18074900000001 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 99 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 12 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Cade: 99 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 2128 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: SCS Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: State Cleanup Site Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: Not reported Interaction Start Date: 1/1/1900 Interaction End Date: Not reported EDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number 33 LEARNING CENTER FINDS ENE 4101 NE SUNSET BLVD CSCSL 112-1 RENTON, WA 98059 ALLSITES 0.937 mi. VCP 4950 ft. Relative: FINDS: Higher Registry ID: 110015386893 Actual: 400 ft. Environmental Interestlinformation System Washington Facility 1 Site Identification System (WA-FSIS) provides a means to query and display data maintained by the Washington Department of Ecology. This system contains key information for each facilitylsite that is currently, or has been, of interest to the Air Quality, Dam Safety, Hazardous Waste, Toxics Cleanup, and Water Quality Programs. S102258295 1007062156 N/A TC2826208.2s Page 106 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site FDR ID Number Database(s) EPA ID Number LEARNING CENTER (Continued) 1007062156 CSCSL: Facility ID: 97265776 Facility Type: VCP Region: Northwest Ecology Status Code: 3 97265776 Entered Date: 7112/2004 LEARNING CENTER Updated Date: 313112010 47.503622 Brownfield Status: 0 -122.165972 Rank Status: Not reported PSI Status: Not reported Clean Method: Not reported Drinking Water Type: Not reported Cleanup Standard: Not reported Acres Remediated: Not reported Latitude: 47.503622 Longitude: -122.165972 Lat/Long: 47.5036221-122.165972 Lat/Long (dms): 47 30 13.0391-122 9 57.499 Media Status Desc: 1!110001 Affected Media: Soil Affected Media Status: Confirmed Pesticides: Not reported Petroleum Products: Confirmed Phenolic Compounds: Not reported Reactive Wastes: Not reported Corrosive Wastes: Not reported Radioactive Wastes: Not reported Asbestos: Not reported Responsible Unit: NORTHWEST Arsenic Code: Not reported MTBE Code: Not reported UXO Code: Not reported Dioxin: Not reported Non -Halogenated Solvents: Not reported Base/NeutrallAcid Organics: Not reported Halogenated Organic Compounds: Not reported EPA Priority Pollutants - Metals and Cyanide: Below Cleanup Level Metals - Other non-priority pollutant medals: Not reported Polychlorinated biPhenyls (PCBs): Not reported Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH): Not reported Conventional Contaminants, Organic: Not reported Conventional Contaminants, Inorganic: Not reported Tibutyl Tin Contaminant Group: Not reported Bioassay/Benthic Failures Contaminant Group: Not reported Wood Debris Contaminant Group: Not reported Other Deleterious Substance Group: Not reported Ecology Site Status (MTCA cleanup process): RA in Progress ALLSITES: Facility Id: 97265776 Latitude: 47.503622 Longitude: -122.165972 Geographic location identifier (alias facid): 97265776 Facility Name: LEARNING CENTER Latitude Decimal Degrees: 47.503622 Longitude Decimal Degrees: -122.165972 TC2826208.2s Page 107 Map ID Direction Distance Elevation MAP FINDINGS Site EDR ID Number Dalabase(s) EPA ID Number LEARNING CENTER (Continued) 1007062156 Coordinate Point Areal Extent Code: 4 Horizontal Accuracy Code: 6 Coordinate Point Geographic Position Code: 5 Location Verified Code: N Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 97265776 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: VOLCLNST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Voluntary Cleanup Sites Interaction Status: A Federal Program Indentifier: NW1292 Interaction Start Date: 711212004 Interaction End Date: Not reported Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 97265776 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: UST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: Underground Storage Tank Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indenlifier: 8481 Interaction Start Date: 10/111967 Interaction End Date: 112911998 Geographic Location Identifier (Alias Facid): 97265776 Interaction (Aka Env Int) Type Code: LUST Interaction (Aka Env Int) Description: LUST Facility Interaction Status: I Federal Program Indentifier: 8481 Interaction Start Date: 4/2911998 Interaction End Date: 8/20/2002 VCP: edr fstal: V11A edr_fzip: 98059-4015 edr_fcnty: KING edr_zip: 98059-4015 Facility ID: 97265776 VCP Status: VCP VCP: Not reported Ecology Status: RA in Progress NFA Type: RA in Progress Date NFA: RA in Progress Rank: RA in Progress TC2826208.2s Page 108 ru (fl N rLN m N E z 0 w a w w Ui ~ ❑ cn Z J n Un J LL W W Q c ~ ❑ c u d d U J Z C7 o QC6 o W LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL l.L LL LL LL LL LL LL lL LL LL LL UA. 4. Uy, LL W LL LL LL W Z W Z V! CL l}L LL ll LL l}L ll lyL LL I1 ll LL IL LL LL LL LL LL LIyL LL LLL 1IyL }LLy }LL} LLy l}}L l}}L Il (n Q U7 Un ❑ ❑ Q J } } } } } } } } } } } } } } y } } y } ? 7 7 7 7 3 7 Cn J U fi7 J 2 Z U Q w m 0 to 0 0 to to 0 U1 Un 0 UR 0 w Un to w 0 0 0 0 0 to w 0 0 w D Q w U Q LL LL LL Q co � Ln Un InV4 10 000000 li l In m o0 a0 c0 0 A n UJ O Q w LmL x Q d z 2 w w w u W W❑ O 'J3z a w x W w w z Lo W 7 = J d LL >d w 0 w z 0 0 N m ua W to z z z p= -= a o N- w w w� w a o a a z W p o O W F- LL r F- ❑ UD T y W> W d� J r r J> c� Z} Zw � 0a2zw w w x ¢,w0Unn. a oQm W 0 C7 Z LL' = m W a LL r (n o z❑Z 0 w w Ln W Z w LL j Q Q ❑ ~ ~ ❑ ❑ i7 ❑ LL Z Z a LL - Uj ❑ 0 s x N❑ z x w LY O H w 0 0 ❑❑ Q{ Clii z Q u1 a 0 0 Z ¢ Q W a❑� O a Z Z w LoLLJ Q Z CO w W UJ Z w U U7 Z_ ¢ a W w Z W F- Q Q F- Z w Q Z Un W a d m d Y q o �' ❑ H¢ U7 z w In w H H(n Q > LL} a M X❑❑ U ¢ '!' iri L? 0 d 0 w > ¢ w S w LL` U} Un z F ¢ 0] Lu � w T LL LL LL O u=i ¢ Q Uj L=! K¢ f] = H F=- W¢ W Q LL¢¢ Un OLD o o W d 2 UJ r 2 P as c- J .J i S z~w�u~iv~,ozLLI �aa��z¢"�a LadvzO�¢a r F-wz ww� 5000LL �Lz❑OODOOLL LLLL LL LL LLw� dj GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Number of Days to Update: Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days from the date the government agency made the information available to the public. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL: National Priority List National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) and regional EPA offices. Date of Government Version: 03131/2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0410212010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/1212010 Number of Days to Update: 10 NPL Site Boundaries Sou rces: Source: EPA Telephone: NIA Last EDR Contact: 0711412010 Next -Scheduled EDR Contact: 1012612010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) Telephone: 202-564-7333 EPA Region 1 Telephone 617.918-1143 EPA Region 3 Telephone 215-814-5418 EPA Region 4 Telephone 404-562-8033 EPA Region 5 Telephone 312-886-6686 EPA Region 10 Telephone 206-553-8665 EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-655-6659 EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7247 EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6774 EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-947-4246 Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing. Date of Government Version: 03/3112010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04102/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04;12/2010 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: EPA Telephone: NIA Last EDR Contact: 07/14/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/25/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. Date of Government Version: 10116/1991 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0210211994 Date Made Active in Reports: 03130/1994 Number of Days to Update: 56 Source: EPA Telephone: 202'5644267 Last EDR Contact: 05/17/20 1 0 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0813012010 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned TC2826208.2s Page GR -1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED 1 DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Federal Delisted NPL site list DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate Dateof Government Version: 03/31/2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/02/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/1212010 Number of Days to Update: 10 Federal CERCUS list Source: EPA Telephone: NIA Last EDR Contact: 07114/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/25/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation. and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version: 01129/2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR- 02f09/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0411212010 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-412-9810 Last EDR Contact: 07/1212010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly FEDERAL FACILITY: Federal Facility Site Information listing A listing of National Priority List (NPL) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites found in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Database where EPAa??s Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office is involved in cleanup activities. Date of Government Version: 06/23/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/15/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0211012010 Number of Days to Update: 26 Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-8704 Last EDR Contact: 07/2112010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/25!2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. Dale of Government Version: 060312009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0910212009 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/21/2009 Number of Days to Update: 19 Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list Source: EPA Telephone: 703-412-9810 Last EDR Contact: 0711212010 Next Scheduled ERR Contact: 09113/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. TC2826208.2s Page GR -2 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version- 03125/2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03!3112010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/2712010 Number of Days to Update: 57 Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 0511712010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08130/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. Date of Government Version: 0211712010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0211 912 01 0 Date Made Active in Reports: 05117/2010 Number of Days to Update: 87 Federal RCRA generators list Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (206) 553-1200 Last EDR Contact: 07109/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10118/20 1 0 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RCRA-LQG: RCRA - Large Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (t-QGs) generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 02117/2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02119/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/1712010 Number of Days to Update: 87 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (206) 553-1200 Last EDR Contact: 0 710912 0 10 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/18/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RCRA-SQG: RCRA - Small Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 02/17120 10 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02119/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0511 7!201 0 Number of Days to Update: 87 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (206) 553-1200 Last EDR Contact: 07109/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1 011 81201 0 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RCRA-CESQG: RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 0211712010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0211912010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/17120 1 0 Number of Days to Update: 87 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (206) 553-1200 Last EDR Contact: 07109/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10118/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2826208.2s Page GR -3 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Federal institutional controls /engineering controls registries US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health. Date of Government Version: 12/2012009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/2012010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0411212010 Number of Days to Update: 82 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-0695 Last EDR Contact: 0611412010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/27/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures, such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally required as part of the institutional controls. Date of Government Version: 1212012009 Dale Data Arrived at EDR- 0112012010 Dale Made Active in Reports: 04/1212010 Number of Days to Update: 82 Federal ERNS list Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-0695 Last EDR Contact: 06/1412010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09727!2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 12131/2009 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/22/2010 Telephone: 202-267-2180 Date Made Active in Reports: 0271112010 Last EDR Contact: 07109/2010 Number of Days to Update: 20 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/1812010 Data Release Frequency: Annually State- and tribal - equivalent NPL HSL- Hazardous Sites List The Hazardous Sites List is a subset of the CSCSL Report. It includes sites which have been assessed and ranked using the Washington Ranking Method (WARM). Date of Government Version: 02/1712010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/1912010 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/24/2010 Number of Days to Update: 5 State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7200 Last EDR Contact: 0511812010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/3012010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually CSCSL: Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List State Hazardous Waste Sites. Stale hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (slate equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties. Available information varies by state. Date of Government Version: 04/2612010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04129/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/1912010 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7200 Last EDR Contact: 0712812010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually TC2826208.2s Page GR -4 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWFILF: Solid Waste Facility Database Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Government Version: 06/15/2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/1612010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0711512010 Number of Days to Update: 29 State and tribal leaking storage tank lists Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6132 Last EDR Contact: 06114/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/2712010 Data Release Frequency: Annually LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Site List Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government Version: 05124/20 1 0 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05126/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0512812010 Number of Days to Update: 2 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7183 Last EDR Contact: 05/2612010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0 910 612 01 0 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTS on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada Date of Government Version: 02/0112010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0310312010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/1212010 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 415-972-3372 Last EDR Contact: 0 510 312 0 10 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08116/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTS on Indian land in Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina. Date of Government Version: 03/1012010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/16/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04112=1 0 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: EPA Region 4 Telephone: 404-562-8677 Last EDR Contact: 05103/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0811612010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTS on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Date of Government Version: 05/0412010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0510512010 Date Made Active in Reports: (1512712010 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: EPA Region 10 Telephone: 206-553-2857 Last EDR Contact: 0510312010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/1612010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land. Date of Government Version: 0 21 1 912 0 09 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/19/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/16/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1313 Last EDR Contact: 0 510 312 0 1 0 Next Scheduled EDR Contact 08116/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2826208.2s Page GR -5 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTS on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma. Date of Government Version: 05/03/2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05!0512010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0512712010 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-665-6597 Last EDR Contact: 05103/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0811612010 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTS on Indian land in Iowa. Kansas, and Nebraska Date of Government Version: 11/04/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/0412010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0710712010 Number of Days to Update: 64 Source: EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7003 Last EDR Contact: 05104/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0811612010 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTS on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Date of Government Version: 02125!2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02125/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0411 212 0 10 Number of Days to Update: 46 State and tribal registered storage tank lists Source: EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6271 Last EDR Contact: 05/43/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0811612010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly UST: Underground Storage Tank Database Registered Underground Storage Tanks UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available information varies by state program. Date of Government Version: 05/24120 1 0 Date Data Arrived ai EDR: 05126/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/28/2010 Number of Days to Update: 2 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7183 Last EDR Contact: 0512612010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/06/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly AST: Aboveground Storage Tank Locations A listing of aboveground storage tank locations regulated by the Department of Ecology's Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response Program. Date of Government Version: 05127/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0512812009 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/19/2009 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7562 Last EDR Contact: 05/1012010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0 812 312 01 0 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida. Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Tribal Nations) Date of Government Version: 0 311 012 0 10 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/1612010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04112/2010 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: EPA Region 4 Telephone: 404-562-9424 Last EDR Contact: 0510312010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08116/2010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually TC2826208.2s Page GR -6 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED !DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 02/01/2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03103/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/1212010 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-972-3368 Last EDR Contact: 0510312010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/1612010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 02/2512010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02125/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0411212010 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6137 Last EDR Contact: 061133/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08116/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 0510412010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0510512010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05127/2010 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: EPA Region 10 Telephone: 206-553-2857 Last EDR Contact: 05103/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/1612010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and ten Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 02119!2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/19/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03!1612009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA, Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1313 Last EDR Contact: 05/03/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 5 (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 0211112010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0211112010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0411 212 0 1 0 Number of Days to Update: 60 Source: EPA Region 5 Telephone: 312-886-6136 Last EDR Contact: 05/03/20 1 0 Next Scheduled EDR Contacl: 0811612010 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 6 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico. Texas and 65 Tribes) Date of Government Version: 0510312010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/05/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/27/2010 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-665-7591 Last EDR Contact: 0510312010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/1160010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually TC2826208.2s Page GR -7 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank {UST} database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 7 (Iowa. Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 9 Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 04101/2008 Cate Data Arrived at FDR: 12/3012008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03116/2009 Number of Days to Update: 76 Source: EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7003 Last EDR Contact: 05!1212010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/16/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies FEMA UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing A listing of all FEMA owned underground storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 01/0112010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/1612010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2010 Number of Days to Update: 55 Source: FEMA Telephone: 202-646-5797 Last EDR Contact: 07/1912010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1 110 112010 Data Release Frequency: Varies State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries INST CONTROL: Institutional Control Site List Sites that have institutional controls Date of Government Version: 0 511 812 01 0 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/18/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/2812010 Number of Days to Update: 10 State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites Source: Department of Ecology Telephones 360-407-7170 Last EDR Contact: 05/1812010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08130/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1. Hate of Government Version: 04/02/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: EPA, Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1102 Last EDR Contact: 0710812010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/1812010 Data Release Frequency: Varies VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites Sites that have entered either the Voluntary Cleanup Program or its predecessor Independent Remedial Action Program. Date of Government Version: 04/2212010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/3012010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05119/2010 Number of Days to Update: 19 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360407-7200 Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/0812010 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7. Date of Government Version: 03/2012008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0412212008 Date Made Active in Reports: 05119/2008 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: EPA, Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7365 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0712012009 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2826208.2s Page GR -8 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED 1 DATA CURRENCY TRACKING ICR: Independent Cleanup Reports These are remedial action reports Ecology has received from either the owner or operator of the sites. These actions have been conducted without department oversight or approval and are not under an order or decree. This database is no longer updated by the Department of Ecology. Date of Government Version: 12/01/2002 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2003 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/2212003 Number of Days to Update: 19 State and tribal SrownFields sites Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7200 Last EDR Contact: 0811012009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1110912009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Sites Listing A listing of brownfields sites included in the Confirmed & Suspected Sites Listing. Brownfields are abandoned, idle or underused commercial or industrial properties, where the expansion or redevelopment is hindered by real or perceived contamination. Brownfields vary in size, location, age, and past use -- they can be anything from a five -hundred acre automobile assembly plant to a small, abandoned corner gas station. Date of Government Version: 04/2612010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/2912010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2010 Number of Days to Update: 20 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-725-4030 Last EDR Contact: 07/,28/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1 110 812 0 10 Data Release Frequency: Varies US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments -EPA's Targeted Brownfields Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities --especially those without EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots --minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement Recipients -States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) cooperative agreement recipients when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use FPA funds provided through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities. Date of Government Version: 03/02!2010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/2312010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05117/2010 Number of Days to Update: 55 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-2777 Last EDR Contact: 06/25/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10111/2010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Local Lists of Landfill/ Solid Waste Disposal Sites DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside County and northern Imperial County, California. Date of Government Version: 01112/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 0912112009 Number of Days to Update: 137 Source: EPA, Region 9 Telephone: 415-947-4219 Last EDR Contact: 07/0912010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/20/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2826208.2s Page GR -9 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED 1 DATA CURRENCY TRACKING ODI: Open Dump Inventory An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258 Subtitle D Criteria, Date of Government Version: 06130/1985 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/0912004 Date Made Active in Reports: 0911712004 Number of Days to Update: 39 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: NIA Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SWTIRE: Solid Waste Tire Facilities This study identified sites statewide with unauthorized accumulations of scrap tires. Date of Government Version: 1110112 0 05 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03116/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 0411312006 Number of Days to Update: 28 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: NIA Last EDR Contact: 0&17/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0 912 712 0 1 0 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands Location of open dumps on Indian land. Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12103/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/24/2008 Number of Days to Update: 52 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-308-8245 Last EDR Contact: 06108/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/23/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies Local Lists of Hazardous waste/ Contaminated Sites US CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example, contacting local law enforcement and local health departments. Date of Government Version: 08/1912009 Date Data Arrived at EOR: 12/2912009 Date Made Active in Reports: 02110/2010 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration Telephone: 202-307-1000 Last EDR Contact: 0310812010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/2012010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly ALLSITES: Facility/Site Identification System Listing Information on facilities and sites of interest to the Department of Ecology. Date of Government Version: 05/1212010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05113/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0511912010 Number of Days to Update: 6 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6423 Last EDR Contact: 0 511 212 0 1 0 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08!2312010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly CSCSL NFA: Confirmed and Contaminated Sites - No Further Action The data set contains information about sites previously on the Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites list that have received a No Further Action (NFA) determination. Because it is necessary to maintain historical records of sites that have been investigated and cleaned up, sites are not deleted from the database when cleanup activities are completed. Instead, a No Further Action code is entered based upon the type of NFA determination the site received. TC2826208.2s Page GR -10 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 0412612010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04129/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0511912010 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-7170 Last EDR Contact: 0712812010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1110812010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually CDL: Clandestine Drug Lab Contaminated Site List Illegal methamphetamine labs use hazardous chemicals that create public health hazards. Chemicals and residues can cause burns, respiratory and neurological damage, and death. Biological hazards associated with intravenous needles, feces, and blood also pose health risks. Date of Government Version: 0210912009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03118/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/24/2009 Number of Days to Update: 6 Source: Department of Health Telephone: 360-236-3380 Last EDR Contact: 05718/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08130!2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies HIST CDL: List of Sites Contaminated by Clandestine Drug Labs This listing of contaminated sites by Clandestine Drug Labs includes non-remediated properties. The current CDL listing does not. This listing is no longer updated by the state agency. Date of Government Version: 02108/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0612612007 Date Made Active in Reports: 07!1912007 Number of Days to Update: 23 Source: Department of Health Telephone: 360-236-3381 Last EDR Contact: 06/0212008 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned US HIST CDL: National Clandestine Laboratory Register A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example, contacting local law enforcement and local health departments. Date of Government Version: 09/01/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 1111912008 Date Made Active in Reports: 03130/2009 Number of Days to Update: 131 Local Land Records Source: Drug Enforcement Administration Telephone; 202-307-1000 Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06122/2009 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information A Federal CERCLA ('Superfund') lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination. CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties Dateof Government Version: 0 210 512 0 10 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02111/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04112/2010 Number of Days to Update: 60 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-6023 Last EDR Contact: 0510312010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/1 612 01 0 Data Release Frequency: Varies LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former wavy Base Realignment and Closure properties. Date of Government Version: 12109/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/11/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 31 Source: Department of the Navy Telephone: 843-820-7326 Last EDR Contact: 0572412010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/0612010 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2826208.2s Page GR -11 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED! DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version: 04/0612010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04!0712010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/2712010 Number of Days to Update: 50 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4555 Last EDR Contact: 07109!2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10118/2010 Data Release Frequency: Annually SPILLS: Reported Spills Spills reported to the Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response Division. Date of Government Version: 06/2512010 Date Data Arrived at EDR- 06/25/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0711512010 Number of Days to Update: 20 Other Ascertainable Records Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6950 Last EDR Contact: 0612112010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/27/2010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually RCRA-NonGen: RCRA - Non Generators RCRAIhfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Date of Government Version: 0211712010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/19/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/1712010 Number of Days to Update: 87 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (206) 553-1200 Last EDR Contact: 0 7/0 912 01 0 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1011812010 Data Release Frequency: Varies DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data. Date of Government Version: 01/12/2010 Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Date Data Arrived at FDR: 02/0912010 Telephone: 202-366-4595 Date Made Active in Reports: 04112/2010 Last EDR Contact: 05112/2010 Number of Days to Update: 62 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/23/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies DOD: Department of Defense Sites This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U S Virgin Islands. Date of Government Version: 1213112005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 1111012006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: USGS Telephone: 703-692-8801 Last EDR Contact: 0 712 212 0 1 0 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11101/2010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions. Date of Government Version: 12/3112008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09130/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/0112009 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Telephone: 202-528-4285 Last EDR Contact: 06/1612010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09127/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2826208.2s Page GR -12 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED f DATA CURRENCY TRACKING CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: 0411112010 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/1 91201 0 Telephone: Varies Date Made Active in Reports- 0511712010 Last EDR Contact: 07/0812010 Number of Days to Update: 28 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1011812010 Data Release Frequency: Varies ROD: Records Of Decision Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version; 04/29/20 1 0 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/0712010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05!2712010 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-416-0223 Last EDR Contact: 06/1612010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/27/2010 Data Release Frequency: Annually UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills shut down, large piles of the sand -like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized. Date of Government Version: 01/0512009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/0712009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05108/2009 Number of Days to Update: 1 Source: Department of Energy Telephone: 505-845-0011 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0 911 31201 0 Data Release Frequency: Varies MINES: Mines Master Index File Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes violation information. Date of Government Version: 02/12/2010 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/1012010 Telephone: 303-231-5959 Date Made Active in Reports: 0511712010 Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2010 Number of Days to Update: 68 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0912012010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version: 12131/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/13/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0211812010 Number of Days to Update: 36 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0250 Last EDR Contact: 0610412010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/13/2010 Data Release Frequency: Annually TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Government Version: 12131/2002 Dale Data Arrived at EDR: 04114/2006 Dale Made Active in Reports: 05/30/2006 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-5521 Last EDR Contact: 07/07/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/2010 Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years TC2826208.2s Page GR -13 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED 1 DATA CURRENCY TRACKING FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide.. Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 04/0912009 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/1612009 Telephone: 202-566-1667 Date Made Active in Reports: 05111/2009 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2010 Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0 911 312 0 1 0 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly FTTS INSP: FIFRAI TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)1TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements. Date of Government Version: 04/0912009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04116!2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-1667 Last EDR Contact: 06/0112010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/13/2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenlicide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated. Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Date Hata Arrived at EDR: 03101/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/1012007 Number of Days to Update- 40 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-2501 Last EDR Contact: 12117/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned HIST FTTS INSP; FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection & Enforcement Case Listing A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRAITSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions are now closing out records Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated. Date or Government Version: 10/1912006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10f2007 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-2501 Last EDR Contact: 12117/2008 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03117!2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all registered pesticide -producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March 1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year. Date of Government Version: 12131/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0110612010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0211012010 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4203 Last EDR Contact: 05/0312010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08!1612010 Data Release Frequency: Annually TC2826208.2s Page GR -14 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED !DATA CURRENCY TRACKING ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Date of Government Version: 04124/20 1 0 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0412912010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0511712010 Number of Days to Update: 18 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-5088 Last EDR Contact: 06!2512010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10111!2010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly PADS: PCB Activity Database System PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 09/01/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10!21!2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/0112009 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0500 Last EDR Contact: 04/22/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/0212010 Data Release Frequency: Annually MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 0 311 812 0 1 0 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04106/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/2712010 Number of Days to Update: 51 Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301-415-7169 Last EDR Contact: 06/1412010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/2712010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RADINFO: Radiation Information Database The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity. Date of Government Version: 0411312010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0411412010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05117/2010 Number of Days to Update: 33 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-343-9775 Last EDR Contact: 0711412010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1012512010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C -DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version: 04/1412010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0411612010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05127/2010 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: EPA Telephone: (206) 553-1200 Last EDR Contact: 07/07/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0912712010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. TC2826208.2s Page GR -15 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version. 04117(1995 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07103(1995 Date Made Active in Reports: 0810711995 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4104 Last FOR Contact: 0610212008 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned BRS: Biennial Reporting System The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG) and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Date of Government Version: 1213112007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02125!2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0511212010 Number of Days to Update: 76 UIC: Underground Injection Wells Listing A listing of underground injection wells. Date of Government Version: 0512412010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0512712010 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/1512010 Number of Days to Update: 49 WA MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05113/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0511912010 Number of Days to Update: 6 Source: EPAINTIS Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 0512512010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact- 09/0612010 Data Release Frequency: Biennially Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6143 Last EDR Contact: 05127/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/0612010 Data Release Frequency: Varies Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: NIA Last EDR Contact: 07/2612010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/0812010 Data Release Frequency: Annually DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaner List A listing of registered drycleaners who registered with the Department of Ecology (using the SIC code of 7215 and 7216) as hazardous waste generators. Date of Government Version: 12131/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/13/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2010 Number of Days to Update: 6 NPDES: Water Quality Permit System Data A listing of permitted wastewater facilities. Date of Government Version: 0411912010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/2912010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/1912010 Number of Days to Update: 20 AIRS (EMI): Washington Emissions Data System Emissions inventory data. Date of Government Version: 12131!2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0 1 /05/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 01A512010 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6732 Last EDR Contact: 0712612010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11 /081201 0 Data Release Frequency: Varies Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6073 Last EDR Contact: 07127/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11!0812010 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6040 Last EDR Contact: 06/25/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10111/2010 Data Release Frequency: Annually TC2826208.2s Page GR -16 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED !DATA CURRENCY TRACKING INACTIVE DRYCLEANERS: Inactive Drycleaners A listing of inactive drycleaner facility locations. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05113/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2010 Number of Days to Update: 6 Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6732 Last EDR Contact: 07/26/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11108/2010 Data Release Frequency: Annually INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres. Date of Government Version: 12131/2005 Dale Data Arrived at EDR: 1 210 812 00 6 Dale Made Active in Reports: 01/1112007 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: USGS Telephone: 202-208-3710 Last EDR Contact: 0712212010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1110112010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is comprised of representatives of states with established drycleaner remediation programs. Currently the member states are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Date of Government Version: 02/1012010 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/1112010 Date Made Active in Reports: 04112/2010 Number of Days to Update: 60 COAL ASH: Coal Ash Disposal Site Listing A listing of coal ash disposal site locations. Date of Government Version: 06/29/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/02/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/08/2009 Number of Days to Update: 6 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 615-532-8599 Last EDR Contact: 07/2612010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/0812010 Data Release Frequency: Varies Source: Department of Ecology Telephone: 360-407-6933 Last EDR Contact: 06/21/2010 Next Scheduled ERR Contact: 09127/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies COAL ASH DOE: Sleam-Electric Plan Operation Data A listing of power plants that store ash in surface ponds. Date of Government Version: 1213112005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/2212009 Number of Days to Update: 76 Source: Department of Energy Telephone: 202-586-8719 Last EDR Contact: 07/21/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1 110 112010 Data Release Frequency: Varies COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List A listing of coal combustion residues surface impoundments with high hazard potential ratings. Date of Government Version: 1110912009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 1211812009 Date Made Active in Reports: 0211012010 Number of Days to Update: 54 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: NIA Last EDR Contact: 06114/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09127/2010 Data Release Frequency: Varies PCB TRANSFORMER: PCB Transformer Registration Database The database of PCB transformer registrations that includes all PCB registration submittals. TC2826208.2s Page GR -17 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED !DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 01!0112008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/18/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05!2912009 Number of Days to Update: 100 Source Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-0517 Last EDR Contact 05!4412010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0811 612 0 1 0 Data Release Frequency: Varies FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States. Lands included are administrated by: Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Wild and Scenic River, National Wildlife Refuge, Public Domain Land, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Wildlife Management Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Justice, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. Date of Government Version; 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02106/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 339 EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS EDR Proprietary Records Source: U.S. Geological Survey Tele phone: 888-275-8747 Last EDR Contact: 07/2212010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/01/2010 Data Release Frequency: N/A Manufactured Gas Plants: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants) compiled by EDR's researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800's to 1950's to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture of coal. oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production, such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil and groundwater contamination. Date of Government Version: NIA Source: EDR, Inc. Date Data Arrived at EDR: NIA Telephone: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: NIA Number of Days to Update: NIA Next Scheduled EDR Contact: NIA Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned EDR Historical Auto Stations: EDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential gas stationlfilling stationtservice station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include gas stationliilling stationiservice station establishments. The categories reviewed included but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station, filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: NIA Date Made Active in Reports: NIA Number of Days to Updates NIA Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: NIA Next Scheduled EDR Contact: NIA Data Release Frequency: Varies EDR Historical Cleaners: EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to dry cleaners.. cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: NIA Date Made Active in Reports: NIA Number of Days to Update: NIA Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: NIA Last EDR Contact: NIA Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies TC2826208.2s Page GR -18 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED !DATA CURRENCY TRACKING COUNTY RECORDS KING COUNTY: Abandoned Landfill Study in King County The King County Abandoned Landfill Survey was conducted from October through December 1984 by the Health Department's Environmental Health Division at the request of the King County Council. The primary objective of the survey was to determine if any public health problems existed at the predetermined 24 sites. Date of Government Version: 04130/1985 Source: Seattle -King County Department of Public Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/07/1994 Telephone: 206-296-4785 Date Made Active in Reports: NIA Last EDR Contact: 10/2111994 Number of Days to Update: 0 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: NIA Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SEATTLE COUNTY: Abandoned Landfill Study in the City of Seattle The Seattle Abandoned Landfill Survey was conducted in June and July of 1984 by the Health Department's Environmental Health Division at the request of the Mayor's Office. The primary objective of the survey was to determine if any public health problems existed at the predetermined 12 sites. Date of Government Version: 0713011984 Source: Seattle - King County Department of Public Health Dale Data Arrived at EDR: 1110711994 Telephone: 206-296-4785 Dale Made Active in Reports: NIA Last EDR Contact: 10/2111994 Number of Days to Update: 0 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: NIA Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SEATTLEIKING COUNTY: Seattle - King County Abandoned landfill Toxicity / Hazard Assessment Project This report presents the Seattle -King County Health Department's follow-up investigation of two city owned and four county owned abandoned landfills which was conducted from February to December 1986. Date of Government Version: 12/31/1986 Source: Department of Public Health Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/18/1995 Telephone: 206-296-4785 Date Made Active in Reports: 0912011995 Last EDR Contact: 0$11411995 Number of Days to Update: 33 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: NIA Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SNOHOMISH COUNTY - Solid Waste Sites of Record at Snohomish Health District Solid waste disposal and/or utilization sites in Snohomish County. Date of Government Version: 10/0112008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01!3012009 Date Made Active in Reports: 03124/2009 Number of Days to Update: 53 TACOMA/PIERCE COUNTY: Source: Snohomish Health District Telephone: 206-339-5250 Last EDR Contact: 07/09/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/2010 Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually Closed Landfill Survey Following numerous requests for information about closed dumpsites and landfills in Pierce County, the Tacoma -Pierce County Health Department decided to conduct a study on the matter. The aim of the study was to evaluate public health risks associated with the closed dumpsites and landfills, and to determine the need, if any, for further investigations of a more detailed nature. The sites represent all of the known dumpsites and landfills closed after 1950. TC2826208.2s Page GR -19 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING Date of Government Version: 09101/2002 Date Data Arrived at EDR- 03/2412003 Date Made Active in Reports: 05114!2003 Number of Days to Update- 51 OTHER DATABASE(S} Source: Tacoma -Pierce County Health Department Telephone: 206-591-6500 Last EDR Contact: 03/1912003 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a tsd facility. Date of Government Version: 12131/2007 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/26f2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/1112009 Number of Days to Update? 16 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 860-424-3375 Last EDR Contact: 06/0412010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 0910612010 Data Release Frequency: Annually NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD facility. Date of Government Version: 0 413 012 0 10 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0511 3120 10 Date Made Active in Reports: 0612112010 Number of Days to Update: 39 PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/01/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/1412009 Number of Days to Update: 13 WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Dale of Government Version: 12/3112009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 0710612010 Date Made Active in Reports: 0 7/2 612 01 0 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation Telephone: 518-402-8651 Last EDR Contact: 05!1312010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/2312010 Data Release Frequency: Annually Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 717-783-8990 Last EDR Contact: 05/24/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/06/2010 Data Release Frequency: Annually Source: Department of Natural Resources Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 06121/2010 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 1010412010 Data Release Frequency: Annually Oil/Gas Pipelines- This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. II is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000 -Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily gas pipelines. Electric Power Transmission Line Data Source: Rextag Strategies Corp. Telephone: (281) 769-2247 U.S. Electric Transmission and Power Plants Systems Digital GIS Data Sensitive Receptors- There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. TC2826208.2s Page GR -20 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING AHA Hospitals: Source: American Hospital Association, Inc. Telephone: 312-280-5991 The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals. Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Telephone: 410-786-3000 A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nursing Homes Source: National Institutes of Health Telephone: 301-594-6248 Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States. Public Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United Stales. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are comparable across all states. Private Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States. Daycare Centers: Daycare Center Listing Source: Department of Social & Health Services Telephone: 253-383-1735 Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2009 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Scanned Digital USGS 7.5 Topographic Map (DRG) Source: United States Geologic Survey A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images are made by scanning published paper maps on high-resolution scanners. The raster image is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection. STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION OO 2010 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material. TC2826208.2s Page GR -21 GEOCHECKR- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS SUNSET TERRACE SENIOR HOUSING CENTER DEVELOPMENT SUNSET LANE NE AT NE 10TH ST RENTON, WA 98056 TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES Latitude (North): Longitude (West): Universal Tranverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTM Y (Meters): Elevation: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Target Property Map: Most Recent Revision: South Map: Most Recent Revision: 47.50070 - 47° 30' 2.5" 122.1818 - 122' 10' 54.5" Zone 10 561622.4 52609130 344 ft. above sea level 47122-E2 MERCER ISLAND, WA 1983 47122-D2 RENTON, WA 9994 EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration. Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components: 1. Groundwater flow direction, and 2. Groundwater flow velocity. Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the geologic strata. TC2826208.2s Page A -t GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information. such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers). TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY General Topographic Gradient: General WSW SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY. ELEVATION PROFILES 2R 0 ai w W. _ . _ . _ . _ u t � as West Target Property Elevation: 344 ft. VV4LI1 TP TP 0 IWA East 1 Miles Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. TC2826208.2s Page A-2 GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways and bodies of water). FEMA FLOOD ZONE _Target Property County KING, WA Flood Plain Panel at Target Property: Additional Panels in search area: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY NWI Quad at Target Property MERCER ISLAND HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION FEMA Flood Electronic Data YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map 53033CO668F - FEMA 03 Flood data 53033CO664F - FEMA Q3 Flood data 53033CO981 F - FEMA Q3 Flood data 53033CO977F - FEMA 03 Flood data NWI Electronic Data Coverage YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. Site -Specific Hydrogeological Data*: Search Radius: 1.25 miles Location Relative to TP: 112 -1 Mile SSE Site Name: KING CO SOLID WASTE DIV RENTON TRANS STA Site EPA ID Number: WAD980639314 Groundwater Flow Direction: NOT AVAILABLE Inferred Depth to Water: 18 feet Hydraulic Connection: The uppermost aquifer is located in a glacial drift composed of sand and gravel. Sole Source Aquifer: No information about a sole source aquifer is available Data Quality: Information is inferred in the CERCLIS investigation reports} AQUIFLOW'^ Search Radius: 1.000 Mile. EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table. LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW 01896 Sde-speciho hydregeological data gathered by CERCLIS Aerls. I-, Bainbridge ksiand, WA. All r,ghrs reserved. Al of lh hrrmahon aoa up in ons presented are Ihose of the cited EPA •eoortlsl. whicn were comOleted under, a Compreeensive Envnonmenlal Response Compensation and Liability Information Syslem (CERCLIS) investigation TC2826208.2s Page A-3 GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY LOCATION MAP ID FROM TP 5 114 - 112 Mile NE 7 112 - 1 Mile ENE GENERAL DIRECTION GROUNDWATER FLOW NNE Not Reported For additional site information, refer to Physical Setting Source Map Findings. TC2826208.2s Page A4 GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes move more quickly through sandy -gravelly types of soils than silty -clayey types of soils. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed at which contaminant migration may be occurring. ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION Era: Cenozoic Category: Volcanic Rocks System: Tertiary Series: Lower Tertiary andesite Code: ITa (decoded above as Era, System & Series) Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P,G, Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS -11 (1994). TC2826208.2s Page A-5 SSURGO SOIL MAP - 2826208.2s Target Property SSURGO Soil Water SITE NAME: Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development CLIENT: C1 -12M Hill, Inc. ADDRESS: Sunset Lane NE at NE 10th St CONTACT: Jessie Yap Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY #: 2826208.2s LAT/LONG: 47.50071122.1818 DATE: July 28, 2010 12:34 pm Coovrla ht ,� 2010 EDA. Inc, - 2010 Teb A11as Rel. 47!2009. 4 1 Target Property SSURGO Soil Water SITE NAME: Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development CLIENT: C1 -12M Hill, Inc. ADDRESS: Sunset Lane NE at NE 10th St CONTACT: Jessie Yap Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY #: 2826208.2s LAT/LONG: 47.50071122.1818 DATE: July 28, 2010 12:34 pm Coovrla ht ,� 2010 EDA. Inc, - 2010 Teb A11as Rel. 47!2009. GEOCHECFf-' - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data. Soil Map ID: 1 Soil Component Name: Arents Soil Surface Texture: gravelly sandy loam Hydrologic Group: Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures. Soil Drainage Class: Moderately well drained Hydric Status: Not hydric Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches Depth to Watertable Min: > 84 inches Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil conductivity Soil Reaction micro misec (pH) 1 0 inches 25 inches gravelly sandy Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 0.42 Max: 6 Min: loam materials (35 SOILS, Gravels, Min: 0.01 5.1 pct. or less Gravels with passing No. Ones, Silty 200), Stone Gravel Fragments, Gravel and Sand. 2 25 inches 59 inches very gravelly Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 0.42 Max: 6 Min: sandy loam materials (35 SOILS, Gravels, Min: 0.01 5.1 pct. or less Gravels with passing No. fines, Silty 200), Stone Gravel Fragments, Gravel and Sand. TC2826208.2s Page A-7 GEOCHECK° - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY Soil Map ID: 2 Soil Component Name: Soil Surface Texture: Hydrologic Group: Urban land gravelly sandy loam Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer. Soil Drainage Class: Hydric Status: Not hydric Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Not Reported Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches No Layer Information available. Soil Map ID: 3 Soil Component Name: Ragnar Soil Surface Texture: fine sandy loam Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep, Classification moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse textures. Soil Drainage Class: Well drained Hydric Status: Not hydric hydraulic conductivity Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity Soil Reaction Layer Upper tower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil micro misec (pH) 1 0 inches 3 inches fine sandy loam Silt -Clay COARSE-GRAINED Max: 141 Max: 7.3 Materials (more SOILS, Sands, Min: 42 Min: 5.6 than 35 pct. Clean Sands, passing No. Poorly graded 200), Silty sand. Soils. COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Silty Sand. TC2826208.2s Page A-8 GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity Soil Reaction Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTD Group Unified Soil micro misec (pH) 2 3 inches 26 inches fine sandy loam Silt -Clay COARSE-GRAINED Max: 141 Max: 7.3 Materials (more SOILS, Sands, Min: 42 Min: 5.6 than 35 pct. Clean Sands, passing No. Poorly graded 200). Silty sand. Soils. COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Silty Sand. 3 26 inches 59 inches loamy sand Sill -Clay COARSE-GRAINED Max: 141 Max: 7.3 Materials (more SOILS, Sands, Min: 42 Min: 5.6 than 35 pct. Clean Sands, passing No. Poorly graded 200), Silty sand. Soils. COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Silty Sand. Soil Map ID: 4 Soil Component Name: Indianola Soil Surface Texture: loamy fine sand Hydrologic Group: Class A - High infiltration rates. Soils are deep, well drained to excessively drained sands and gravels. Soil Drainage Class: Somewhat excessively drained Hydric Status: Not hydric Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate Depth to Bedrock Min: > 0 inches Depth to Watertable Min: > 0 inches TC2826208.2s Page A-9 GEOCHECK° - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity Soil Reaction Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil micro misec (pH) 1 0 inches 5 inches loamy fine sand Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 705 Max: 6.5 materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 141 Min: 6.1 pct. or less Sands with fines, passing No. Silty Sand. 200), Silty, or Clayey Gravel and Sand. 2 5 inches 29 inches loamy fine sand Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 705 Max: 6.5 materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 141 Min: 6.1 pct. or less Sands with fines, passing No. Silty Sand. 200), Silty, or Clayey Gravel and Sand. 3 29 inches 59 inches sand Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 705 Max: 6.5 materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 141 Min: 6.1 pct. or less Sands with fines, passing No. Silty Sand. 200), Silty, or Clayey Gravel and Sand. LOCAL ! REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells. WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles) Federal USGS 1.000 Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile State Database 1.000 FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION MAP ID WELL ID Al USGS3276534 A2 USGS3276529 LOCATION FROM TP 118 - 114 Mile SE 118 - 114 Mile SE TC2826208.2s Page A-10 GEOCHECKi' . PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP 3 USGS3281028 114 -1/2 Mile NE 4 USGS3276507 114 - 112 Mile South 8 USGS3276505 112 - 1 Mile WSW FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP No PWS System Found Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP 6 WA6000000012779 114 - 112 Mile NE TC2826208.2s Page A-11 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 2826208.2s County Boundary Major Roads Contour Lines kAirports 00 Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater (2) Water Wells Q Public Water Supply Wells i Cluster of Multiple Icons 0 1M 1!2 1 Mlles Groundwater Flow Direction Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location (c v) Groundwater Flow Varies at Location ® Closest Hydrogeological Data SITE NAME: Sunset Terrace Senior Housing Center Development CLIENT: CH2M Hill, Inc. ADDRESS: Sunset Lane NE at NE 10th St CONTACT: Jessie Yap Renton WA 98056 INQUIRY #: 2826208.2s LAT/LONG: 47.50071122.1818 DATE: July 28, 2010 12:34 pm Copyright ,t 2010 EDR. Inc.:', 2010 Tek Atlas Rel, 07!2009. GEOCHECKo- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Map ID Direction Distance Elevation Database EDR ID Number Al SE FED USGS USGS3276534 118-114Mile Higher Agency cd: USGS Site no: 472956122103801 Site name: 23N105E-09CO2 Latitude: 472956 EDR Site id: USGS3276534 Longitude: 1221038 Dec lat: 47A9871 119 Dec Ion: -122.17845448 Coor meth: M Coor accr. S Latlong datum: NAD27 Dec latlong datum: NAD83 District: 53 State: 53 County: 033 Counlry: US Land net: NE NW S09 T23N R05E W Location map: RENTON Map scale: 24000 Altitude: 400 Altitude method: Interpolated from topographic map Altitude accuracy: 3 Altitude datum: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 Hydrologic: Lake Washington. Washington. Area = 619 sq.mi. Topographic: Not Reported Site type: Ground -water other than Spring Date construction: 19010101 Date inventoried: Not Reported Mean greenwich time offset: PST Local standard time flag: Y Type of ground water site: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Aquifer Type: Not Reported Aquifer: Not Reported Well depth: 200 Hole depth: Not Reported Source of depth data: driller Project number: Not Reported Real time data flag: 0 Daily flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data count: 0 Peak Flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data end dale: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data count: 0 Water quality data begin dale: 0000-00-00 Water quality data end date:0000-00-00 Water quality data count: 0 Ground water data begin date: 1958-10-01 Ground water data end date: 1958-10-01 Ground water data count: 1 Ground -water levels, Number of Measurements: 1 Feet below Feet to Date Surface Sealevel 1958-10-01 55 Note: The site was being pumped. A2 SE FED USGS USGS3276529 118 - 114 Mile Higher TC2826208.2s Page A-13 GEOCHECKQ- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Agency cd: USGS Site no: 472955122103701 Site name: 23NI05E-09001 1221038 Dec lat: Latitude: 472955 EDR Site id: USGS3276529 Longitude: 1221037 Dec lat: 47,49843342 Dec Ion: -122.17817669 Coor meth: M Coor accr: S Latlong datum: NAD27 Dec latlong datum: NAD83 District: 53 State: 53 County: 033 Country: US Land net: NE NW S09 T23N R05E W Location map: RENTON Map scale: 24000 Altitude: 350 Altitude method: Interpolated from topographic map Altitude accuracy: 3 Altitude datum: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 Hydrologic: Lake Washington. Washington. Area = 619 sq.mi. Topographic: Not Reported Site type: Ground -water other than Spring Date construction: 19480301 Date inventoried: Not Reported Mean greenwich time offset: PST Local standard time flag: y Type of ground water site: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Aquifer Type: Not Reported Aquifer: Not Reported Well depth: 175 Hale depth: Not Reported Source of depth data: driller Project number: Not Reported Real time data flag: 0 Daily flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data count: 0 Peak flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data count: 0 Water quality data begin date: 0000-00-00 Water quality data end date:0000-00.00 Water quality data count: 0 Ground water data begin date: 1948-03-01 Ground water data end date: 1948-03-01 Ground water data count: 1 Ground -water levels, Number of Measurements: 1 Feet below Feet to Date Surface Sealevel 1948-03-01 72 3 NE 114 - 112 Mile Higher Agency cd: Site name: Latitude: Longitude: Dec Ion: Coor accr: Dec latlong datum: State: Country: Location map: Altitude: Altitude method: Altitude accuracy: Altitude datum: Hydrologic: Topographic: Site type: Date inventoried: USGS Site no: 23NI05E-04P01 473015 EDR Site id: 1221038 Dec lat: -122.17845455 Coor meth: S Latlong datum? NAD83 District: 53 County: U5 Land net: MERCER ISLAND Map scale: 300 Interpolated from topographic map 2 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 Lake Washington. Washington. Area = 619 sq.mi. Not Reported USGS3281028 474846122103801 USGS3281028 47.50398894 M NAD27 53 033 SE SW SO4 T23N R05E W 24000 Ground -water other than Spring Date construction: 19010101 Not Reported Mean greenwich time offset: PST TC2826208.2s Page A-14 GEOCHECK@- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Local standard time flag: Y Type of ground water site: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Aquifer Type: Not Reported Aquifer. Not Reported FED USGS USGS3276507 Well depth: 120 Hole depth: Not Reported Source of depth data: driller Project number: Not Reported Site no: 472948122105001 Real time data flag: 0 Daily flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data count: 0 Peak flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data count: 0 Water quality data begin date: 0000-00-00 Water quality data end date:0000-00-00 Water quality data count: 0 Ground water data begin date: 1972-08-10 Ground water data end date: 1972-08-10 Ground water data count: 1 State: 53 Ground -water levels, Number of Measurements: 1 Feet below Feet to Date Surface Sealevel 1972-08-10 8 4 South FED USGS USGS3276507 114 - 112 Mile Lower Agency cd: USGS Site no: 472948122105001 Site name: 23N105E-09E01 Latitude: 472948 EDR Site id: USGS3276507 Longitude: 1221050 Dec lat: 47.49648895 Dec Ion: -122.18178784 Coor meth: M Coor accr: S Latlong datum: NA027 Dec latlong datum: NAD83 District: 53 State: 53 County: 033 Counlry; us Land net: 5W NW S09 T23N R05E W Location map: RENTON Map scale: 24000 Altitude: 285 Altitude method: Interpolated from topographic map Altitude accuracy: 3 Altitude dalum: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 Hydrologic: Lake Washington. Washington. Area = 619 sq.mi. Topographic: Not Reported Site type: Ground -water other than Spring Date construction: 19430905 Date inventoried: Not Reported Mean greenwich time offset: PST Local standard time Flag: y Type of ground water site: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Aquifer Type: Not Reported Aquifer: Not Reported Well depth: 424 Hole depth: Not Reported Source of depth data: other Project number: Not Reported Real time data flag: 0 Daily flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data count: 0 Peak flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data count: 0 Water quality data begin dale: 1951-06-04 Water quality data end date:1951-06-04 Water quality data count: 1 Groundwater data begin date: 1943-09-05 Ground water data end date: 1943-09-05 Ground water data count: 1 TC2826208.2s Page A-15 GEOCHECK9- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Ground -water levels, Number of Measurements: 1 Feet below Feet to Date Surface Sealevel ------------------------------------------------- 1943-09-05 85 Site ID: 2709 5 Site ID: 415001 ENE Groundwater Flow: NE Groundwater Flow: NNE AQUIFLOW 61241 AQUIFLOW 61029 114 - 112 Mile Higher Shallowest Water Table Depth: Not Reported Deepest Water Table Depth: Not Reported 18.47 Average Water Table Depth: 55 Average Water Table Depth: Not Reported Date: 01/15/1998 Date: 6 8 NE WA WELLS WA6000000012779 114 - 112 Mile Higher 112-1 Mile Objectid: 12379 Pwssrcid: 7185006 Oid : 16725 Pwsid: 71850 Srcnum: 06 Systemname: RENTON, CITY OF Systemgrp: A Systemtype: Comm Region: Northwest County: KING Srcname: WELL N4 Srctype: Ground Water - Well Srcuse: Emergency 47.49621103 Dec Ion: Longitude: -122.177 Coor meth: M Latitude: 47.50492 Latlong datum: Locmethod: Quarter Quarter Section Sresuscept: Not Rated Dayphone: (425) 430-7400 Addrl: Not Reported Addr2: 3555 NE 2ND ST City: RENTON State: WA Zip: 98056 Emailaddr: rsled@ci.renton.wa.us Site id: WA600DO00012779 7 Site ID: 2709 ENE Groundwater Flow: Not Reporled AQUIFLOW 61241 112 -11 Mile Hi Higher Shallowest Water Table Depth: 7.75 Deepest Water Table Depth: 18.47 Average Water Table Depth: Not Reported Date: 0212911996 8 WSW FED USGS USGS3276505 112-1 Mile Lower Agency cd: USGS Site no: 472947122114901 Site name: 23N105E-08F01 Latilude: 472947 EDR Site id: USGS3276505 Longitude: 1221149 Dec let: 47.49621103 Dec Ion: -122.19817703 Coor meth: M Coor accr: S Latlong datum: NAD27 Dec latlong datum: NAD83 District: 53 State: 53 County: 033 Country: US Land net: SE NW S08 T23N R05E W Location map: RENTON Map scale: 24000 TC2826208.2s Page A-16 GEOCHECK�= - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS Altitude: 34 Altitude method: Interpolated from topographic map Altitude accuracy: 3 Altitude datum: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 Hydrologic: Lake Washington. Washington Area = 619 sq.mi. Topographic: Not Reported Site type: Ground -water other than Spring Date construction 19620101 Date inventoried: Not Reported Mean greenwich time offset: PST Local standard time flag: y Type of ground water site: Single well, other than collector or Ranney type Aquifer Type: Not Reported Aquifer: Not Reported Well depth: 131 Hole depth: Not Reported Source of depth data: driller Project number: Not Reported Real time data Flag: 0 Daily flow Hata begin date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data end date: 0000-00-00 Daily flow data count: 0 Peak flow data begin date: 0000-00-00 Peak flow data end date: 0040-00-00 Peak flow data count: 0 Water quality data begin date: 0000-00-00 Water quality data end date:0000-00-00 Water quality data count: 0 Ground water data begin dale: 1962-01-01 Ground water data end date: 1962-01-01 Ground water data count: 1 Ground -water levels, Number of Measurements: 1 Feet below Feet to Date Surface Sealevel 1962-01-01 9 TC2826208.2s Page A-17 GEOCHECK&- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS RADON AREA RADON INFORMATION Federal EPA Radon Zone for KING County: 3 Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCiIL. Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L. Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCiIL. Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code: 98056 Number of sites tested: 2 Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L % 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCiIL Living Area - 1st Floor 0.800 pCiIL 100% 0% 0% Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Basement 0.600 pCiIL 100% 0% 0% TC2826208.2s Page A-18 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model (DEM) -Source: United States Geologic Survey EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000 -scale topographic quadrangle maps The DEM provides elevation data with consistent elevation units and projection. Scanned Digital USGS 7.5' Topographic Map (DRG) Source: United States Geologic Survey A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images are made by scanning published paper reaps on high-resolution scanners- The raster image is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection. HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2009 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100 -year and 500 -year flood zones as defined by FEMA. NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EOR in 2002 and 2005 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION AQUIFLOWR Information System Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table information. OJIFc74 droll Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R E Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital representation of the 1974 P.S. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). STATSGO- State Soil Geographic Database Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database Source- Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Telephone: 800-672-5559 SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Services, mapping scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county natural resource planning and management. TC2826208.2s Page A-19 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED LOCAL 1 REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS FEDERAL WATER WELLS PWS: Public Water Systems Source: EPAJOffice of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-564-3750 Public Water System dale from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources. PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPAOffice of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-564-3750 Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory -System (NWIS) This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater. STATE RECORDS Water Wells Source: Department of Health Telephone: 360-236-3148 Group A and B well locations. Water Well Listing Source: Public Utility District Telephone: 206-779-7656 A listing of water well locations in Kitsap County. OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION RADON Area Radon Information Source: USGS Telephone: 703-356-4020 The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPAIState Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. EPA Radon Zones Source: EPA Telephone: 703-356-4020 Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. OTHER Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656 Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration TC2826208.2s Page A-20 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION O 2010 Tele Atlas North America. Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material. TC2826208.2s Page A-21 Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Goals, objectives, and Policies Appendix E City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies - This appendix lists the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as they apply to the following sections of the EIS: Land Use Aesthetics • Transportation • Public Services Within each section the list is broken down by the Comprehensive Plan element from which it is excerpted. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement E 1 ICF 59110 City of Renton Land Use Appendix E This section includes goals, objectives, and policies relevant to land use from the Land Use, Housing, Transportation, Capital Facilities, and Economic Development elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element Policy LU -145. Multi -family unit types are encouraged as part of mixed-use developments in the Urban Center, Center Village, Commercial/Office/Residential, and the Commercial Corridor Land Use designations. Policy LU -149. Discourage creation of socio-economic enclaves, especially where lower income units would be segregated within a development. Objective LU -MM: Encourage the development of infill parcels with quality projects in existing multi- family districts. Centers Objective LU -NN: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a viable district Policy LU -183. Promote the innovative site planning and clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU -184. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives. Policy LU -189. Support new office and commercial development that is more intensive than the older office and commercial development in existing Centers in order to create more compact and efficient Centers over time. Policy LU -190. Allow stand-alone residential development of various types and urban densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial development... Policy LU -191. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed-use developments. Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial uses or lower density residential that is adjacent to Centers. Policy LU -192. Include uses that are compatible with each other within mixed-use developments; for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and retail. Objective LU -XX: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provide a pedestrian scale environment Policy LU -237. Zone property as Center Village in areas served by transit that are characterized by existing commercial and multi -family development that are envisioned to become mixed use, pedestrian oriented, community centers and serve as a community focal point. Policy LU -238. Zone property R-14 within the Center Village land use designation in areas where a compact mix of housing types (including small lot single family, semi -attached, and attached housing) is desired. Ideally, R-14 areas provide a transition between higher intensity zones within the Center Village designation and the surrounding land uses. Policy LU -239. Zone property for Residential Multi -Family (RMF)... development where existing multi- family development exists at the intensity suggested by the zone, or where additional multi -family development is desired and can be buffered from lower intensity land uses by the R-14 zone. Sunset Area community Planned Action E-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix E Policy LU -240. Allow residential density ranging from a mininturn of 10 to a maximum of SO dwelling units per acre in the Center Village designation. Policy LU -241. Encourage mixed-use structures and projects. Policy LU -242. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency. Policy LU -243. Encourage uses in Center Villages that serve a sub -regional or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU -244. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within Center Villages than with land uses outside the Centers. Policy LU -245. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU -246. Residential development within Center Villages is intended to be urban scale, stacked, fiat and/or townhouse development with structured parking. Policy LU -248. Provide community scale office and service uses. Housing Element Objective H -D: Encourage the private sector to provide market rate housing for the widest potential range of income groups including middle- and moderate -income households. Objective H -E: Increase housing opportunities for low and very low-income Renton residents and provide a fair share of low-income housing in the future. Policy H-29. Support proposals for low-income housing for households earning less than 60 percent of area median income based on the following criteria: 1) Dispersion of low-income housing throughout the City. 2) Convenient access to transit for low-income households. 3) A range of unit types including family housing. 4) Ownership housing when possible. 5) Long-term affordability. Policy H-35. Support the housing programs of social service organizations, including the Renton Housing Authority, that provide opportunities for special needs populations. Objective H -G. Allow the construction of a variety of housing types affordable to low, moderate, and middle-income households when site plans and subdivisions address maintaining the quality of neighborhoods. Objective H -M: Develop location designated residential living environments in mixed-use developments, as defined in the Land Use Element. Transportation Element Goals 1. Contribute to a balanced multi -modal transportation system through reasonable, planned, economically feasible arterial improvements that enhance HOV and transit operations, support adopted land use plans, protect or improve business access, and protect Renton's neighborhoods. 2. Maximize the use of transit in Renton by providing step-by-step transit improvements to produce regionally linked and locally oriented transit services and facilities needed to serve travel demand generated by Renton residents and businesses. Sunset Area Community Plarned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement E 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix E 3. Increase the person -carrying capacity of the Renton arterial system by the construction of improvements and the implementation of actions that facilitate the Flow of HOVs into, out of, and through Renton. 4. Maintain, enhance, and increase pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing both safe and convenient routes and storage for the commuting and recreating public. S. Encourage and facilitate the reduction of commute and other trips made via single occupant vehicles. B. Develop a funding and implementation program for needed transportation improvements supporting adopted land use policies, that distributes transportation costs equitably between public agencies and private development Capital Facilities Element Policy CFP -2. Level of service standards should be maintained at the current or at a greater level of service for existing facilities within the City of Renton, which the City has control over. Policy CFP -3. Adequate public capital facilities should be in place concurrent with development Concurrent with development shall mean the existence of adequate facilities, strategies, or services when development occurs or the existence of a financial commitment to provide adequate facilities, strategies, or services within six years of when development occurs. Policy CFP -4. No deterioration of existing levels of service that the City of Renton has control over should occur due to growth, consistent with Policy CFP -3. Economic Development Element Objective ED -A: Use public resources efficiently to leverage economic development. Policy ED -1. Fund infrastructure improvements in targeted areas to encourage development and redevelopment Objective ED -B: Expand the retail and office base within the City. Sunset Area Community Planned Action E-4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmentai fmpact Statement U 593.10 City of Renton Aesthetics Appendix E This section includes objectives and policies relevant to aesthetics from the Community Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Objective CD -C: Promote reinvestment in and upgrade of existing residential neighborhoods through redevelopment of small, underutilized parcels with infill development, modification and alteration of older housing stock, and improvements to streets and sidewalks to increase property values. Policy CD -11. Support modification of existing commercial and residential structures and site improvements that implement the current land use policies as reinvestment occurs in neighborhoods. Such modifications may consist of parking lot design, landscaping renovation, new coordinated signage, and site plan/building alterations that update structures to contemporary standards. Policy CD -12. Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along streets in established neighborhoods, where sidewalks have not been previously constructed. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic and, where practical, match existing sidewalks. Policy CD -14. Infill development, defined as new short plats of nine or fewer lots, should be encouraged in order to add variety, update housing stock, and increase vitality of neighborhoods. Policy CD -15. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. Policy CD -1$. Architecture of new structures in established areas should be visually compatible with other structures on the site and with adjacent development. Visual compatibility should be evaluated using the following criteria: a) Where there are differences in height (e.g., new two-story development adjacent to single -story structures), the architecture of the new structure should include details and elements of design such as window treatment, roof type, entries, or porches that reduce the visual mass of the structure. b) Garages, whether attached or detached, should be constructed using the same pattern of development established in the vicinity. c) Structures should have entries, windows, and doors located to maintain privacy in neighboring yards and buildings, Objective CD -E: New development and infill patterns should be consistent with a high quality urban form. Policy CD -34. Support project site planning in Residential land use designations that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in order to meet the intent of the objective: 1) Buildings oriented toward public streets, 2) Private open space for ground -related units, 3) Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful, 4) Preferably underground parking or structured parking located under the residential building, 5) Surface parking, if necessary, to be located to the side or rear of the residential building(s), 6) Landscaping of ail pervious areas of the property, and 7) Landscaping, consisting of groundcover and street trees (at a minimum), of all setbacks and rights -of way abutting the property, Policy CD -35. Support commercial and industrial development plans incorporating the following features: Sunset Area Commun'Fty Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement E_5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix E 1) Shared access points and fewer curb cuts; 2) More than one use into a single development; 3) Properties in more than one ownership; 4) Internal circulation among adjacent parcels; 5) Buildings that front on the street with service and parking areas located behind the building and/or screen from front views; 6) Shared facilities for parking, transit, recreation, and amenities; 7) Allowance for future transition to structured parking facilities; 8) Centralized signage; 9) Unified development concepts; and 10) Landscaping and streetscape that softens visual impacts. Policy CD -36. Developments within Commercial and Centers land use designations should have a combination of internal and external site design features, such as: 1) Public plazas; 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Public access to natural features or views; 4) Distinctive focal features; 5) Indication of the function as a gateway, if appropriate; 6) Structured parking; and 7) Other features meeting the spirit and intent of the land use designation. Policy CD -40. Use design regulations to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation. Policy CD -42. Site design should address the effects of light, glare, noise, vegetation removal, and traffic in residential areas. Overall development densities may be reduced within the allowed density range to mitigate potential adverse impacts. Objective CD -l: Protect and enhance public views of distinctive features from public streets and other focal points within the City and the surrounding area. Policy CD -64. Scenic views and view corridors along roadways in the City should be identified and preserved through application of development standards. Policy CD -65. Access from public roadways to views of features of distinction should be enhanced through the development of public viewpoints where appropriate. Policy CD -66. Neighborhood identity should be established by featuring views, highlighting landmarks, or creating focal points of distinction. Policy CD -67. Focal points should have a combination of public areas, such as parks or plazas; architectural features, such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops, or outdoor eating areas; and landscaped areas. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways. Objective CD -j: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community aesthetic. Policy CD -6$. Structures should be designed (e.g. building height, orientation, materials, color and bulk) to mitigate potential adverse impacts, such as glare or shadows on adjacent less intense land uses and transportation corridors. Policy CD -69. Rooftops that can be seen from higher elevations, taller buildings, and public streets, parks, or open space should be designed to hide mechanical equipment and to incorporate high-quality roofing materials. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement E 6 ICF 59310 City of Renton Appendix E Policy CD -70. Design characteristics in larger, new developments or individual building complexes should contribute to neighborhood and/or district identity. Objective CD -L: New commercial and industrial buildings should be architecturally compatible with their surroundings in terms of their bulk and scale, exterior materials, and color when existing development is consistent with the adopted land use vision and Purpose Statements for each Commercial. Center Designation, and Employment Area in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Center and Commercial Policies. Policy CD -75. A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged and innovative use of building materials and finishes should be promoted. Policy CD -76. Development should provide appropriate landscaping and facade treatment when located along designated City arterials or adjacent to less intense developments in order to mitigate potentially adverse visual or other impacts. Policy CD -78. Encourage a variety of architectural treatments and styles to create an urban environment. Objective CD -O: Promote development of attractive, walkable neighborhoods and shopping areas by ensuring that streets are safe, convenient, and pleasant for pedestrians. Policy CD -96. Aesthetic improvements along street frontages should be provided, especially for properties abutting major streets and boulevards. Incentives should be provided for the inclusion of streetscape amenities including: landscaping, public art, street furniture, paving, signs, and planting strips in developing and redeveloping areas. Policy CD -97. Require significant pedestrian element in internal site circulation plans. Policy CD -99. Commercial Corridor intersections frequented by pedestrians, due to the nature of nearby uses or transit stops, should feature sidewalk pavement increased to form pedestrian corners and include pedestrian amenities, signage, and special design treatment that would make them identifiable as activity areas for the larger corridor. Policy CD -101: Criteria should be developed to locate pedestrian and bicycle connections in the City. Criteria should consider: Linking residential areas with employment and commercial areas; a) Providing access along arterials; b) Providing access within residential areas; c) Filling gaps in the existing sidewalk system where appropriate; and d) Providing access through open spaces and building entries to shorten walking distances. Policy CD -103. Landscaped parking strips should be considered for use as a safety buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles along arterials and collector streets. Policy CD -104. Intersections should be designed to minimize pedestrian crossing distance and increase safety for disabled pedestrians. Policy CD -108. To visually improve the streetscape, increase the safety of perimeter sidewalks, and facilitate off-street parking, construction of alleys providing rear access to service entries and garages should be encouraged. Alleys are preferred in small -lot subdivisions to provide higher quality site planning that allows garage access from the rear and reduces curb cuts and building mass on narrow lots. Policy CD -109. Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along residential streets. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic. Policy CD -110. Street trees should be used to reinforce visual corridors along major boulevards and streets. Policy CD -112. Appearance of parking lots should be improved by screening through appropriate combinations of landscaping, fencing, and berms. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement E-7 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix E Objective CD -R: lighting systems in public rights-of-way should be provided to improve safety, aid in direction finding, and provide information for commercial and other business purposes. Excess lighting beyond what is necessary should be avoided. Policy CD -123. All exterior lighting should be focused and directed away from adjacent properties and wildlife habitat to prevent spillover or glare. Policy CD -126. lighting fixtures should be attractively designed to complement the architecture of a development, the site, and adjacent buildings. Policy CD -126. Lighting within commercial and public areas should be located and designed to enhance security and encourage nighttime use by pedestrians. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2011) Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement E_g ICF 593.10 City of Renton Transportation Appendix E This section includes goals relevant to transportation from the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Transportation Element Goals 1. Contribute to a balanced multi -modal transportation system through reasonable, planned, economically feasible arterial improvements that enhance HOV and transit operations, support adopted land use plans, protect or improve business access, and protect Renton's neighborhoods. 2. Maximize the use of transit in Renton by providing step-by-step transit improvements to produce regionally linked and locally oriented transit services and facilities needed to serve travel demand generated by Renton residents and businesses. 4. Maintain, enhance, and increase pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing both safe and convenient routes and storage for the commuting and recreating public. 9. Develop a transportation system that contributes to the attainment and maintenance of regional air and water quality standards within the City of Renton, and complies with regional, state, and Federal air water quality standards, and preserves/ protects natural resources. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement E 9 U 553.10 City of Renton Public Services Appendix E This section includes objectives and policies relevant to public services from the Land Use and Capital Facilities elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element Public Facilities Objective LU -1R: Locate and plan for public facilities in ways that benefit a broad range of potential public uses. Policy LU -83. Support incorporation of public facilities such as schools, museums, medical offices, and government offices into redevelopment efforts by developing a public/private partnership with developers and other Renton stakeholders such as the school district, technical college, and hospital district. Objective LU -5: Site and design municipal facilities to provide the most efficient and convenient service for people while minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding uses. Policy LU -89. Future fire stations should be sited central to their service area with as few barriers as possible in order to achieve best possible response times. Policy LU -90. Land for future fire stations should be acquired in advance in areas where the greatest amount of development is anticipated. Policy LU -91. Site and building design of police facilities providing direct service to the general public should be easily accessible. Policy LU -92. Major functions of the police should be centralized in or near the Urban Center. Policy LU -93. Satellite police facilities may be located outside of the Urban Center. Policy LU -98. When branch libraries are developed, they should be located to provide convenient access to a majority of their users. Policy LU -99. Future branch libraries and other satellite services may be located in mixed-use developments to serve concentrations of users in those areas. Policy LU -103. The City and the school district should jointly develop multiple -use facilities (e.g. playgrounds, sports fields) whenever practical. Policy LU -104. Community use of school sites and facilities for non -school activities should be encouraged. Policy LU -105. School facilities that are planned for closure, should be considered for potential public use before being sold for private development, Objective LU -W: Assure that adequate land and infrastructure are available for the development and expansion of facilities to serve the health care needs of the area. Capital Facilities Element Policy CFP -1. The Capital Facilities Plan should be updated on a regular basis as part of the city's budget process, and such update may include adjustments to growth projections for the ensuing six years, to level of service standards, to the list of needed facilities, or to anticipated funding sources. For the purpose of capital facilities planning, plan for forecast growth at the high end of the projected range and targeted growth as a minimum. Policy CFP -2. Level of service standards should be maintained at the current or at a greater level of service for existing facilities within the City of Renton, which the City has control over. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement E-10 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Appendix E Policy CFP -3. Adequate public capital facilities should be in place concurrent with development. Concurrent with development shall mean the existence of adequate facilities, strategies, or services when development occurs or the existence of a financial commitment to provide adequate facilities, strategies, or services within six years of when development occurs. Policy CFP -4. No deterioration of existing levels of service that the City of Renton has control over should occur due to growth, consistent with Policy CFP -3. Policy CFP -5. Funding for new, improved, or expanded public facilities or services should come from a mix of sources in order to distribute the cost of such facilities or services according to use, need, and adopted goals and policies. Policy CFP -6. Evaluate levying impact fees on development for municipal services and/or school district services upon the request of each school district within the City limits, if a compelling need is established through means such as presentation of an adopted Capital Facilities Plan and demonstration that such facilities are needed to accommodate projected growth and equitably distributed throughout the district Policy CFP -9. Adopt by reference the most current Renton School District #403 Capital Facilities Plan and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan. Policy CFP -10. Support private/public partnerships to plan and finance infrastructure development, public uses, structured parking and community amenities to stimulate additional private investment and produce a more urban environment. Sunset Area Community Planned Action E-11 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement icr 593.10 Appendix F Transportation Data and Analysis W ON 2 > § \ c ct: ■ LU �R O k F- e e R e e F- u u u u u u 0 0 0 0 0 0 £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 g g g g g g g g g g g u u u u o u u u u o 0 £ 3£££ 3& 5 5 3£ @ n 7» f% o T 2 Q� CL CL CL i w CL w± CL CL E a- a- I E a. a a. a. E E E e R e e e e F- m F- F- F- � / / / / £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ k k k k k k k k a & n n— n m m M|� k E LU / 2 > 2 2 0 \ 0 0 \\ % 7 \ 0/ b k k 7 / f t k a t o Co ' g \ 0 CL -> 2 0 2 3 Ir0�/ 7 f I iD — n ƒ m o \ m R R@ R@ e e F- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2@@ 2 2 2 k k k 2 k 2 z 2 C4 5 5 E£ E E 5± N Ln Ln LO w w Ln w"| R 6 0 9 7 9 9% 9 # M m m EE m m m� | ' F- m m m 3 3 \\\k/\\\||k\\\\\ 2 z Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 m N m r| v| N Lo m» r r 9® 7 2 9% 9 g�? f 9 ff � Ir Df It af Ir \\\\\\ 0 0 2 2 r- 2 2 2 \ k 2 _ 0 2 § � / \ 3CL E I$/ \ k k c c& / m e±\ t2& -f : f« e k = E \ ƒ >1 § ± \ \ E 2 3 m cn \ \ \ w / \ \ \ / w ƒ I w U- \ 9® 7 2 9% 9 g�? f 9 ff � Ir Df It af Ir \\\\\\ 0 0 2 2 r- 2 2 2 ce) CN 2 x C3 >1 x x k x k F- / / \ / / ¢ E3 F5 � ¢ . .F - x � . " .�2 2 2_ _ � / / / \ ƒ / k . '2 0 3 2 2 0 :£ - ; Z Z z z z 2 : 2 , < 2 2 2 g g g 2 Cl) \ LO n m M r * . % % I 0 a m 2 I / F 2 - � . @ � q f � c \ d)E g k $> £ ® f $ /� k E x0 c U ƒ G � § E ` E .o & E 2 0 @ 9 7 r e — _ \ /\ IL m m m a a fa' ,_ id r-� N 3 zim x x 1XI FIXI =I I I x x t° ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ m m m m m m m m m m as m m m m m m m m 11 x x x x x m m m m m m m m m m m m m ma ma i-- i F- x a aq'o aC aC aC a -a 'o a a am (1) (1) as a) m (1) as a) a) a> m m a) a) a) a> a a a a a a -a a -a -¢m m a a a -o > > > 0 0 u u U 0 Q u V U La UC G C C C rs- C C C C C C C C 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z x x x x x o* a a o -6 -0 a u -o 6 -6 a -C -a -o a a a a a� w m a� ar ar m m m ar a� ar a� m a� m m m ar C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Q Q Q Q iT C' N M M r M M CO M � R 0 � N to U ❑ w co W IL 3 d 9 fp C W a {p Q 4 a7 7. j J o j U J p V d =E L O _� O z LL au �1 W O 7 O CL. . E N d p J m m m m f4 d @ m N L - fl? L U Q 7 Q (0 -0C W � a, c f4 W Q L Q U O o 7 W' 2 7 o�� 7 C ¢ ( j Q 0 O ;a+ (1) N —O 0 jo @ T- Z, U O ca o Q.1 t W C 2 p n _1 CO W r N M U? I? fl a W a a a a cL o. a a a W W W w w W w w / F- � m m E 3 e R e e \ \ \ \ k \ \ \ \ z k k k 2 2 2 k 2 � 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 £ £ £ £ £ £ £ = 5 ƒ z k k k k k k £ w Ln Ln Ln A& r N (NI R| CNN q r| « 0 k @ « § � E t 0 t .0 7 E _ - 2 2 ® f w '§ / c £ £ Iƒ\/ f E S b c s L[ I = # \ k § \ 2 / Lu e i w a/ — C4 n 7 m c w OD / 0 o F- -0 7 7 7 7 7 7 a 2 @ k k k k 0 2 ¥ 7 & ƒ 2 k � m � E o 0 0 7 m « / \ q § § \ 0� 3 k >: J 0 « 0 E c \ s 2/ .- ƒ i% f\ 2 g 2 \ e u k § W 2ƒ§ I § 0 -L) m \ \ 2 $ E % 3: 2 9C? f f 9% 9? \ ¢ $ $ $ a $ $ $ « 0 k @ « § � E t 0 t .0 7 E _ - 2 2 ® f w '§ / c £ £ Iƒ\/ f E S b c s L[ I = # \ k § \ 2 / Lu e i w a/ — C4 n 7 m c w OD / 0 o F- -0 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 @ k k k k k k 2 ¥ 7 & 2 2» 5 2 3 £ £ £ £ £ £ N � � » Ln LO \ � 2 @ U) 2 ¥ 7 & ƒ 2 o 0 0 7 m / \ q I 0� 3 k k k \ § § q MXIXIX ± x% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R e e e p@ R / % ¢ ¢ � � � • 2 2 2 2 2 2 / / / / / / / , } k k k k k k , k k k \ \ \ \ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 @ 2 y @ @ ul n n r n o o .. § a % m % 0 0 a R J U O . - � 7 S \ � § # � _ (D [ g 2 / « �_ \ x J [ \ = I $ \ ./ I / J / ,o n 7 m c - ' L F- CL a a CL CL CL HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd. 101161201C c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 -4. 7 Lane Configurations tt I if Volume (vph) 1485 84 167 994 57 223 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util, Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.78 _ 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1500 101 206 1046 73 262 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 231 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1596 0 206 1046 73 Turn Type Prot _31 _ Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 44.5 14.0 62.5 8.5 8.5 Effective Green, g (s) 46.5 45.0 64.5 9.5 9.5 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.58 0.19 0.81 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2038 332 2853 210 188 vis Ratio Prot c0.46 c0.112 0.30 c0.04 0.02 vis Ratio Perm v!c Ratio 0.78 0.62 0.37 0.35 0.17 Uniform Delay; d1 12.9 29.9 2.1 32.4 31.7 Progression Factor 0.38 0.68 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 3.2 0.3 1.0 0.4 Delay (s) 7.5 23.4 0.5 33.4 32.1 Level of Service A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 7.5 4.2 32.4 Approach LOS A A C HCM Average Control Delay 8.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80,0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 10116;2010 Lane Configurations +14 Vi +T+ Vi T+ I TIP Volume (vph) 140 1357 92 44 914 8 54 26 30 6 42 119 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane U61. Facto 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1677 1770 1614 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.66 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 618 1677 1230 1614 Peak -hour factor, PHI 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 1428 130 51 1027 14 64 50 42 10 64 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 36 0 0 120 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 1553 0 51 1040 0 64 56 0 10 86 0 Tum Type Prat Prat Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 50.4 5.4 40.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 52.4 6.4 42.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.65 0.08 0.53 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 2289 142 1863 94 256 188 246 vls Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.44 0.03 c0.29 0.03 0.05 vls Ratio Perm 00.10 0.01 vlc Ratio 0.45 0.68 0.36 0.56 0.68 0.22 0.05 0.35 Uri (form Delay, d1 27.7 8.6 34.9 12.7 32.1 29.7 29.0 30.3 Progression Factor 0.89 0.69 1.14 0.53 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.1 2.0 1.1 19.8 0.6 0:2 1.2 Delay (s) 25.5 7.0 41.6 7.8 51.9 303 29.1 31.5 Level of Service C A D A D C C C Approach Delay (s) 8.8 9.4 39.2 31.4 Approach LOS A A D C HCM Average Control Delay 12.0 HCM Level of Service S HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington AV NE 1011612010 4N t /00� 4 1 Lane Configurations Vi +T V1 +T+ 41� 4p - Volume (vph) 24 1300 49 75 1041 3 41 9 76 9 18 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Lane Util Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3515 1770 3535 1685 1736 Ht Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.92 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 _ 3515 1770 3535 1545 1615 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 0.90 _ 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 A4. Flow (vph) 32 1444 68 87 1132 8 46 18 101 13 32 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 32 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 1509 0 87 1140 0 0 78 0 0 50 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 49.9 7.2 54.7 9.9 9.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.4 51.9 8.2 56.7 10.9 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.65 0.10 0,71 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 2280 181 2505 211 220 vis Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.43 c0,05 c0.32 v1s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.03 vic Ratio 0.43 0.66 0.48 0.45 0.37 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 37.3 8.6 33.9 5.0 31.4 30.8 Progression Factor 0.72 0.25 0.64 0.70 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 1.2 2.3 0.5 1.5 0.7 Delay (s) 30.9 3.4 23.8 4.0 32.9 31.5 Level of Service C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 3.9 5.4 32.9 31.5 Approach LOS A A C C HCM Average Control Delay 6.9 HCM Levei of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 6.0 Intersection Capacity utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd 1011612010 } --. -'V 4--- '1- 4\ t �► l Lane Configurations 1 ♦"o T'li Til� Volume (vph) 15 50 26 197 39 38 44 1129 155 69 1006 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 .3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.96 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (prat) 1778 1756 1770 3462 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.92 0.75 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow perm) 1654 1349 1770 3462 _ 1770 3535 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 A4. Flow (vph) 23 54 27 175 51 60 65 1176 201 83 1070 9 RTQR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 12 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 87 0 0 274 0 65 1362 0 _ 83 1079 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.6 20.6 4.8 39.1 7.3 41.6 Effective Green, g (s) 21.6 21.6 5.8 41.1 8.3 43.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.51 0.10 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 _ Lane Grp Cap (vph) 447 364 128 1779 184 1927 vls Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.39 0.05 c0.31 vls Ratio Perm 0.05 0.20 v!c Ratio 0.20 0.75 0.51 0.77 0.45 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 22.5 26.7 35.7 15.6 33.7 11.9 Progression Factor 0.99 1.00 0.60 0.30 1.32 0.79 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 10.0 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.0 Delay (s) 22.7 36.8 25.0 7.3 46.7 10.5 Level of Service C D C A D B Approach Delay (s) 22.7 36.8 8.1 13.1 Approach LOS C D A B HCM Average Control Delay 13.3, HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 10116/2010 t /00� I l Lane Configurations tt* t *4 4 Volume (vehlh) 65 1118 7 21 849 3 10 3 26 0 3 86 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 82 1242 14 42 943 12 13 12 85 0 12 137 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.79 0.76 0.86 0.86 0.76 0.86 0.86 0.79 vC, conflicting volume 955 1256 2112 2453 628 1910 2454 478 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol. vCu, unblocked vol 418 705 887 1282 0 653 1283 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7,5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 91 94 91 90 90 100 90 84 cM capacity(vehm) 901 675 142 121 824 224 121 859 Volume Total 82 828 428 42 629 326 110 149 Volume Left 82 0 0 42 0 0 13 0 Volume Right 0 0 14 0 0 12 85 137 cSH 901 1700 1700 675 1700 1700 372 574 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.49 0.25 0.06 0.37 0.19 0.30 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 5 0 0 30 26 Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 18.7 13.4 Lane LOS A B C B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.4 18.7 13.4 Approach LOS C B Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 10116/2010 -'V 'r *- k 4\ ,�41 Lane Configurations *M *TT +% 1 T1 Volume (vph) 186 157 11 . 88 85 49 29 1002 115 77 773 143 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (prat) 3318 3222 1770 3480 1770 3449 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3318 3222 1770 3480 1770 3449 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.83 0.77 0.84 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.86 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 202 191 17 114 101 78 37 1066 134 101 849 174 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 50 0 0 11 0 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 406 0 0 243 0 37 1189 _ 0 101 1005 - 0 Tum Type SOR split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 11.1 4.4 313 5.6 32.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 12.1 5.4 33.3 6.6 34.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.15 0.07 0.42 0.08 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 664 487 119 1449 146 1487 vls Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.08 0.02 c0.34 0.06 c0.29 vfs Radio Perm v/c Ratio 0.61 0.50 0.31 0.82 0.69 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 31.2 35.5 20.7 35.7 18.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.18 0.43 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 1.1 1.5 4.1 14.2 2.5 Delay (s) 31.1 32.3 43.4 12.9 49.9 20.7 Level of Service C C D B D C Approach Delay (s) 31.1 32.3 13.9 23.4 Approach LDS C C B C HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 10/16/2010 � 'r 4\ to Lane Configurations +T+ tt ►j r Volume (vehlh) 1224 14 3 993 0 17 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1360 28 12 1103 0 27 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (it) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.74 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 1388 1950 694 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu: unblocked vol 814 1576 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 596 73 800 Volume Total 907 481 12 552 552 27 Volume Left 0 0 12 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 27 cSH 1700 1700 596 1700 1700 400 Volume to Capacity 0.53 0.28 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 14.7 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 14.7 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 10116/2010 No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 Lane Configurations 41 4 Sign Control Stop stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 3 45 6 44 53 239 14 153 56 373 118 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.62 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 55 7 47 57 257 15 163 60 410 130 9 Volume Total (vph) 66 361 178 60 548 Volume left {vph) 4 47 16 0 410 Volume Right (vph) 7 257 0 60 9 Hadj (s). 406 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.2 6.0 6.9 6.1 6.0 Degree Ufilization, x 0.13 0.60 0.34 0.10 0.91 Capacity (veh/h) 455 575 497 551 592 Control Delay (s) 11.2 17.6 12:2 8.6 43.1 Approach Delay (s) 11.2 17.6 11.3 43.1 Approach LCIS B C B E Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.8% ICU Level of service C Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 10116/2010 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 34 306 10 17 296 69 17 17 14 48 17 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 54 414 26 27 370 69 27 40 42 123 40 12 Volume Total (vph) 494 466 110 176 Volume Left (vph) 54 27 27 123 Volume Right (vph) 26 69 42 12 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0,04 -0.15 0.13 Departure Headway (s) 5.8 5.8 7.1 7.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.80 0.75 0.22 0.34 Capacity (vehlh) 603 598 439 454 Control Delay (s) 27.7 24.1 12.0 13.7 Approach Delay (s) 27.7 24.1 12.0 13.7 Approach LOS D C B B Delay 23.0 HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity utilization 43.2°% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE 41) 41� + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop -11 --P, 17 310 *-- 4-- 4\ Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 0.50 0.87 1I10116/2010 t W Lane Configurations 41) 41� + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 17 310 14 7 227 34 24 45 3 69 34 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 0.50 0.87 0.50 0.68 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 40 356 42 14 261 68 41 69 12 97 81 28 No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 Volume Total (vph) 219 221 144 198 123 206 Volume Left (vph) 40 0 14 0 41 97 Volume Right (vph) 0 42 0 68 12 28 HF4 (s) 0.13 -0.10 0.09: -0.21 0.04 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.0 6.3 6.0 6.3 6.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.38 0.37 0.25 0.33 0.22 0.35 Capacity (vehlh) 552 576 539 567 504 542 Control Delay (s) 11.7 11.2 10.2 10.7 11.0 12.4 Approach Delay (s) 11.5 10.5 11.0 12.4 Approach LOS B B B B Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capa* Utilization 38.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd. 1011612010 -0. If 1� *__ IN /01 Lane Configurations +'fir tt r Volume (vph) 1555 88 175 1041 60 233 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor. PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0,78 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1571 106 216 1096 77 274 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 241 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1672 0 216 1096 77 33 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 44.3 14.0 62.3 8.1 8.7 Effective Green, g (s) 46.3 15.0 64.3 9.7 9.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.19 0.80 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4,0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2029 332 2844 215 192 vls Ratio Prot c0.48 c0,12 0.31 c0.04 0.02 vls Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.82 0.65 0.39 0.36 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 13.6 30.1 2.2 32.3 31.5 Progression Factor 0.37 0.67 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 3.9 0.3 1.0 0.4 Delay (s) 8.5 24.0 0.5 33.3 32.0 Level of Service A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 8.5 4.4 32.3 Approach LOS A A C HCM Average Control Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capadty Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 10/160110 � � � 'r Lane Configurations ft ti' I to Volume (vph) 147 1421 96 46 957 8 56 28 31 6 44 125 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 Lane Ufil. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1681 1770 1614 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.65 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 596 1681 1206 1614 Peak -hour faction, PHF 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 173 1496 135 53 1075 14 67 54 43 10 67 149 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 ' 1 0 0 36 0 0 126 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 173 1626 0 53 1088 0 67 61 0 10 90 0 Tum Type Prot Prot Perm Penn Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 50,0 5.5 39.9 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Effedtve Green, g (s) 16.6 52.0 6.5 41.9 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.65 0.08 0.52 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 2272 144 1850 93 263 188 252 vis Ratio Prat 0,10 00.47 0.03 00.31 0.04 0.06 v/s Ratio term 00.11 0.01 v!c Ratio 0.47 0.72 0.37 0.59 0.72 0,23 0.05 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 9.2 34.8 13.1 32.1 29.5 28.7 30,2 Progression Factor 0.89 0.70 1.13 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.2 2.0 1.3 25.3 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delay (s) 25.7 7.7 41.1 8.3 57.3 30.2 28.9 31.4 Level of Service C A D A E C C C Approach Delay (s) 9.4 9.8 41.3 31.2 Approach LOS A A D C HCM Average Control Delay 12.6 HCM Level of Servioe B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington AV NE 10/16/2010 N V- � t t c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 Lane Configurations �► , Volume (vph) 25 1361 52 78 1091 4 43 10 79 10 19 23 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3,0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3534 1687 1735 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.91 Satd. Flow 1770 3515 1770 3534 1538 1594 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.75 0,90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 0.90 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 1512 72 91 1186 11 48 20 105 15 33 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 87 0 0 33 0 Lane Group Flow h 33 1581 0 91 1196 0 0 86 0 0 54 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 49.5 7.2 54.3 10.3 10.3 Effective Green, g (s) 3.4 51.5 8.2 56.3 11.3 11.3 Actuated 91C Ratio 0.04 0.84 0.10 0.70 0,14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 2263 181 2487 217 225 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.45 c0.05 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.03 We Ratio 0.44 0.70 0.50 0.48 0.40 0,24 Uniform Delay, d1 37.4 9.2 34.0 5.3 31.3 30.5 Progression Factor 0,70 0.29 0.63 0,67 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 1.4 2.4 0.5 1.6 0.7 Delay (s) 30.5 4.0 23,9 4.1 32.9 31.3 Level of Service C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 4.6 5.5 32.9 31.3 Approach LOS A A C C HCM Average Control Delay 7.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd 10/16/2010 Lane Configurations 4tr +I., I +T Volume (vph) 16 53 28 123 41 40 46 1182 162 72 1053 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 Frt 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1778 1756 1770 3462 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.92 0.74 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow 1646 1331 9770 3462 1770 3535 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 25 58 29 184 53 63 68 1231 210 87 1120 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 12 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Grpyk Flow 0 95 0 0 288 0 68 1426 0 87 1129 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.3 21.3 4.9 38.4 7.3 40.8 Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 22.3 5.9 40.4 8.3 42.8 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.50 0.10 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension s 5.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 459 371 131 1748 184 1891 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.41 0.05 c0.32 vis Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.22 We Ratio 0.21 0.78 0.52 0.82 0.47 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 22.1 26.5 35.7 16.7 33.8 12.7 Progression Factor 0.98 1.00 0.60 0.33 1.31 0.79 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 11.3 3.5 3.4 2.3 1.2 Delay (s) 22.1 37.9 25.1 8.9 46.6 11.3 Level of Service C D C A D B Approach Delay (s) 22.1 37.9 9.6 13.8 Approach LOS C D A B HCM Average Control Delay 14.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5; NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 10116/2010 --* --,, 4,- 4- t /00� 4, Lane Configurations 0 1 0 4 Volume (vehlh) 68 1171 7 22 889 4 11 4 29 0 4 90 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 86 1301 14 44 988 16 15 16 88 0 16 143 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.77 0.72 0.84 0.84 0.72 0.84 0.84 0.77 vC, conflicting volume 1004 1315 2213 2572 658 2002 2571 502 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 415 668 834 1263 0 582 1262 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 93 90 87 89 100 87 83 cM capacity (vehfh) 881 663 143 119 783 233 119 837 Volume Total 86 867 448 44 659 345 119 159 Volume Left 86 0 0 44 0 0 15 0 Volume Right 0 0 14 0 0 16 88 143 cSH 881 1700 1700 663 1700 1700 339 520 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.51 0.26 0.07 0.39 0.20 0.35 0.31 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 5 0 0 38 32 Control Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 0.0 10.8 0,0 0.0 21.2 14.9 Lane LOS A B C B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.5 21.2 14.9 Approach LDS C B Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Ublization 55.2% ICU Levet of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 10/1612010 --I --I. 'V- �*-- IQ IN t ► Lane Configurations a"T► *T * I tT I Ti� Volume (vph) 195 165 12 92 89 52 30 1050 120 80 809 150 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane NO 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Faces 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3317 3221 1770 3480 1770 3449 Flt Permitted' 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow(perm) 3317 3221 1770 3480 1770 3449 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.84 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.811 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 212 201 19 119 106 83 38 1117 140 105 889 183 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 51 0 0 11 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 428 0 0 257 0 38 1246 0 105 1053 0 Tum Type split Split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 11.4 4.2 30.7 5.6 32.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.3 12.4 5.2 32.7 6.6 34.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.16 0.07 0.41 0,08 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap {vph) 676 499 115 1422 146 1470 vls Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.08 0.02 c0.36 0.06 c0.31 vls Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.63 0.52 0.33 0.88 0.72 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 31.0 35.7 21.8 35.8 19.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.42 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 1.2 1.6 5.8 16.6 3.0 Delays) 313 32.2 43.9 15.0 52.4 22.0 Level of Service C C D B D C Approach Delay (s) 31.3 32.2 15.9 24.7 Approach LOS C C 8 C HCM Average Control Delay 22.8 NCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No Action PM (2030) Synohro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 10116/2010 Lane Configurations +T+ tt r Volume (vehlh) 1281 14 4 1040 0 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1423 28 16 1156 0 29 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.71 0.71 0.71 vC, conflicting volume 1451 2047 726 VC 1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked Vol 815 1655 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 573 61 768 Volume Total 949 502 16 578 578 29 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 29 cSH 1700 1700 573 1700 1700 384 Volume to Capacity 0.56 0.30 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 15.1 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0,2 15.1 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 10/16/2010 No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 Lane Configurations c c ► Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 4 47 6 46 55 250 14 160 59 390 124 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 4.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 57 7 49 59 269 15 170 63 429 136 9 Volume Total (vph) 70 377 185 63 574 Volume Left (vph) 5 49 15 0 429 Volume Right (vph) 7 269 0 63 9 Hadj (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.5 6.2 7.1 6.4 6.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.65 0.37 0.11 0.98 Capacity (veh/h) 438 571 490 542 573 Control Delay (s) 11.7 19.7 13.0 8.9 57.3 Approach Delay (s) 11.7 19.7 11.9 57.3 Approach LOS B C B F Delay 34.8 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 10/1612010 -.* 4e *-- -N T 1 No Action PM (2030) Synch ro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 Lane Configurations 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 36 321 11 18 310 72 18 18 14 50 18 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 4.63 0,80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly Flow rate (vph) 57 434 29 29 388 72 29 43 42 128 43 16 Volume Total (vph) 520 488 114 187 Volume Left (vph) 57 29 29 128 Volume Right (vph) 29 72 42 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.0 6.0 7.4 7.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.87 0.81 0.23 0.38 Capacity (v&h) 587 581 432 452 Control Delay (s) 35.7 29.8 12.6 14.7 Approach Delay (s) 35.7 29.8 12.6 14.7 Approa& LOS E D B B Delay 28.5 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0° ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2030) Synch ro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE M16r2010 } � � 4\ 141 No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 Lane Configurations #T * 4M + Sign Control Stop stop stop Stop Volume (vph) 18 324 14 7 238 36 25 47 4 72 36 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 0.50 0.87 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 43 372 42 14 274 72 43 72 16 101 86 28 Volume Total (vph) 229 229 151 209 131 215 Volume Left (vph) 43 0 14 0 43 101 Volume Right (vph) 0 42 0 72 16 28 Hadj (s) 0.13 -0.10 0.08 -0.21 0.03 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.3 6.1 6.4 6.1 6.4 6.2 Degree !Utilization, x 0.40 0.39 0.27 0.36 0.24 0.37 Capacity (vehlh) 541 564 529 555 494 530 Control Delay (s) 12.3 11.7 10.6 11.3 11.4 12.9 Approach Delay (s) 12.0 11.0 11.4 12.9 Approach LOS B l3 B B Delay 11.8 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 39,60/6 ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 No Action PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd. 10116/2010 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 16% IAII Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 1522 86 172 1019 59 228 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Utii. Factor 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (prat) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow nn 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.78 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1537 104 212 1073 76 268 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 236 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1636 0 212 1073 76 32 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 44.3 14.0 62.3 8.7 8.7 Effective Green, g (s) 46.3 15.0 64.3 9.7 9.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0,19 0.80 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2029 332 2844 215 192 vls Ratio Prot c0.47 c0.12 0.30 c0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm We Ratio 0.81 0.64 0.38 0.35 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 13.3 30.0 2.2 32.3 31.5 Progression Factor 0.37 0.68 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 3.5 0.3 1.0 0.4 Delay (s) 8.0 23.8 0.5 33.3 32.0 Level of Service A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 8.0 4.3 32.2 Approach LOS A A C HCM Average Control Delay 9.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Senrioe C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 1011612010 --,, r, 4.- Lane Configurations 365 + 142 1863 0 258 187 11� vls Ratio Prot 0.09 1� 0.03 Volume (vph) 143 1390 94 45 936 8 55 27 31 6 43 122 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 0.8 3.0 3.0 1.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 25.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 54.0 1.00 0.95 31.5 1.00 1.00 A 1.00 1.00 D Frt 1,00 0.99 Approach Delay (s) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 39.9 1.00 0.90 Approach LOS F8 Protected 0.95 1.00 A 0.95 4.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1678 1770 1614 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.65 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 606 1678 1214 1614 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0,95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 168 1463 132 52 1052 14 65 52 43 10 65 145 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 36 0 0 123 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 1590 0 52 1065_ 0 65 59 0 10 87 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 50.3 5.4 40.2 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 Effective Greed, g (s) 16.5 52.3 6.4 42.2 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 Actuated g]C Ratio 0.21 0.65 0.08 0.53 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 365 2285 142 1863 93 258 187 248 vls Ratio Prot 0.09 c0A5 0.03 c0.30 0.03 0.05 vis Ratio Penn c0.11 0.01 v1c Ratio 0.46 0.70 0.37 0.57 0.70 0.23 0.05 0.35 UNkmr Delay, d1 27.8 8.8 34.9 12.8 32.1 29.7 28.9 30.3 Progression Factor 0.89 0.69 1.11 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.1 2.0 1.2 21.9 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delay (s) 25.6 7.2 40.8 8.2 54.0 30.3 29.0 31.5 Level of Service C A D A D C C C Approach Delay (s) 9.0 9.7 39.9 31.4 Approach LOS A A D C c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80,0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington AV NE 1011612010 � � ";iii' 'r *- I t41 Lane Configurations 0 tT 4 4 Volume (vph) 25 1331 51 76 1067 4 42 9 78 9 19 22 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3515 1770 3534 1685 1737 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.92 Satd, Flow(perm) 1770 3515 1770 3534 1341 1615 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 0.90 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 1479 71 88 1160 11 47 18 104 13 33 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 90 0 0 32 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 1547 0 88 _1.170 0 0 79 0 0 51 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 49.8 7.2 54,6 10.0 10.4 Effective Green, g (s) 3.4 51.8 8.2 56.6 11.0 11,0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.65 0.10 0.71 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 2276 181 2500 212 222 v/s Ratio Perot 0.02 c0.44 c0.05 c0.33 v1s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.03 v!c Ratio 0.44 0.68 0.49 0.47 0.37 0.23 Uniform Delay: d1 37.4 8.9 33.9 5.1 31.4 30.7 Progression Factor 0.72 0.26 0.64 0.69 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 1.3 2.3 0.5 1.5 0.7 Delay (s) 31.1 3.6 23.8 4.1 32.9 31.5 Level of Service C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 41 5.5 32.9 31.5 Approach LOS A A C C HCM Average Control Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd 1011612010 -11 � N 'r +� *� i Lane Configurations 4 *p +T* tib Volume (vph) 15 52 27 131 40 39 45 1156 159 81 1019 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3:0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 Frt 0.96 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0:95 1.00 Md. Flow (prat) 1779 1757 1770 3462 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.92 0.74 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1654 1334 1770 3462 1770 3535 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 57 28 196 62 62 66 1204 206 98 1084 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 11 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 Lane Grasp Flow (vph) 0 92 .0 0 299 0 66 1395 0 98 1093 0 Tum Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.7 21.7 4.8 38.1 7.2 40.5 Effective Green, g (s) 22.7 22.7 5.8 40.1 8.2 42.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 038 0.28 0.07 0.50 0.10 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 _ -- - 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 469 379 128 1735 181 1878 vis Rabo Prot 0.04 c0.40 0.06 c0.31 vls Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.22 vic Rd* 0.20 0.79 0.52 0.80 0.54 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 21.7 26.4 35.7 16.7 34.1 12.7 Progression Factor 0.97 1.00 0.61 0.33 1.31 0.78 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 11.9 3.6 3.2 3.6 1.1 Delay (s) ' 21.6 38.3 25.3 8.8 48.3 11.0 Level of Service C D C A D B Approach Delay (s) 21.6 38.3 9.5 14.1 Approach LOS C D A B HCM Average Control Delay 14,6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 1011612010 --* --i *-- i Lane Configurations tT+ ti� r r Volume (vehlh) 67 1146 7 0 880 4 0 0 32 0 0 88 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourty flow rate (vph) 85 1273 14 0 978 16 0 0 97 0 0 140 Pedestrians Larne Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Flight turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.78 vC, conflicting volume 994 1287 2079 2444 644 1889 2443 497 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 424 671 734 1166 0 510 1165 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 100 100 100 88 100 100 83 cM capacity (vehlh) 881 673 201 147 798 307 148 844 Volume Total 85 849 438 652 342 97 140 Volume Left 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 14 0 16 97 140 cSH 881 1700 1700 1700 1700 798 844 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.50 0.26 0.38 0.20 0.12 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 0 0 10 15 Control Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 10.1 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 10.1 10.1 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 10/1612010 t t � � 4' Lane Configurations 41* *"Tr I tI I tT Volume (vph) 190 165 12: 90 87 51 33 1027 118 90 781 147 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane VlKM 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 s 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3318 3221 1770 3480 1770 3448 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3318 3_221 1770 3480 1770 3448 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 _ 0.63 - 0.77 0.84 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.86 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 207 201 19 117 104 81 42 1093 137 118 858 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 50 0 0 11 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 423 0 0 252 0 42 1219 0 118 10.18 0 Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.2 11.3 4.3 28.9 7.6 32.2 Effective Green, g (s) 16.2 12.3 5.3 30.9 8.6 34.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.15 0.07 0.39 0.11 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 - - 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Lance Grp Cap (vph) 672 495 117 1344 190 1474 vfs Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.08 0.02 c0.35 0.07 c0.30 vls Ratio Perm vfc Ratio 0.63 0,51 0.36 0.91 0.62 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 31.1 35.7 23.2 34.1 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.19 0.41 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 1.1 1.9 8.0 7,0 2.7 Delay (s) 31.3 32.2 44.2 17.6 41.1 21.3 Level of Service C C D B D C Approach Delay (s) 31.3 32.2 18.4 23.3 Approach LOS C C B C HCM Average Control Delay 23:3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 1 011 61201 0 Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) 1254 14 4 1018 0 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1393 28 16 1131 0 29 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.72 0.72 0.72 vC, conflicting volume 1421 2005 711 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 caonf vol vCu, unblocked vol 808 1618 0 tC, single (s) 4,1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 586 66 781 Volume Total 929 492 16 566 566 29 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 29 cSH 1700 1700 586 1700 1700 390 Volume to Capacity 0.55 0.29 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 14.9 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 14.9 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 1011612010 � --,, � � *� i Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 Lane Configurations 4 4;r 4T 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 4 46 6 45 54 244 14 156 58 382 121 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 56 7 48 58 262 15 166 62 420 133 9 Volume Total (vph) 68 369 181 62 562 Volume Left (vph) 5 48 15, 0 420 Volume Right (vph) 7 262 0 62 9 !Hadi (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.3 61 7.0 6.3 6.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.14 0.62 0.35 0.11 0.95 Capacity (vehlh) 452 572 493 546 577 Control Delay (s) 11.5 18.5 12.6 8.8 49.8 Approach Delay (s) 11.5 18.5 11.6 49.8 Approach LOS B C 8 E Delay 31.0 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 10/1612010 Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 35 314 11 18 303 71 18 18 14 49 18 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 56 424 29 29 379 71 29 43 42 126 43 16 Volume Total (vph) 509 478 114 184 Volume Left (vph) 56 29 29 126 Volume Right (vph) 29 71 42 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 5.9 5.9 7.3 7.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.84 0.79 0.23 0.3.7 Capacity (vehlh) 593 585 434 450 Control Delay (s) 32.3 27.4 12.4 14.4 Approach Delay (s) 32.3 27.4 12.4 14.4 Approach LOS D D B B Delay 26A HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE -A --,, --* *- -N I i 10!1612010 Volume Total (vph) 227 215 150 206 Lane Configurations 4M 4M *T# 4s Sign Con#d Stop Stop Star Stop Volume (vph) 18 321 10 7 237 35 21 46 4 71 35 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.30 0.50 0.67 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 43 369 30 14 272 70 36 71 16 100 83 28 Volume Total (vph) 227 215 150 206 123 211 Mume Lsit (vph) 43 0 4 0 36 100 Volume Right (vph) 0 30 0 70 16 28 Hadi (s) 0.13 -0.06 0.08' -0.20 0.01 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.3 6.1 6.3 6.0 6.4 6.2 Degree Uttitzahon, x 0.40 0.35 .0.26 0.35 0.22 0.36 Capacity (vehlh) 548 567 536 564 500 538 Control Delay (s) 12.1 11.3 101.4 11.0 11.1 12.6 Approach Delay (s) 11.7 10.8 11.1 12.6 Approach LOS B B B B Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd. 10110010 Lane Configurations +T+ tt r Volume (vph) 1621 91 183 1085 63 243 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(pe")_3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.78 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1637 110 226 1142 81 286 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 251 Lane Group Flow 1742 0 226 1142 81 35 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 44.1 14.0 62.1 6.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 46.1 15.0 64.1 9.9 9.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.19 0.80 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4,0 Vehicle Extensions 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2020 332 2836 219 196 v/s Ratio Prot c0.50 c0.13 0.32 di.05 0.02 vls Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.86 0.68 0.40 0.37 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 14.3 30.3 2.3 32.2 31.4 Progression Factor 0.38 0.67 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.6 4.8 0.4 1.1 0.4 Delay (s) 10.0 25.0 0.5 33.2 31.9 Level of Service B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 10.0 4.5 32.2 Approach LOS B A C HCM Average Control Delay 10.2 HCM Level of Service 8 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72,04 ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 10116/2010 Lane Configurations 367 +To 146 1828 tik 273 193 1r v/s Ratio Prot I T 0.03 Volume (vph) 153 1481 100 48 998 9 59 29 33 6 46 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12. 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 0.8 3.0 3.0 1.4 3.0 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 25.8 Lane UK Factor 1.00 0.95 62.1 1.00 0.95 31,0 1.00 1.00 A 1.00 1.00 E Frt 1.00 0.99 Approach Delay (s) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 42.9 1.00 0.90 Approach LOS Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 A 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1679 1770 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.64 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 573 1679 1186 1615 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.95 0.71; 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 1559 141 56 1121 16 70 56 46 10 70 155 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 39 0 0 130 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 1695 0 56 1136 0 70 63 0 10 95 0 Tum Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 49.4 5.6 39.4 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 51.4 6.6 41.4 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.64 0.08 0.52 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension W 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 2246 146 1828 93 273 193 262 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.48 0.03 c0.32 0.04 0.06 vls Ratio Perm c0.12 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.75 0.38 0.62 0.75 0.23 0.05 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 9.9 34.8 13.7 32.0 29.2 28.3 29.8 Progression Factor 0.90 0.73 1.06 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.4 2.0 1.4 30.1 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delays) 25.8 8.6 39.1 8.3 62.1 29.8 28.4 31,0 Level of Service C A D A E C C C Approach Delay (s) 10.3 9.8 42.9 30.9 Approach LOS B A D . C c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Average Control Delay 13.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74,5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Har in ton AV NE 10/1612010 --,, f- 4--- k 4N t Lane Configurations t'4 Vi 0 41� Volume (vph) 26 1419 54 81 1137 4 45 10 83 10 20 24 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 1770 3535 1685 1735 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.89 0.91 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3535 _ _ _ 1528 1596 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 _ 0.90 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 1577 75 94 1236 11 50 20 111 15 35 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 35 0 Lane Group Flow vph) 35 1649 0 94 1247 0 _ 0 92 0 0 56 0 Tum Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 50.0 6.4 52.8 10.6 10.6 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 52.0 7.4 54.8 11.6 11.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.06 0.65 0.09 0.68 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 102 2285 164 2421 222 231 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.47 c0.05 0.35 vls Ratio Perm c0.06 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.72 0.57 0.51 0.41 0.24 Uniform Delay: d1 36.2 9.2 34.8 6.1 311 30.3 Progression Factor 0.68 0.37 0.64 0.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.5 4.4 0.6 1.7 0.7 Delay (s) 26.7 4.9 28,8 5.3 32.8 31.1 Level of Service C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 5.3 6.8 32.8 31.1 Approach LOS A A C C HCM Average Control Delay 8.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd -,* --* 'r *-- t 7a, 1I10116/2010 i Lane Configurations *, +T 0 Volume (vph) 16 55 29 139 43 41 48 1232 169 87 1087 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 Frt 0.96 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1778 1757 1770 3462 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.91 0.73 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1643 1320 1770 3462 1770 3535 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 A4. Fbw (0) 25 60 30 207 56 65 71 1283 219 105 1156 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 11 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 . 99 j0' 0 317 0 71 1486 0 105 1166 _0_ Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.2 22.2 4.8 37.5 7.3 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 23.2 23.2 5.8 39.5 8.3 42.0 Actuated g1C Radio 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.49 0.10 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4,0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 476 383 128 1709 184 1856 vis Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.43 0.06 c0.33 vis Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.24 vlc Ratio 0.21 0.83 0.55 0.87 0.57 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 26.5 35.9 18.0 34.2 13.5 Progression Factor 0.98 1.00 0.61 0.36 1.30 0.81 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 15.1 4.6 4.8 4.2 1.4 Delay (s) 21.4 41.6 26.4 11.2 48.6 12,2 Level of Service C D C B D B Apfxoach Delay (s) 21.4 41.6 11.9 15.3 Approach LOS C D B B HCM Average Control Delay 16.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Ufllization 73.46 ICU caval of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 1 011 61201 0 -► *-- 4.- r'► Lane Configurations +I, ti" r r Volume (vehlh) 71 1221 8 0 938 4 0 0 34 0 0 94 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 90 1357 16 0 1042 16 0 0 103 0 0 149 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.75 0.68 0.81 0.81 0.68 0.81 0.81 0.75 vC, conflicting volume 1058 1373 2215 2603 686 2011 2603 529 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 411 616 635 1115 0 383 1115 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6,9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 100 100 100 86 100 100 82 cM capacity (vehlh) 858 655 220 149 740 352 149 813 Volume Total 90 904 468 695 363 103 149 Volume Left 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 16 0 16 103 149 cSH 858 1700 1700 1700 1700 740 813 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.53 0.28 0.41 4.21 0.14 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 0 0 0 12 17 Control Delay (s) 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 10.4 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 10.6 10.4 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 1011612010 Lane Configurations 4T+ 4M Vi +T+ 11 tT Volume (vph) 203 176 13 96 93 54 35 1094 125 95 833 157 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane MI. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Fit Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 3317 3222 1770 3480 1770 3448 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3317 3222 1770 3480 1770 3448 Peak -hour tactor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.84 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.86 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 221 215 21 125 111 86 45 1164 145 125 915 191 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 50 0 0 11 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 453 0 0 272 0 45 1298 0 125 1087 0 Turn Type split �' Split Prot Prat Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 11.8 4.1 28.0 7.6 31.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 12.8 5.1 30.0 8.6 33.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.16 0.06 0.38 0.11 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 688 516 113 1305 190 1444 vls Ratio Prot c0.14 co.08 0.03 c0.37 0.07 c0,32 vis Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.66 0.53 0.40 0.99 0.66 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 30.8 36.0 24.9 34.3 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.44 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.3 2.1 19.0 8.8 3.7 Delay (s) 31.6 32.1 44.6 30.1 43.1 23.4 Level of Service C C D C D C Approach Delay (s) 31.6 32.1 30.5 25.4 Approach LOS C C C C HCM Average Control Delay 29.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cyde Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 10/1612010 --* 41� •F -- Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47,4°{ ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 Lane Configurations tt I r Volume (veh1h) 1336 15 4 1084 0 19 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1484 30 16 1204 0 30 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Bbckage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type alone None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 0.70 0.70 vC, conflicting volume 1514 2134 757 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 875 1761 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 536 51 758 Volume Total 990 525 16 602 602 30 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 30 0 0 0 30 cSH 1700 1700 536 1700 1700 379 Volume to Capacity 0.58 0.31 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 6 Contfol Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 15.3 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 15.3 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47,4°{ ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 10/16/2010 t Delay 42.9 HCM Level of Service E Intemdion Capacity Utilization 77.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 Lane Configurations 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop stop Volume (vph) 4 49 6 48 58 260 15 167 61 407 129 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 60 7 52 62 280 16 178 65 447 142 10 Volume Total (vph) 72 394 194 65 599 Volume Left (vph) 5 52 16 0 447 Volume Right (vph) 7 280 0 65 10 Hadj (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.5 6.2 7.1 6.4 6.3 Degree Uffizaf on, x 0.15 0.68 0.38 0.12 1.04 Capacity (vehlh) 430 568 474 534 565 Control Delay (s) 11.8 21.1 13.3 9.0 74.2 Approach Delay (s) 11.8 21.1 12.2 74.2 Approach LOS B C B F Delay 42.9 HCM Level of Service E Intemdion Capacity Utilization 77.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 10116/2010 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 Lane Configurations *Tr +1 *+ 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 38 334 11 19 323 75 19 19 15 53 19 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 451 29 30 404 75 30 45 45 136 45 16 Volume Total (vph) 541 509 121 197 Volume Left (vph) 60 30 30 136 Volume Right (vph) 29 75 45 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.2 7.7 7.6 Degree Utilization, x 0.94 0.88 0.26 0.42 Capacity (vehlh) 561 566 436 448 Control Delay (s) 48.3 39.1 13.4 16.0 Approach Delay (s) 48.3 39.1 13.4 16.0 Approach LOS E E B C Delay 37.2 HCM Level of Service E Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE Volume Total (vph) 242 230 161 221 129 226 Volume Left (vph) IN t 16 0 1I10!1612010 i 106 Lane Configurations" 0 33 0 76 16 30 Hadj (s) 0.13 407 0.08 -0.21 Sign Control 0.05 Stop 6.4 Stop 6.5 6.2 Stop 6.3 Degree UtRization, x Stop 0.40 Volume (vph) 19 342 11 8 252 38 22 49 4 75 38 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33, 0.50 0.87 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 45 393 33 16 290 76 38 75 16 106 90 30 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 Volume Total (vph) 242 230 161 221 129 226 Volume Left (vph) 45 0 16 0 38 106 Volume Right (vph) 0 33 0 76 16 30 Hadj (s) 0.13 407 0.08 -0.21 0.02 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.4 6.2 6.5 6.2 6.6 6.3 Degree UtRization, x 0.43 0.40 0.29 0.38 0.24 0.40 Capacity (vehlh) 534 553 522 548 483 523 Control Delay (s) 13.0 12.1 11.0 11.8 11.6 13.5 Approach Delay (s) 12.6 11.5 11.6 13.5 Approach LOS B 8 B B Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 2 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd. 10/1612010 --t "'It *- Lane Configurations tT+ HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 tt 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 r Volume (vph) 1549 87 175 1037 60 232 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fri 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)-_ _ _ 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.78 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1565 105 216 1092 77 273 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 240 Lane Group Flgk(v_phl 1665 0 216 1092 77 33 Turn Type Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 44.3 14.0 62.3 8.7 8.7 Effective Green, g (s) 46.3 15,0 64.3 9.7 9.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.19 0.80 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2029 332 2844 215 192 vls Ratio Prot c0.48 c0.12 0.31 c0.04 0.02 vis Ratio Perm vlc Ratio 0.82 0.65 0.38 0.36 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 13.5 30.1 2.2 32.3 31.5 Progression Factor 0.37 0.67 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 3.9 0.3 1.0 0.4 Delay (s) 8.4 24.0 0.5 33.3 32.0 Level of Service A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 8.4 4.4 32.3 Approach LOS A A C HCM Average Control Delay 9.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 1I1011612010 -,* --p- N c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 Lane Configurations +'+ Vi T+ Volume (vphj 146 1415 96 45 953 8 56 28 31 6 44 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane 4lrrdlh 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane UK Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1681 1770 1615 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.65 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3532 596 1681 1206 1615 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 172 1489 135 52 1071 14 67 54 43 10 67 148 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0: 0 1 0 0 36 0 0 125 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 1619 0 52 1084 0 67 61 0 10 90 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 50.1 5.4 39.9 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 52.1 6.4 41.9 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.21 0.65 0.08 0.52 0,16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 _4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 2276 142 1850 93 263 188 252 vls Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.46 0.03 c0.31 0.04 0.06 vls Ratio Perm c0.11 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.71 0.37 0.59 0.72 0.23 0.05 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 9.1 34.9 13.1 32.1 29.5 28.7 30.2 Progression Factor 0.89 0.70 1.09 0.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.2 2.0 1.2 25.3 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delay (s) 25.7 7.5 40.1 8.0 57.3 30.2 28.9 31.4 Level of Service C A D A E C C C Approach Delay (s) 9.3 9.5 41.3 31.2 Approach LOS A A D C HCM Average Control Delay 12.4 HCM level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Harrin ton AV NE 1011612010 � � � Lane Configurations I tli� tT+ 4 Volume (vph) 25 1355 51 86 1106 4 43 10 79 2 3 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow {prat) 1770 3515 1770 3534 1687 1746 Flt Permitted 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.95 Satd. Flow(pen) _ 1770 3515 1770 3534 1559 1675 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 0.90 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 1506 71 100 1202 11 48 20 105 3 5 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 87 0 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow_ (yph) 33 1574 0 100 1212 0 0 86 0 0 9 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 49.6 7,2 54.4 10.2 10.2 Effective Green, g (s) 3.4 51.6 8,2 56.4 11.2 11.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.65 0,10 0.70 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5,0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 75 2267 181 2491 218 235 vls Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.45 c0.06 c0.34 vis Ratio Perm c0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.69 0.55 0.49 0.40 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 37.4 9.1 34.2 5.3 31.3 29.7 Progression Factor 0.71 0.28 0.66 0.68 1.00 1,00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 1.4 3.5 0.5 1.6 0.1 Delay (s) 30.6 3,9 26.0 4.1 32.9 29.8 Level of Service C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 4,4 5.8 32,9 29.8 Approach LDS A A C C HCM Average Control Delay 6.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 1 Oth St & NE Sunset Blvd 1011612010 HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 NCM Level of Service B NCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utiliza8on 70.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Lane Configurations 4tr 4+ Vi + Volume (vph) 24 61 56 133 41 39 45 1169 161 83 1038 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1757 9770 3461 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.90 0.67 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow 1593 1212 1770 3461 1770 3535 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 37 66 58 199 53 62 66 1218 209 100 1104 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 11 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 135 0 0 303 0 66 1411 0 100 1113 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 22,5 22.5 4.8 37.3 7.2 39.7 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 5.8 39.3 8.2 41,7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.49 0.10 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 468 356 128 1700 181 1843 vis Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.41 .0.06 c0.31 vis Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.25 v!c Ratio 0.29 0.85 0.52 0.83 0.55 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 21.8 26.6 35.7 17.5 34.2 13.4 Progression Factor 0.98 1.00 0.60 0.35 1.29 0.79 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 18.8 3.5 3.8 3.8 1.3 Delay (s) 22.1 45.4 25.0 9.9 48.0 11.8 Level of Service C D C A D B Approach Delay (s) 22.1 45.4 10.5 14.8 Approach LOS C D B B HCM Average Control Delay 16.2 NCM Level of Service B NCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utiliza8on 70.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 10116/2010 Lane Configurations Vii +T +T r F Volume (vehlh) 68 1166 7 0 896 4 0 0 33 0 0 90 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 86 1296 14 0 996 16 0 0 100 0 0 143 Pedestrians Trane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fills) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.77 0.72 0.83 0.83 0.72 0.83 0.83 0.77 vC, conflicting volume 1012 1310 2115 2486 655 1923 2485 546 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 420 651 703 1147 0 473 1146 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 100 100 100 87 100 100 83 cM capacity (vehlh) 875 670 208 149 780 319 149 836 Volume Total 86 864 446 664 348 100 143 Volume Left 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 14 0 16 100 143 cSH 875 1700 1700 1700 1700 780 836 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.51 0.26 0.39 0.20 0.13 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 0 0 11 15 Control Delay (s) 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 10.2 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0,6 0.0 10.3 10.2 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.2 Interaction Capacity Utilization 42.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Manned EIS Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6. NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 10116/2010 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 Lane Configurations 01 0 Volume (vph) 194 168 12 92 89 51 34 1045 120 91 795 150 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane 1h Kb 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Last time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3318 3223 1770 3480 1770 3447 Flt Pwnitted 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3318 3223 1770 3480 1770 3447 Peals -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.84 0.63 0:78 0.94 0.86 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 211 205 19 119 106 81 44 1112 140 120 874 183 IRTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 49 0 0 11 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 431 0 0 257 0 44 1241 0 120 1038_ 0 Tum Type Split Split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 11.4 4.3 28.7 7.6 32.0 Effective Green, 9 (s) 16.3 12.4 5.3 30.7 8.6 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.16 0.07 0.38 0.11 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 676 500 117 1335 190 1465 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.08 0.02 c0,36 0.07 c0.30 vls Ratio Perm v1c Ratio 0.64 0.51 0.38 0.93 0.63 0.71 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 31.0 35.8 23.6 34.2 18.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.42 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 1.2 1.9 9.6 7.5 2.9 Delay (s) 31.4 32.2 44.7 19.5 41.7 21.8 Level of Service C C D B D C Approach Delay (s) 31.4 32.2 20.3 23.9 Approach LOS C C C C HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cyde Length (s) 86.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68,6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 1 0/1 61201 0 Lane Configurations tib ►j tt r Volume (vehlh) 1276 14 4 1036 0 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1418 28 16 1151 0 29 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.71 0.71 0,71 vC, conflicting volume 1446 2039 723 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 826 1656 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tP (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (veh1h) 572 62 775 Volume Total 945 501 16 576 576 29 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 0 0 29 cSH 1700 1700 572 1700 1700 388 Volume to Capacity 0.56 0,29 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 15.0 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 15.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.7° ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 41, 4 r 4 Sign Control Stop Stop 1 0/1 61201 0 63 N 'e- *-- 4 47 6 45 55 t 59 389 123 8 1 4, Lane Configurations 41, 4 r 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop 63 Stop Volume (vph) 4 47 6 45 55 249 14 159 59 389 123 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 4.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 57 7 48 59 268 15 169 63 427 135 9 Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS . Page 8 Volume Total (vph) 70 375 184 63 571 Volume Left (vph) 5 48 15 0 427 Volume Right (vph) 7 268 0 63 9 Hadi (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.4 6.1 7.1 6.3 6.1 Degree Uti moon, x 0.14 0.64 4.36 0.11 0.98 Capacity (vehlh) 438 571 491 543 574 Control Delay (s) 11.7 19.4 12.9 8.9 55.8 Approach Delay (s) 11.7 19.4 11.9 55.8 Approach LOS B C B - F Delay 34.0 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capaaty Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS . Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St & Harrington AV NE 10/16/2010 } Delay 28.0 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 Lane Configurations r + 4r Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 36 319 11 18 309 72 18 18 14 50 18 4 Peak Hour Factor 0,63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 57 431 29 29 386 72 29 43 42 128 43 16 Volume Total (vph) 517 487 114 187 Volume Left (vph) 57 29 29 128 Volume Right (vph) 29 72 42 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.0 6.0 7.3 7.3 Degree Utilization, x 0.86 0.81 0.23 0.38 Capacity (vehlh) 587 582 432 451 Control Delay (s) 35.0 29.4 12.6 14.7 Approach Delay (s) 35.0 29.4 12.6 14.7 Approach LOS E D B B Delay 28.0 HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE 1011612010 1t A t ff i Lane Configurations Fr4ores Sign Control stop Stop Stop Skop Volume (vph) 18 327 10 7 241 36 21 47 4 72 36 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 ' 0.50 0.87 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 43 376 30 14 277 72 36 72 16 101 86 28 Volume Total (vph) 231 218 153 211 125 215 Volume Left (vph) 43 0 14 0 36 101 Volume Right (vph) 0 30 0 72 16 28 Hadj (s) 0.13 -0.06 0.08' -0.21 0.02 .0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.3 6.1 6.4 6.1 6.4 6.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.40 0.37 0.27 0.36 0.22 0.37 Capacity (vehlh) 544 563 533 560 495 533 Control Delay (s) 12.3 11.5 10.5 11.2 11.2 12.8 Approach Delay (s) 11.9 10.9 11.2 12.8 Approach LOS B - B B B Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2015) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: NE Sunset Blvd./NE Park & NE Sunset Blvd. 10/16/2010 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 Lane Configurations tt I r Volume (vph) 1708 96 193 1144 66 256 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow 3506 1770 3539 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.83 0.81 0.95 0.78 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 1725 116 238 1204 85 301 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 263 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1836 0_ 238 _ 1204 85 38 Tum Type Prot _ Prot Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 43.9 14.0 61.9 9.1 9.1 Effective Green, g (s) 45.9 15.0 63.9 10.1 10.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.19 0.80 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4,0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 5.0 3.0 5,0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2012 332 2827 223 200 v/s Ratio Prot c0.52 c0.13 0.34 c0,05 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.91 0.72 0.43 0.38 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 15.3 30.5 2.5 32.1 31.3 Progression Factor 0.41 0.63 0.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.1 5.9 0.4 1.1 0.5 Delay (s) 13.4 25.2 0.5 33.2 31.8 Level of Service B C A C C Approach Delay (s) 13.4 4.6 32.1 Approach LOS B A C HCM Average Control Delay 11.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds AV NE 1011612010 --b- -t r *-- 4\ d Lane Configurations +1 +T# 1� T Volume (vph) 161 1560 106 50 1051 9 62 30 34 7 49 137 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 3495 1770 3532 1770 1680 1770 1615 Ftt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.63 1.00 Satd. Flow err 1770 3495 1770 3532 552 1680 1180 1615 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.95 0.71 0.86 0.89 0.58 0.84 0.52 0.72 0.63 0.66 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 189 1642 149 58 1181 16 74 58 47 11 74 163 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 39 0 0 128 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 1786 0 58 1196 0 74 66 0 11 109 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 48.7 5.6 38.8 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 50.7 6.6 40.8 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.63 0.08 0.51 0.17 0.17 0.17 0,17 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4,0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 365 2215 146 1801 95 288 202 277 vls Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.51 0.03 c0.34 0.04 0.07 v/s Ratio Penn c0.13 0.01 vtc Ratio 0.52 0.81 0.40 0.66 0.78 0.23 0.05 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 28.2 11.0 34.8 14.5 31.7 28.6 27.7 29.4 Progression Factor 0.89 0.73 1.03 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.7 2.1 1.7 33.8 0.6 0.2 1.3 Delay (s) 25.9 9.7 37.9 8.6 65.5 29.2 27.9 30.7 Level of Service C A D A E C C C Approach Delay (s) 11.3 10.0 44.2 30.6 Approach LOS f3 A D C HCM Average Control Delay 13.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost tame (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington AV NE 10116/2010 f � t *' t Lane Configurations I TT tT+ 4, 4 Volume (vph) 28 1494 57 93 1218 4 47 11 87 2 4 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3515 1770 3535 1686 1737 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.04 0.91 0.96 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 1770 3535 1558 1684 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.75 0.90 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.38 0.90 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.57 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 37 1660 79 108 1324 11 52 22 116 3 7 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 1736 0 108 1335 0„ „ 0 102 0 0 11 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 49.6 6.4 52.4 11.0 11,0 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 51,6 7.4 54.4 12.0 12.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.65 0.09 0.68 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4,0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 102 2267 164 2404 234 253 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.49 c0.06 0.38 vls Ratio Perm c0.07 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.77 0.66 0.56 0.44 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 36.3 10.0 35.1 6.6 30.9 29.1 Progression Factor 0.65 0.42 0.65 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.7 7.3 0.7 1.8 0.1 Delay (s) 25.6 5.9 30.2 5.5 32.7 29.2 Level of Service C A C A C C Approach Delay (s) 6.3 7,3 32.7 29.2 Approach LOS A A C C HCM Average Control Delay 8.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: NE 10th St & NE Sunset Blvd 1011612010 Lane Configurations 4 0 11 tT Volume (vph) 26 68 $7, 147 45 44 50 1289 178 91 1143 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 0,95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1757 1757 1770 3461 1770 3535 Flt Permitted 0.89 0.66 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (Wm) 1584 1196 1770 3461 1770 3535 _ Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.92 0.96 0.67 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.96 0.77 0,83 0.94 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 40 74 59 219 58 70 74 1343 231 110 1218 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 12 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 149 .0 0 335 0 74 1557 0 110. 1228 _ 0_ Turn Type Perm Perm Prat Prot Protech Phases 4 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 4.8 36.3 7.2 38.7 Effective Green, g (s) 24.5 24.5 5.8 38.3 8.2 40.7 Actuated gfC Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.07 0_.48 0.10 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 4,0 4.0 4,0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 485 366 128 1657 181 1798 vls Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.45 0.06 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.28 vlc Ratio 0,31 0.92 0.58 0.94 0.61 0.68 Uniform Delay, dl 213 26.8 35.9 19.8 34.4 14.8 Progression Factor 0.99 1.00 0.60 0.37 1.28 0.82 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 28,0 5.1 8.8 5.3 1.7 Delay (s) 21.7 54.8 26.8 16.1 49.3 13.8 Level of Service C D C B D B Approach Delay (s) 21.7 54.8 16.5 16,7 Approach LOS C D B B HCM Average Control Delay 20.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 ' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4° ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE 10/16/2010 � � *- � 4\ t l Lane Configurations Vi t tT r r Volume (vehlh) 75 1286 8 0 988 4 0 0 36 0 0 99 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.90 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.33 0.90 0.25 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 95 1429 16 0 1098 16 0 0 109 0 0 157 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1086 344 pX, platoon unblocked 0.72 0.65 0.79 0.79 0.65 0,79 0.79 0.72 vC, conflicting volume 1114 1445 2333 2741 722 2119 2741 557 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 onnf vol vCu, unbiocked vol 394 602 572 1091 0 301 1091 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 89 100 100 100 84 100 100 80 cM capacity (vehlh) 840 630 231 149 703 382 149 785 Volume Total 95 953 492 732 382 109 157 Volume Left 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 16 0 16 109 157 cSH 840 1700 1700 1700 1700 703 785 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.56 0.29 0.43 0,22 0.16 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 0 14 19 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 11.1 10.7 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.0 11.1 10.7 Approach LDS B B Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: NE 12th St & NE Sunset Blvd 10/16/2010 Lane Configurations 00 4T+ ti 1 0 Volume (vph) 214 185 13 102 98 57 37 1153 132 100 877 165 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 112 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane LWI. factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fri 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Fft Protected 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3318 3222 1770 3480 1770 3448 Flt PermKW 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(per m 3318 3222 1770 3480 1770 3448 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.82 0.63 0.77 0.84 0.63 0.78 0.94 0.86. 0.76 0.91 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 233 226 21 132 117 90 47 1227 153 132 964 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 . 0 0 48 0 0 11 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (yph) 0 476 0 0 291 0 47 1369 0 132 1146 0 Turn Type Split Split Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 12.2 4.0 27.4 7.6 31.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.8 13.2 5.0 29.4 8.6 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.16 0.06 0.37 0.11 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 697 532 111 1279 190 1422 v1s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.09 0.03 c0.39 0.07 c0.33 vis Ratio Perm vic Ratio 0.68 0.55 0.42 1.07 0.69 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 30.7 36.1 25.3 34.4 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.47 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 1.4 2.1 41.1 11.3 5.0 Delay (s) 32.2 32.1 44.6 53.0 45.7 25.6 Level of Service C C D D D C Approach Delay (s) 32.2 32.1 52.7 27.7 Approach LOS C C D C HCM Average Control Delay 38.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE 10116/2010 --,I. *-- 4% t* Lane Configurations +1� ++ if Volume (vehlh) 1407 16 4 1142 0 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.50 0.25 0.90 0.90 0.63 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1563 32 16 12669 0 32 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1166 pX, platoon unblocked 0.68 0.68 0.68 vC, conflicting volume _ 1595 2246 798 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 947 1898 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 100 96 cM capacity (vehth) 493 40 742 Volume Total 1042 553 16 634 634 32 Volume Left 0 0 16 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 32 0 0 0 32 cSH 1700 1700 493 1700 1700 371 Volume to Capacity 0.61 0.33 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 0 0 7 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 15.6 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 15.6 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: NE 12th St & Edmonds AV NE 4* 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop stop 69 Stop 1 *-- A" 7 50 61 274 16 175 65 429 136 9 1I10/16/2010 t 0.82 0.82 Lane Configurations 4* 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop stop 69 Stop Volume (vph) 4 51 7 50 61 274 16 175 65 429 136 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 62 9 54 66 295 17 186 69 471 149 10 Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 Volume Total (vph) 76 414 203 69 631 Volume Left (vph) 5 54 17 0 471 Volume Right (vph) 9 295 0 69 10 Hadj (s) -0.05 -0.40 0.04 -0.70 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 7.6 6.2 7.2 6.5 6.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.16 0.72 0.141 0.12 1.12 Capacity (veh/h) 421 564 467 524 554 Control Delay (s) 12.0 23.3 14.0 9.2 99.6 Approach Delay (s) 12.0 23.3 12.8 99.6 Approach LOS B C B F Delay 55.2 HCM Level of Service F Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: NE 12th St cis Harrington AV NE 10!1612010 __O� � � fi Lane Configurations 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 40 352 12 20 340 79 20 20 16 55 20 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.74 0.38 0.63 0.80 1.00 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.39 0.42 0.25 Hourly flow rate (vph) 63 476 32 32 425 79 32 48 48 141 48 16 Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 Volume Total (vph) 571 536 128 205 Volume Left (vph) 63 32 32 141 Volume Right (vph) 32 79 48 16 Hadj (s) 0.02 -0.04 -0.14 0.12 Departure Headway (s) 6.4 6.3 7.9 7.7 Degree Utilization, x 1.02 0.94 0.28 0.44 Capacity (vehlh) 546 554 433 445 Control Delay (s) 68.9 50.3 13.9 16.7 Approach Delay (s) 68.9 50.3 13.9 16.7 Approach LOS F F B C Delay 49.7 HCM Level of Service E Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: NE 12th St & Kirkland Ave NE 1011612010 Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 Lane Configurations 41* 4T+ 411� ++ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 20 360 12 8 265 40 24 51 4 79 40 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.42 0.87 0.33 0.50 0.67 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.25 0.71 0.42 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 48 414 36 16 305 80 41 78 16 111 95 32 Volume Total (vph) 255 243 168 232 136 239 Volume Left (vph) 48 0 W 0 41 111 Volume Right (vph) 0 36 0 80 16 32 Hadj (s) 0.13 4.07 0.08` -0.21 0.02 0.05 Departure Headway (s) 6.6 6.4 6.7 6.4 6.8 6.5 Degree UtMzation, x 0.47 0.43 0.31 0.41 0.26 0.43 Capacity (vehlh) 523 541 510 535 469 512 Control Delay (s) 14.1 13.0 11.5 12.7 12.1 14.4 Approach Delay (s) 13.5 12.2 12.1 14.4 Approach LDS B 8 B B Delay 13.1 HCM Level of Service B lnters tion Capacity Utilization 43.4% ICU Level at Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Alternative 3 PM (2030) Synchro 7 - Report Sunset Area Planned EIS Page 10 Appendix G Parks and Recreation Level of Service Calculations n 3 K r H f Q c q Z = R n .5 A 4 n K A E C V M -a � u° .m y m b ^ n 1 a ~ S' ry ry 0 I i' 3 p ry m m m a Vis` `4 „•, R c n 4 Y � c W., ¢ani, ., u. T`•8vm c O a a W Y n C R R O O O D O q � 6 c S' ry ry 0 3 p 4 fl R Q D n Y � W., ¢ani, ., u. T`•8vm c Appendix H Greenhouse Gas Calculations c 0 � « � ■ C c 2 � � E § 2 c 0 0 G E % W J, -_I 2 C.) O \ k m w $ $ w ® ¥ a— — wow GoG e $ $ + g ® ■ E �2_ ¥w# Iwo � or# k/c CD ?�% CIA > +&6 c f D 2 _ CNGmw o ■ GSE , $$L , kcq 6cr� & cy;#w "T C4 « v % ( � C14«oa E ® 7 o C rNT - / 7 \.2 w U) C4 � � t \co\ S f Lo m m k� C6 0 cl _ CN V U \/k �0 kc\ k k cv 2 @ > \cu \ \ CD § k ) 2 § LLI�/ k a 2 // i J k k \ 7 $ 2 \ @ / . § v 2 2■ 5 g g 5 c16 � �o@�f<� o$.02 E 2 «§ 2 f: o R m @ o —�■ w a- E f a r§�� m f ui e I�2■«et==gym— c r 2— m� z �am�R«I ■moll I O 0 6 - I c o d oa R ti g Q 00 � r a� p a, o ui = N a M N c U c N y Q M'D Q CnCD C ° Co 0'o C N C 0 0•— o. 7 Q L O � O C g. O LO) Nm3 y N .f0 to n U O Q O U a N c L U w U O f� C a Q m� m�u, °N' L c c a* c to f0 o U U Vj ._. VG U U O eca o w_ ° u u -0 0 v 4a cm 0.0) 41) i 0 C E y N ro Q O o CL t 0 N O di G ❑. W 'r-cL E l6 S9 U a Q O N m O w O E y O 7 N �6 > T U N N N N N 41 C y 'O Q1_ c V H O. � H 0 LLL � t; P-0 CL I N E z Qi .a O a E> V o v o o o 0 0 C4 r r s') un a o U C j, U 7 C l� O o c «; m 376 U c as D TU N O N y p) 07 -O ° c c O N X N X 47 E C C O` w � O � -0 Q Q Vy O[n C c 41 N O Q X C Gt w 7 U .� O.L. V1 O O CL CL tn G 't Q 07 N L .-J 'O 43 G N (� L m Q- � = ° N V U SC 76 +..' 7 4Y N C W U- m O •y 0 ❑m ° m a �� cn mcn a E c o :r E� co 0o rn N Cl z 00 W U c T C N O C N LU U N � X O O r O N z CO aQ w r m CD w 50 N L C as D C4 O O 4 W a� C � C V N Uj G — N f6 o L) Q N cn :! o m a D1 a e co 0 -0 -a y o •C O o N C: N 0 G N sa E d [� O O U � O v C, _ 3 7 7 O Q N C 33} 'C co .c O N O N N _ N1. a O n u ,� m N' — N a a7i Q to D tO is g cL N L p �; N G ca Y N Co CE 0 �' -� m C O C (0 uy N N �' GO 3 T' i C t�A O 4 q} O Q m E E_6.6 0 0 Q N cu o c W U t� N o o Y E N o '= _T N CL o G U Cy 41 Q� L X T 7 N LL L t F N N H d CL 0 Z QT C E a E > o 0 0 o o 0 0 Qy C '� �- N r Nr r C7 In � � � d C O Q1 CD C C O N C = y 43 C l4 G C O N T W O N U C N N C L O` N (4 L G � :z � -C3 U 4n '� E io U) � � a� � .n x a c O _4 O'J a.a O coN-0 Cg i L . C. ` a 2 N t x ,E N c N [� g CD o N Q 0 U Y U ❑m o m = a mcr— 0 E c o d R= E LO co ao m M M �} z r r r r N M 4 W ■ ®R 0 ch M N y G O N E W d �O Q m a 0 O O N 90 O 41 0 0 0 0 0 �G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W h N N M 'D N N N CO Q h 37 CO C F � Q � 0 0 0 0 0 w O O O O w 0 0 0 >� Gr 0 Mr - "'7 "0 hIt It CIO Q 40 � C Q 0 b C C 47 co co L h LO It N to a R O N V M M N r 0 _ u] U W) M N M J W 4 W NQ w O 0 0 c) 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 Gocc Vi r- N "Zt N o aya°0 LA mm r m _ N y V Ni m N Lb = W C 1+ N N OC� :O u; N �� 6: N t0 r- M C N �iJ .o Cl) M O O =fJ [V N if• r. M w r l' 'SP N `LL � LL Q 06D U � R F-' N n u'j Cn t` W �'- f+ I� M c'1 n iS• O> N Ca N nrr�oanv vc:r�c�r- rNc��,r,�u�r—c:: C W P] M V r 177 0) G; C,, C7) C� G, C." C> Ci C-) oll O .G E W C N Q 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 O 0 0 O d� L G LL � y UI y ip O 7 cr w y yNs y) O MC14 O C m f- N a .y ¢ c � U m M a L 0 01 E y c c m m R N R ECC O N N : C R U7CL S!J O •- D ifl CL C L y 'O �U= £Q to N ' O C NID y y fr LL (D oiaaaUU O QO�av ' N dy LL LL — m :n � U) ozu U] o ±a t m C 2 U _ U U r � C m in U- L0 _5 a- 0 OP> N y G O N E W d �O Q m a 0 O :J M 0 2 CL ra 0 0 N m 0 O M M O O 0 0 0 0 O w O O n n r n Co G -� .- M 4 N 'L, N 4 L) M M r S O to U --- c r � c � Q O tom? [q Co C 0 O O n 0 W 0 0 O 0 r 0 0 0 Q7 4) 4) 0 M r U, 24 t0 C7 N M a � G � a ON n 0000000�onnn('] GOO a C w CO ao n r! @ O N n. .y _O 40 AC N l'7 m N V; m U � N.Z.- N _m . _ W O N n 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) Kr G n n 0 m 0 4 4 co ao n m as c d o a m r, I6 O N O Q •- r {p c? N N N E g W a C n [lE N QC 6] Cp M N C_^ G N L; l'? O N ['� SJ iJJ � a O U m c f6 Nn r i[i 4n r V M ["i G:0) N M n) :- Ln[O i� V GS C w 00 [l Q' �� c: o) c� to c: 6• r,� ;:;) r; G% -� C= 0- C) 0Y 'a 0 m E w 0 w 0 0 0 O n 0 0 O w O N a g LL O crc �ooao0 C CD N D .y c_ c U mID m E c m m O y ,v J L 4) N N E 47 rE _ O O .... �. O la aciU�7� CU c O i 47 vUU N (p L Vii y I� m 'o_ oia u= o 'tn D°_ QOL Io2 zJa a� vara`1 022wI M 0 2 CL ra 0 0 N m 0 ti O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o G o 0 0 o G O O C O a N N m� 0 mSL) a� N N � 0 m C � ¢ o O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 C) o 0 o 0 0 o d 6 l6 O C) F J W a7 CL N Q ++ N W J W 7 = O V co m O -M co «% N fn m •W Q O fi! C N N N ID , - V 1b r -Imo- 1-- (n 1f1 ',', O> G; N aO N 07 c W ¢7 M C:) U 0) Ci) ;:) M Ci: 0) ::) G; C7) Cl) G) G1 G: N 0 W c 5 000000000000000 v ami -0 v '00) � N (G 3 r to to �OooO ¢ c c �a c m— fu oEy�vEi O E C C W C I ((J ID U W rn — — E • 1v N N C G7 en W o 47 w LL rt z IS- NUU O 0 _ y — lL li N `dao-- fn U) .t.. .L.. c — as O - U a ' 2 ulil°i=-jWoa'r-W0 O � CL § ; _ An uj; / t; �oa00000000cc�c�� CD N - /2/ �&E §\{°§ p )2 ° ^/kk°[ /\jam§� k�/\ � ■�Q°Q m r- reP— re P- v) r- �\kF- _ W � /§\\\//\\\gin ccr C) \OLOL o§ �aw�es�»=v>xmmse=eea 2 m G J 3 2 "L) G 2 P k% 7 2 K 2 2 2 k 3 =$C,3L' %%%KRR3p2GG%2 I f w \ �000000000000c0 _ ƒ2] k}\ « f�7mo 0 - ƒ < (] k _ D§: e 10c mE , k��j} j�R:/) ])[2 -OE 7 t==E' EEoc)�: ` 2Dk(&: • : \uoG'«:#/`�a;, Go=•- £ ���u-nm= _:z=2�=£S\££2- ` 3 0 mm-jma-w\0)\ /}})30 � CL § ; _ An uj; / t; 0 c2 o] � L 9 0 0' _ V 0 �0000�o 000o00 CP m )CA \ �{\ � �omoocoococ000coo m�N / 0* __.�� § 2� 7�@\KƒK°) o §0-§\-4_ k4?j\ ��go2o�000000000000 Ufa ° � e tmCL2 §§E ! Lu � (N RSDJ\ #\)mE CLo <C o/ j cc Cl) �TK%%R%%%Rt Torr k w S«_ Go000C300000000 $«$ U- r- 40 \ ° 42mm° § - a 7 \EE,GZ _d) (D ) �1I§/$2 & LL 0 D a0(432j0 91. mm U) ILOLUOƒƒ]J§)))±f3$ L 9 0 I N H 7 0 O Q! 0� o m 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 00 0 r 40 CO O -0 Qy Q7 N N N N N IG V co U _ � F � � Q 4i W) -t G Ci 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 4 C C O O N r�o N Ncl� w O O 7 rpt o �Q m C C F � G � Q 90 4y O1 O C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O G O C C a G vJ [G Cl) M 40 N M GO j a 0 0 NN C- .y r h O J E 00O� T O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C O O Q Q Q G C a Ln c8 M M 40 N M i0 m fa p N N r r O C • CL piprNrn UI M Ln - N J E g C W C i` N N Q N m CS) N L• m N L; LL QO UCL c r6 N f~ Lr1 c{5 — rr' b" f+ r– rte. ;+} :'7 C. C N cC Cv r Ln c+6 r– 1^ f- [pM ED �. G,� r. Lor -.i-.. 1) , t.� d) C: W o, c, n n M c rn ' l[7 m 'a 0 Q E W c � o o o 0 0 0 o c) c) 0 o 0 0 0 y O a N a LL C a i rn � O ).= ocnr,o r N N w � sh cn U m m IDc o m ai J j E = f C t6 C = m UJ o a ai i22 m— a A E O C d f0 tp L rl� y a yci W N � NAL t c— d v.v.0 car �•-� :3 :3 7 O OO S9 16 -p m in22 b wLLLL2S O O a CD p JQ m 3 aaC�vi 7 N m 0 f0 N H 7 0 O 0 opo 00000voaoov ao�noov b v 61 w N m CO v 1p � = � r � � Q O m O O O O O O O O to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 Oi 01 � C a b C N r cc O 11 Ip wLo r J Lu Q M O Q Q O Q O 0 0 W Q O C O h O G 0 mm _ Cb a �+ 19 O N O 00 h ma•-0 d7 m 00 _ W N J W rL D C 1- N N O G'I cU o'J N U 6' iv +-fi r m ON ' o � co m O O In .... N N CL' (-1 C•�i 00 .... I- 4, O � N •W � U - a O � C R r N f— r tin M r) of 0; Oi N cc c� �r Ln np I— Co m [[i L'i f- `w C ui ccmvr me cr nc1 0]rn c,rn 0� r b 6) m Lr) ": frY �•-. :'} «) ('� [+j m C7 (11 Ci m Gf 75 O a E w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O . r 4�i•Cw U- y N co v� .E ora o o .y U U cn _ ca o m Eo. E.cc iia wR mu) :� CL H C N Cpl ERS w w E --E a) y m E E O 4 f0 CL ma a o F� wiaLti22�wOdaffcol loRl 0 E CL � � 2 � k q N § q § \ 0 } =me �\\ $ 'mL) / 2■ oo����000c�oj-E 77 \ CL 0 - &,�o � ~ §/\\ 0�700oo �c/ LD L � m =LD �foLO �jf� � /$QM0C, 7^22®2®//a% \CLC . o § 4 § «za � LU k LLJ ; 0000co%00009000 CN LL $%e Z 4- fo�cc ■ a 7 / -- � zQ - : k2: n u :a ( /§k\f� :\\:/ 0222|: '7 \ ���l;§$§:�;%mE: ./: ] \ 2 r /\k\kƒ2L,1-1 ' ,#oJo/:} • 2 �L7�«mmf=� 2 „ - „ v C ��°f7��\)£kkgtg)k - # / k§§LLU- II-imon- CLa E CL � � 2 � k q N § q § c m E YJ 7 V Q .Lu LL a 0 ul d 3 V c rfl 7 m O .w N O O O O O O O O O O O a O Co O O Pi O O O a N N a]i A N fa U C F C � Q � ,Q O 0 0 0 0 O O O O ;_7O O O O� O O O N N N O M v O C Q 0^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1A O O O O 000 O C v 4j N O O N cn CL _N � N Uf r— w J w O 0 O O O O o O n C c) ti e4i 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 Q N CN' N l? Q7 l!} p �(Y O I Q7 ¢ N O _ SA N u Z v^i c'7 U7 � J E F- C W n N N 0 d• C cD x N 'Jr G N In t- v N LL Q O U L6 H N nr n L, apn lC) (^ r d UJ u; r; r- r: n r- i- n C1 N l -') O; c: O� r, L w _1i I- '-L)(O M cD d' (c ir] c:� c:) r- r-- u ) r- r-- cc r >> r ] N •- N C W � OJM d' 4) M Lo d• G r• rn ni G+ :'J r^ Q, [+: (]% m, ['] !`� r'] C: r] r'] r� Q� a O 0 E W C n n 0 0 0 0 W) 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 y � L w LLL � y O N (p l0 m 7 � N N O OO O O C (gyp U Q CM C C Q 5-5 c m m _ N a a� 4 r`aE y J U) C D C C LD ip C: 0 c U 2 C C 7 .... a COL L GO] rp W CC O C o N M G O (DL) c) o cc LL W N t LL LL l0 L L = C ' 'gyp (D ._ .- O W U N _ A C j O C 17 0 0 67 N p Qr .0 3 N N S +L-+ N F- u�����uLLLLxx�ccoaactu� . o� O -r c� O om 0000 C. 000000r�000 p n u1 N O ry N m m O C, r c ,O b 0 w C G m 0 O O 0 O C G O O r- 0 0 0 Q m d Q 0 Ln 0 0 0 C. 0 0 C. C 0 0 C 0 0 N CD 0 a- _ b F 4 " Ln O N N Ch m OL J W Q m w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 o m Cl 0 0 m C C a to a ra O N O � vJ O C'14 L f F E 7 C t~ N N O- G ,D CC N LO s- C'} G n L7 �O O f•7 m Cr• cJ'7 [11 'Lu LL Q O OL G Ld V CC: I-- r-- i- f^ Cr: L' �� L.. N 10 N n qtr oo r� V �t c; k r- r- N yr c, n C: 4, %n <D r7 ED V cr) c: n Z) P. f- CD - C w d 'C O E w C Cl O O O O O O O O O G N 0 0 0 O v N � U- C a w to O 3 3 Q� CA •E n .y d- •3 •7 U m m C a O Q1 JN C d N r6 C E cE mca u O O c CL z -r- ui c rnE CD _>> - - 'Eoc E rn m 'O mm `Y q) - y - y i m m m U U 0,0 o CL F C7 3 0 a O O OF US O D! !E in���EurLl�==��Oa0.ol0 c� O Y� m O O M0 Or 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 4T m 0 0 0 47 IV N M N1 f0 �p g>5U C � Q � p G m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 CD N N O L F- 0 O w O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O {G O O O b C C vT C4 or h o N O N a O O P1 {7 N {D N ._ F N J W O N C O G O O C G C C) O O G 0 4 C G C mCC W ni N N M N cn CL 0 Qi N !'S N 4p y W � F F- J L W 7 L rM1 N C'7 N C? O O e C C� +Y! D CC N N (�, c0 u: C� N 4n M T M O N 4: 4, ,W m LL � a O U w c m H Lo (9 o) a) N Co N fD cD m C7 � COo 1q '7 d' iD V' C%: t". c•-) r•_ �. N t+: 6] r) O L7 �[) :^'] N N !D r - G1 C W .a m r Ln m 0 .G E W CI", Q Cf 0 0 0 0 tN O O O O co 0 0 0 `y O LLNcr u a [ C C n m m c m d a� o E2 y E c m mm f6 rC C C m-;6 C rn O OL 'E '- (D y E O L N m m y N [K LL m m 2 0 m as U U O: a o 0 0CL = v�g 3 w��i223=0a'aoc(o O O 0R O O � C O fA G D N E W ; .m 0 a m a IN 4 d It� d G G C) C G 0 t: G O O O M g 0 0 O 41 Sd N N N m � D = C � Q .o ovr�0000000r�000da,dao 01 N N o r � a � c m c F- a G a V 0 0 0 0 ti O O O a C C N a u�i LO Oh CL . p 10F n ri eo rn U J w 2 d M d O 00 C C C 0 't+ C G O C h 0 0 0 C o y N a C3 N cn OM1 10 G N SD M M SO a• p ro J C W C f` N N O tl co CV ('; ti;] :V L. C) C� N L'; [n O V V N -- m X111 � a a U y c c� F N r l!i CJ •- GC f� I`- r� C7 M i.; u; r; r, .- N C W comv c;�)c QJ .O 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 O O O O C) 0 (D "'• O N N OJ LLC OJ w N :3 o 6 .L.. N ,ern•, 4r�m0 .y tm n : 'M L) LV 2 i `m O Gl J N C C C ftpCL P U fu C d q LL fC m = Q r4 07 U UIV HIM C 7 3 0-0 O O d w p a) 3 7 W m C R fAM22W LL Liam -im a- a- mU). 0�i O fA G D N E W ; .m 0 a m a IN 4 a c 0 N AA E W .Q a R D F a v ;z V 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C2,40 .07 D 'D Q! tJ N m � 0 ._ C F- t Q a O O O O G G O O C C) a c) C 0 O 0 O O C) O7 a1 N - N N " a p Q 0 m r F a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d 0 0 0 0 D O p N J LL 0 0 0 O C O O O O a O O O G G C O 4 O mm� p N CL SA J W � C n N N O V M <p CO :V UD u) N O m 11, m Q r -J L') r iV N C!'- M ^'? w l() U N U- < OLO � c A H N r- r l[) ,D .-- tt cn r- r- M C^ M Q) M N CC,.. of n Lr7 OD I- V V G) !"7 c+'; I- Qf W cc vl7 �r 7 G) 7", G: G) C) LT: 0: C Q) C) 6) G: G) N C, O E w c a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D LL m D O � N 0 0 0 0 5 U Q C C L)m imCI1 C D Cd - D ` `o D J Cn c C (U i6 m p E Z_ o E,cc:m z C C 7 F = y C OD W w E v D t m ID D O C D LL m m .2 m DUU :ate 7 o N N Ld 2= U U U L C CL F c>> o�oowa�iao a)- ca ca wu.LLxx�aOaawcn0M a c 0 N AA E W .Q a R D F a v ;z V ar \} \Lo Lk 001-001ncbC5Cp CD %&\o) Ido �\\ = �a«�0000002000 o = co fes]] & Vim]] k 2� 0070�� LO $\/ƒ i - EN o m »�ƒ\ /.CL C4 - - £ d, § m §fes a w � luw LL CL o § & LU =mIt m, esnmaseo=c= 2=m��czecenznrmrrrrn k r u 000000Itc000mccc _ $41 LL §]q 7-� � 5 - ƒ � :§ k � ƒ]:2 / o w[�_jk� /&:§� :] tm 2B §f{ f\!�! �0 cr- /}-�§!� o::&|\�/)CU \ mƒ\d §(#RLo LLmto & j}ƒ§$%2a5f2Rk§fkkkk # gi£§w2)))±)§22)$23ƒ \Lo Lk O u O r O M N O 0 0 0 O O O N O O O O N O O O 'O y 47 t+t M M j Q C F at O 60 Q 0 a a 4 0 a 00 Q 0 a 0 r- It 0 0 0 CS N N m M M 0 f 7 C a CO m 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 w 0 o 0 A C C O a N M Y C O N O h U mow'— F M W o o_ CD o o a o 0 00 A 0 o a o o o a a mC O H7 C6 A IC O N CL •- 0 a� a1 M N r N i� 2 M Coil � W Gr N N � d GC Cf] Co N M N U) r CO O N L] O (`7 d• m d' O d' C5 N L': r- r !"7 N f'7 (:. c': r-1 !"i C'i G'] r- N t- lfi — LL -LUV- LL p Q CL U C �tl H N r- 47 A Ln OO A rY d' Qi !"7 M r- f� N �': Cl, m M In r- U] CO m CD It :. '% rn :: r- r- LO r- r- a, r> V) r'S CV r N c- W ccvly a 67 C7 In d C) mC 1 M C? C? f C) O 9 W C 0 0 o d a o m a o O O N a o 0 O r N [N R 00 3 c H A � 7 .0 a Q 7 7 U 4'1 i0 G � `a E y LM J 0) tm E •G c - N is CL G cc {n CL N O U N `7 d =_ tiOj a ti m LL m m 2 0 iE m L) U Q U y w 7 o W iV a (n oo U)= m -_ m_. G_ 7 3 0 a 4 0 CD 0 p a) 7 G N y O L R U) W ii U- CL CL x 0 > O u O r Appendix I Public Health in Land Use Planning & Community Design Sunset Area Community Planned Action NACC:HO and the Tri-C;cnt:tty health Department in Colorado developed this checklist to assist focal public health agencies Ill 11I -1,1s} in their revicvr of applications for new developmenl or redevelopm(!nt plans in their communities. I'll(, checklist provides a method to ensure long term protection of public health and consislency in camntcnts submitted For development plans, and broadcris the health issues commented on by ITHAs during the planning process. It cat also be used to identift,' potential Itezalth impacts and provide a screening process for iInprovino the qualify of decision -staking. The checklist addresses not only those issues tIla t 1.11HAs have regulatory authority over, but also the many public health issues that may arise during development and require policy change or other interventions. l.l'HAs can also incorporate issues that are specific to their jurisdictions. ITHAs should share the checklist with their local planning departments, elected officials, and the public, both to increase awareness of public health issues associated with land use planning and community design, and to encourage appropriate referral of applications to l,l'HAs for review and comment. Nater Quality D✓ What is the source of water for the project? A public system or individual well(s)? 10 If public, does the agency have any regulatory responsibility for quality assurance? ❑ If private, are wellhead protection procedures proposed? Are the well(s) completed in an area of the aquifer that is free from identified or potential sources of contamination? ❑ In rural areas where gas or oil exploration is occurring, are domestic wells planned with ad- equate setbacks from gas or oil wells? ❑� Does the project adequately address storrnwater? © What is the drainage pattern on the site? ❑ Are there indications of drainage problems, such as erosion, steep topography, wetlands, boggy areas, etc.? p Are there adjacent or nearby bodies of water (lakes, reservoirs, ditches, streams, etc.) that receive drainage from the site? 0 If an erosion control plan has been provided, are effective erosion control methods proposed during construction? Post -construction? © Does the plan include effective project -specific or regional stormwater quality measures? Both engineered and non -engineered? ❑ Does the proposed use warrant specific best management or pollution prevention practices? (e.g., proper use of pesticides on golf courses) ❑ Does the project include unnecessarily large expanses of paved areas? El Is the property in a floodplain or a groundwater �* recharge area? EZI Does the proposed use have the potential to release hazardous products or wastes into the surface or groundwater? (e.g., AST/USTs; chemicals, including agricultural chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides; asbestos) For more information, visit: www. ea.aovlwater/yearofclea nwater/docs/ rowthwater_pdf httpa/oh io I i ne.os u. ed u iws-fact/000 3. h tm I www.ire.ubc.ca/ecoresearcii/publica3.htmI www.fhwa.dat.gov/environment/wtr-shd96.htrn www. cdc.gov/pea IthypI a ces/abo ut. htm "astewater 0 Is the proposed wastewater treatment system adequate and effective? Centralized service ❑ If new central service is proposed, does the proposed facility have an approved utility plan? © If new central service is not proposed, is the proposed project within the service area of an existing munici- pal utility or wastewater treatment district, based on its approved utility plan? 0 Does the existing or proposed service provider have the capacity to serve the development in compliance with regulatory requirements? © Is the proposed system fiscally sound? Individual sewage disposal systems (iSDS) ❑ What type of systems do the soils warrant? ❑ Are there site features or areas that should be avoided as ISDS locations? What are appropriate setbacks? ❑ Should certain site uses be prohibited from discharg- ing into the ISDS? Are provisions in place to segregate and collect these discharges? For more information, visit: www.asu_edu/caed/proceedings0l /HOOVER/hoover.htm "ater Quantity ❑ Is there a sustainable water supply for the proposed use? {❑ Has the permitting agency (e,g., State Engineer's Office) provided written confirmation that the applicant owns sufficient water rights for the proposed development? ❑ Does the landscaping plan include appropriate water conservation measures? ❑ Are there opportunities for recycling or reuse of water and wastewater generated by the project? For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/ost/stormwaterLusw a . a df www.epa,gQviordntrnt/ORD/WebPub5/ruiioff.p-df www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lidnati.pd www.epa.govllivabilitylpdf/growthwater.pdf it Quality 7 From an air quality perspective, is the proposed use compatible with adjacent uses? ❑ Will the proposed use emit air pollutants? Does it require an emissions permit? 0 Are fugitive dust emissions a potential problem? During construction? Post -construction? What mitigation measures should be taken? Will the project be served by paved roads? If not, is paving recommended? ❑ Does the proposed use generate odors? If the project will emit air pollutants or odors, what measures should be employed to eliminate or mitigate the emissions? 0 As the project develops, will there be adequate transpor- tation infrastructure in place to absorb the volume of traffic generated by the project without degrading air quality? El Is the project designed to reduce vehicle emissions? E.g. grid layout or non -circuitous street system, internal and external connectivity, mixed uses 0 Is the project designed to offer and encourage the use of travel choices in addition to the automobile? E.g., Transit -friendly design, bike/pedestrian trails, etc. ❑ Is the project in close proximity to cell towers, power lines or other uses that emit potentially harmful electro- magnetic radiation? For more information, visit: www.epa.aov/otaq/transp/trancont/r01001 _pdf ww.thwa,dot.gov/`environment/air-abs.htm Page 2 opportunities for Physical Fitness El Are open spaces and trails included to provide regular opportunity for physical activit ies such as walking and biking? 21 Are communities built with mixed-use commercial and residential purposes, and with sidewalks so that people can walk to movies, restaurants, and so on? p Are schools built within communities so that young people can walk to school? p Are sidewalks wide enough for mulitiple uses (e.g_, bikes and walkers)? D Is lighting placed along trails and sidewalks to increase the comfort level of those using them? D Is there park space and equipment for children to play with? For more information, visit: www.5urgeongeneral.gov/topic5/obe5iW www.sprawlwatch.org /health. pdf www.nga,org/common/issueBriefDetailPrint/ 1.1434.2473,00.html vvww.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf Yrransportation and Injury Prevention ❑ If the proposed use involves significant truck traffic, does the site plan provide adequate room for truck turnarounds and safe truck access and egress, relative to neighboring developments? El Does the proposed project include safe routes to school with a minimum of street crossings and high visibility for children walking to school? 171 Does the proposed plan include pedestrian signals and mid -street islands on busy streets, and presence of bicycle lanes and traits? p Does the project include traffic quieting road designs in both subdivisions and shopping districts? p Does the project provide adequate neighborhood access to public transportation? p Does the proposed project include ramps, depressed curbs or periodic breaks in curbs that act as ramps for people with disabilities? [Q Does the proposed project include voice/audio or visual clues provided at crosswalks and transit stops? D Does the project comply with ADA requirements for design of curb ramps, cross slopes and detectible warnings for new construction or retrofit projects? For more information, visit - www. t ransa c t.o r g,,Re p o rts/d rive n/ isit:www.lransact.orgrReports/driven/ www-cta.ornl.ciov/npts/1995 /doc/` N PTS_Booklet.pdi www.aaafc)Lji)datioi).orgZresources/iridex.cfm? .button -agdrtext www-nrd.nhtsa.doL.gov/pdf/rird-30/NCSA.; TSf20011 2001 pedestrian, pdf Noise ❑� Is the proposed project compatible with neighboring uses from a noise perspective? F71 Is the proposed project subject to nuisance noises from nearby uses such as airports, h4h vofurne:roadways, industrial uses? ❑ Is the proposed project likely to generate noises that will create a nuisance to neighboring uses? ❑ Are there engineered or non -engineered measures that can be employed to mitigate nuisance noises, such as setbacks, sound walls, vegetative barriers, opera- tional practices, and so on? For more information, visit: www.culturechange.org/issuel9/vehicle noise_htm www.noiseways-org/ Natural and Manmade Hazards ❑ Is the site in a flood or landslide prone area? ❑� Is the proposed use appropriate for the site, given the potential hazard(s)? 0 Does the proposed use present the potential for releases or spills of toxic materiaV (E.g., above or underground storage tanks, drum storage, pool chemi- cals, etc.) ❑r What measures (e.g., engineering controls, design features or buffering) should be employed to eliminate or mitigate the hazarcl Yfolid and Hazardous Waste Disposal El Is the geology and hydrology of the site suitable for the proposed waste handling or disposal activity? ❑ Is the proposed waste handling or disposal activity compatible with adjacent existing or zoned uses? ❑ What design, operational or pollution prevention practices should be employed to reduce the likelihood of releases or to mitigate potential impacts from the proposed waste handling or disposal activity? ❑ Are plans in place to prevent release of hazardous materials into the environment in the event of an on- site fire? For more information, visit: www.plannersweb.corn/sprawl/solutions recgional.html www.ep_a.goy/cornpliance/resources/publications/el/ reducing risk com vall.pdf VPast Site Uses ❑ Is there historic evidence of solid or hazardous waste disposal or releases on or adjacent to the site? If so, is there potential for exposure or risk due to contamina- tion or expiosive gases? ❑ What additional information, monitoring, or mitigation measures of these sites are necessary? ❑ Are new industrial facilities planned? Have the potential impacts on health been assessed? For more Information, visit: www.susLainable.doe.gov/landuse/brownf.shtml www.brownfield-org/Action/Landuse/BAP%201and.pdf VicuIk Storage Facilities (e.g., chemicals, fertilizers, etc.) ❑ What design, operational or pollution prevention practices should be employed to reduce the likelihood of releases or to mitigate potential impacts in the event of a release? ❑ Are adequate secondary containment measures proposed? ❑ Does the facility have an adequate proposal for or an approved spill prevention control and countermeasures (SPCC) plan? ❑ Is the facility near vulnerable resources that may require contingency planning for protection in the event of an on-site fire? For more information, visit: www.epa.aov/nerlesd 1 /land-sci/pdf/3351eb99.pdf Vroonosis ❑ Is the site on or adjacent to an area that might involve the risk of zoonotic disease transmission such as West Nile virus? If so, have measures been taken to prevent spread of zoonotic diseases such as filling in pools of water or open ditches that may provide breeding grounds for mosquitos or vermin? Page 3 ❑ Have abatement/vector control measures been considered? If lethal control is proposed, is the appli- cant aware of regulatory standards for controlled use of pesticides? Yflealth Equity ❑ Are disadvantaged populations at greater risk of expo- sure to environmental hazards? ❑ How are potential hazards distributed across the community among different population groups? p Are affected residents involved in the planning process? r,J Have they been involved in providing data about their neighborhoods? ❑ Does the proposed project present unsafe conditions or deter access and free mobility for the physically handicapped? ❑ Are there information barriers preventing people with disabilities from participating in the planning process? EJ What is the overall picture of environmental hazards among all of the categories listed in the checklist, particularly for low-income communities? ❑ What zoning decisions under consideration would alleviate or exacerbate the potential for creating environmental exposures to contaminants? ❑ What health data exist for the community that indicate leading causes of mortality and morbidity? How might they be important for expected redevelopment? For more information, visit: www.sprawlwatch.org/health.pdf www.ejrc.cau.edu/natsmartgrwthinit.htm V16ditional Resources tivww,nrdcorg/cities/_s_martGrowth/solve/solveinx.asp www. bi odiversi typroject. orcd/m es sag ekit. htm se Studies www.iDlannersweb.com/s.pL4wl/solutions reaional.html www.ncia.org/common/issueBriefDetailPrint/ 1.1434.2488.00.html National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) Environmental Health Program Staff 1100 17th Street, NW 2nd Floor • Washington, DC 20036 Phone (202) 783-5550 Fax (202) 783-1583 • www.naccho.org Public Health in land Use Planning & Community Design Sunset Area Community Planned Action Introduction The purpose of this analysis is to provide a qualitative review of the proposed Sunset Area Community Planned Action including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in terms of the proposals' alignment with principles of healthy communities as well as how the proposals may be modified to improve alignment with principles of healthy communities. A broad checklist developed by National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) and the Tri -County Health Department in Colorado is used as a screening tool to address public health topics in relation to proposed redevelopment plans. For each topic on the checklist a brief review is provided, and where appropriate, reference is made to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) chapter and section where more information can be found. Unless otherwise stated, the conclusions apply to the entire Planned Action Study Area including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Water Quality The City of Renton provides a water utility and has regulatory authority for quality assurance. See EIS Sections 3.17 and 4.17 for a discussion of the City's water utility. The City of Renton has a stormwater utility and a constructed stormwater system as described in EIS Sections 3.17 and 4.17. Each of the alternatives would result in a slight increase in the effective impervious area of the Planned Action Study Area. However, untreated pollutant generating surfaces would decrease. With Alternatives 2 and 3 there would be much greater emphasis on green infrastructure including Green Connections.1 A Drainage Master Plan would be adopted. Planned Action Study Area redevelopment would likely result in an improvement of runoff and recharge water quality. In addition, the net change in effective impervious area can be adequately mitigated through the self -mitigating features of the action alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code. The Planned Action Study Area overlies an aquifer. Most of the study area is in residential and institutional use, and this pattern will continue to predominate in the future. Commercial and mixed uses lie along NE Sunset Boulevard, and some existing uses use underground storage tanks, e.g. gas stations. New construction and commercial uses that have the potential for hazardous materials must comply with the City of Renton's aquifer protection regulations at RMC 4-3-050. In addition, state and federal requirements apply to uses that may use hazardous materials as described in Sections 3.7 and 4.7 of the EIS, I Green Connections refers to public stormwater facility development serving desired new private development as well as public facilities and rights of way. sunset Area community Planned Action 1-1 December 2010 Environmental Impact Statement ICF 5931 City of Renton Wastewater Appendix I The proposed wastewater collection system is maintained by the City of Renton. Wastewater treatment is provided by King County. The collection system requires replacement of antiquated lines and this is accounted in proposed City plans and alternatives. See EIS Sections 3.17 and 4.17. Water Quantity The City's water supply is principally from aquifers and associated wells, and there is adequate water supply for the Planned Action Study Area. The City has regulations to protect the aquifer at RMC 4-3-050. See EIS Sections 3.17 and 4.1.7 for a discussion of the City's water utility. Air Quality Although population and vehicle travel would increase in the study area, the increase in tailpipe emissions would be very small relative to the overall regional tailpipe emissions within the Puget Sound air basin. Based on Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) air quality conformity analysis, forecasted regional emissions for its 2030 planning year are far below the allowable budgets. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. Mitigation measures in EIS Section 4.2 would require air quality control plans for construction activities in the Planned Action Study Area. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is promoted in City plans and codes, and is expected to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to traditional development by reducing vehicle trips and fuel usage. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for greater GHG emissions reductions than Alternative 1 due to a greater amount of TOD. Opportunities for Physical Fitness Additional growth will create a demand for parks and recreation resources. Alternatives provide additional parks and recreation opportunities such as at Sunset Terrace. Opportunities for shared City and School District facilities, and locations where additional parks and recreation could be added, are proposed in the Planned Action Study Area. See mitigation measures in EIS Section 4.15 for additional opportunities. Mixed use development is proposed under each Alternative, Alternatives 2 and 3 propose complete streets containing improved non -motorized connections, as well as improved transit stops and urban design features. See Chapter 2 for more discussion of features, particularly Table 2-4. sunset Area community Planned Action 1-2 December 2010 Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.1 City of Renton Appendix I Transportation and Injury Prevention City transportation plans and Alternatives 2 and 3 promote a range of pedestrian walkability, bicycle, and transit enhancements to improve safety and connectivity. See Chapter 2 for more discussion of features, particularly Table 2-4. See also the green streets analysis in EIS Section 4.14. Noise Sensitive uses such as residences are found along NE Sunset Boulevard. Traffic volumes along NE Sunset Boulevard currently result in noise conditions that are above 65 dBA. This is normally unacceptable for noise sensitive uses. Section 4.6 of the EIS addresses measures that can be employed to mitigate current and future traffic noise, such as site design and construction standards. Natural and Manmade Hazards The Planned Action Study Area is relatively free of hazards. There are no floodplains. There are relatively few areas with steep slopes or landslide hazards. See Section 3.1 of the EIS. Most of the study area is in residential and institutional use, and this pattern will continue to predominate in the future. Commercial and mixed uses lie along NE Sunset Boulevard, and some existing uses use underground storage tanks, e.g. gas stations. New construction and commercial uses that have the potential for hazardous materials must comply with the City of Renton's aquifer protection regulations at RMC 4-3-050. In addition, state and federal requirements apply to uses that may use hazardous materials as described in Sections 3.7 and 4.7 of the EIS. Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal Solid waste disposal is handled by franchise haulers in accordance with County and State regulations per Sections 3.16 and 4.16 of the EIS. Regarding use hazardous materials, please see "Natural and Manmade Hazards." Given the nature of the study area for residential, commercial retail, and school/park/public service uses, no hazardous waste disposal is anticipated. Past Site Uses Much of the Planned Action Study Area is intact since the 1940s when the area largely developed. Past site uses include single family, multifamily, commercial, and mixed uses as well as schools, parks, fire station, and other institutional uses. No landfills are located in the Planned Action Study Area. No industrial uses are located within or planned for the Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-3 December 2010 Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.1 City of Renton Appendix i Bulk Storage Facilities (e.g., chemicals, fertilizers, etc.) No bulk storage facilities are proposed. Zoonosis The study area is part of the Renton Highlands and is does not contain water bodies or ditches. Health Equity The City of Renton and Renton Housing Authority have involved the community in the planning of the study area; see Section 2.5.2 of the EIS. As noted in Sections 3.11 and 4.11 of the EIS, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in primarily beneficial impacts associated with new dwelling units, new civic facilities and parks, improvements in non -motorized 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 Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, construction mitigation and relocation assistance mitigation measures would minimize impacts. See also Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, and Natural and Manmade Hazards above. Water quality would improve particularly as a result of the planned green infrastructure and compliance with City codes. Air quality emissions would not be adverse and mixed use development would decrease GHG emissions. Noise along one major route, NE Sunset Boulevard, currently exceeds noise thresholds for sensitive uses, but there are site plan and construction techniques that can reduce impacts. The neighborhood contains typical residential, institutional, and commercial retail and service uses, city standards for aquifer protection and state and federal requirements for the use of hazardous materials are expected to minimize impacts. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-4 December 2010 Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.1 Appendix J Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard Cultural Resources Survey Report Author: J. Tait Elder MA Melissa Cascella MA and Christopher Hetzel MA Title of Report: Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard Date of Report: October 2010 County(ies): Kina Section: 9 Township: 23 Range: 5E Quad: Mercer island 47122-E2 and Renton 47122-D2 Acres: Approximately 13 acres PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) H Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? M Yes n No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? n Yes M No TCP(s) found? n Yes FI No Replace a draft? n Yes �Q No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? n Yes _# No DAHP Archaeological Site #: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT POTENTIAL SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT SUBAREA AND NE SUNSET BOULEVARD PREPARED FOR: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In partnership with Renton Housing Authority 2900 Northeast 10th Street Renton, Washington 98056 PREPARED BY: J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA lCF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Christopher Hetzel 206.801.2817 October 2010 J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA. 2010. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard. October. (ICF 593.10) Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, in partnership with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Contents Chapter1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1 ProjectDescription.................................................................................................................1-1 ProjectBackground................................................................................................................1-2 Personnel.................................... ............................................................................... 1-2 Location........................................................................................................ ....... .....1-2 Area of Potential Effects............................................................................................1-2 RegulatoryContext....................................................................................................1-5 Chapter 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting.................................................................................. 2-1 EnvironmentalSetting............................................................................................................2-1 GeologicBackground .......................................... --- ................................................ 2-1 Floraand Fauna ................ ......................................................................................... 2-1 CulturalSetting........................................................................................................... 2-2 PreContact................................................................................................................. 2-2 Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric.................................. .............................................. 2-2 HistoricContext.........................................................................................................2-3 Chapter 3 Literature Review and Consultation.................................................................................. 3-1 Existing Data and Background Data.......................................................................................3-1 RecordsResearch......................................................................................................3-1 Chapter4 Research Design................................................................................................................ 4-1 Objectivesand Expectations..................................................................................................4-1 ResearchMethods..................................................................................................................4-1 Archaeological Investigations ...... .............................................................................. 4-1 Historical Resources Survey......................................................................................4-2 Chapter5 Results.............................................................................................................................. 5-1 Archaeological Investigations................................................................................................. 5-1 NE Sunset Boulevard Right-of-Way...........................................................................5-1 Edmonds -Glenwood Lot .............. .............................................................................. 5-1 HarringtonLot........................................................................................................... 5-1 Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex...................................................................5-1 Summaryof Shovel Tests..........................................................................................5-2 Historic Resources Survey...................................................................................................... 5-6 Chapter 6 Analysis and National Register of Historic PlacesEvaluation.............................................. 6-1 EnvironmentalAnalysis.......................................................................................................... 6-1 National Register of Historic Places Evaluation......................................................................6-2 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF00593.10 City of Renton Contents Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................. 7-1 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 7-1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................7-1 Chapter8 References........................................................................................................................ 8-1 Appendix A. Correspondence Appendix B. Historic Property Inventory Forms Appendix C. Unanticipated Discovery Plan Tables Table 1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects ................................ 3-1 Table2. Shovel Test Data................................................................................................................................................. 5-4 Table 3. Properties in Area of Potential Effects Identified as 45 Years of Age or Older.........................5-7 Table 4. Properties in Area of Potential Effects Identified as Less than 45 Years Old ............................5-S Figures Figure 1. Project Location............................................................................................................. ....1-3 ............................... Figure 2. Area of Potential Effects................................................................................ ......1-4 .......................................... Figure 3. Shovel Test Locations and Historic Resources Survey Results.....................................................5-3 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard �� ICF00593.10 City of Renton Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations APE Area of Potential Effects AP1N Assessor Parcel [Number BP before present CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Renton cm centimeter DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation FHA Federal Housing Administration GPS global positioning system HUD U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places RHA Renton Housing Authority SEPA Washington State Environmental Policy Act USC United States Code WHR Washington Heritage Register WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database Cultural Resources Survey Report —Poter t ial Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 114 ICF 00593.10 Chapter 1 Introduction Project Description The City of Renton (City) and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) east of Interstate 405 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex redevelopment receives federal funding from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); future improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard are also likely to receive federal funding in the future. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et seq.). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the City is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] 4321-4347) and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International (ICF) conducted a cultural resources study for the project to assist the City in fulfilling these requirements. The study comprised an archaeological investigation and a historic resources survey. The proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Project, hereafter referred to as the undertaking, will occur on approximately 8 acres of RHA -owned property occupied by existing public housing units, known as Sunset Terrace, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE; 3 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 NE 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. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1-1 ICF 00593, 10 City of Renton Project Background Personnel Introduction Christopher Hetzel, MA, architectural historian, served as cultural lead for this project and Principal Investigator for the consideration of built environment resources. J. Tait Elder, MA, archaeologist, was Principal Investigator for archaeology and led the field crew during the archaeological investigations. Melissa Cascella, MA, assisted the principal investigators in drafting this cultural resources survey report, and Patrick Reed assisted with the field investigation and literature search. Location The undertaking is located in the city of Renton, King County, Washington, in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 23, Range 5 East (Figure 1). It is in an area known as the Sunset Area Community, situated in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard east of Interstate 405 in the city of Renton, Washington. The project activities would include redevelopment of the following properties: • The Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 7227801085, 7227801055, 7227801400). • Vacant lots known as the Harrington Lot (APN: 7227801785) and the Edmonds -Glenwood Lot (APNs: 0923059080 and 7227801375). • Residential lots at 1139 Glenwood Avenue NE (APN: 7227801380), 1060 Glenwood Avenue NE (APN; 7227801310), 1052 Glenwood Avenue NE (APN; 7227801305), 1067 Harrington Avenue NE (APN: 7227801300), and 1073 Harrington Avenue NE (APN: 7227801295). • A segment of NE Sunset Boulevard between approximately Monroe Avenue NE on the east and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which the project may directly or indirectly cause change of character or use of historic properties (i.e., archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and/or built environment resources). It includes the horizontal and vertical extents of the proposed project activities on parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopment, and all parcels that abut NE Sunset Boulevard between about Edmonds Avenue NE and Monroe Avenue NE (Figure 2). This area would encompass all the areas of proposed ground disturbance and potential effects to neighboring properties posed by road and infrastructure improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard. The areas of ground disturbance would be limited to parcels comprising the Sunset Terrace public housing complex; the Harrington (RHA's Piha site) and Edmonds -Glenwood lots; the residential parcels at 1139 Glenwood Avenue NE, 1060 Glenwood Avenue NE, 1052 Glenwood Avenue NE, 1067 Harrington Avenue NE, and 1073 Harrington Avenue NE; and the existing highway right-of-way along NE Sunset Boulevard, The depth of the anticipated ground disturbance will vary, depending on the design the proposed development and street improvements. The horizontal APE has also been expanded to include parcels adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1 1CF 00593.20 ` -- Project Location \ �. State of Washington dd t �tiLn'. 4, � nor 1xCfq Id II - r , � ii a• s r: � - tn• l• 'In fu I •I l, 1'VAL 4 _ } l; r r { =Area of Potential Effects ,: a. 0 250 500 1,000 Meters ,-4 J, Q,d 11� _��Y 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet Ir l _ �. � } • \` - r , '�,� � !� — Source: Mercer island 4J122 -E2 and Renton 47122-D2 S (7.5' Quadrangle Maps), USGS * I M — rw� 'CF iNTE RN Al l O NAL Figure 1 Project Location Cultural Resources Survey Report �- ,i.7' alp mF -41 ♦ .... va 14, ef t 5 ry# ` •� s1 ��. "' • �._! . Via~ i 4LL d'' _. 16- a At AMP ,. A�•�" �r QArea of Potential Effects ��� o • �,�' C 10j 200 Meters 0 125 250 500 Feet o k m Source: King County NAIP (2009), USDA g _ Figure 2 1CF of Potential Effects INTERNATIONAL p Cultural Resources SurveyReport City of Renton Introduction The City initiated consultation with DAHP and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe under Section 106 of the NHPA with letters sent on September 1, 2010 requesting comments on the APE and input on the proposed undertaking. Copies of the notification letters are provided in Appendix A. Regulatory Context Federal, state, and local regulations recognize the public's interest in cultural resources and the public benefit of preserving them. These laws and regulations require analysts to consider how a project might affect cultural resources and to take steps to avoid or reduce potential damage to them. A cultural resource can be considered as any property valued (e.g., monetarily, aesthetically, religiously) by a group of people. Valued properties can be historical in character or date to the prehistoric past (i.e., the time prior to written records). The undertaking requires federal funding and must satisfy the requirements established under the NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, The NHPA is the primary mandate governing projects under federal jurisdiction that might affect cultural resources. The purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate cultural resources in the project area, fulfilling the requirements of NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, and to assess the potential effects of the build alternatives on cultural resources. Federal National Environmental Policy Act NEPA requires the federal government to carry out its plans and programs in such a way as to preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage by considering, among other things, unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)) and the degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)). Although NEPA does not define standards specific to cultural resource impact analyses, the implementing regulations of NEPA (40 CFR 1502.25) state that, to the fullest extent possible, "agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies required by ... the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.)." Although NEPA statutes and implementing regulations do not contain detailed information concerning cultural resource impact analyses, Section 106 of the NHPA, with which NEPA must be coordinated, details standards and processes for such analyses. The implementing regulations of Section 106 states, "Agency officials should ensure that preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or an EIS and record of decision (ROD) includes appropriate scoping, identification of historic properties, assessment of effects upon them, and consultation leading to resolution of any adverse effects" (36 CFR 800.8[a] [31). Section 106, therefore, typically forms the crux of federal agencies' NEPA cultural resources impact analyses and the identification, consultation, evaluation, affects assessment and, mitigation required for both NEPA; and Section 106 compliance should be coordinated and completed simultaneously. This practice is followed in the present analysis. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1.5 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Introduffor 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 (NRHP), 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]). S. Proceed in accordance with the project MOA, if an MOA is developed. An adverse effect on a historic property is found when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it may diminish the integrity of the historic property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The assessment of effects to historic properties is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 800.5. National Register of Historic Places First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the NRHP was established by the NHPA as "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments; private groups; and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment." The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. According to NRHP guidelines, the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that meet any of the following criteria: Criterion A. A property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion B. A property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C. A property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1 5 1CF 06593.10 City of Renton IntrOdUCt10n represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D. A property yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Ordinarily, birthplaces, cemeteries, or graves of historical figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; properties primarily commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the NRHP, unless they satisfy certain conditions. The NRHP requires that a resource not only meet one of these criteria, but must also possess integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey historical significance. The evaluation of a resource's integrity must be grounded in an understanding of that resource's physical characteristics and how those characteristics relate to its significance. The NRHP recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define the integrity of a property, including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. An adverse effect on a historic property is found when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it may diminish the integrity of the historic property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The assessment of effects on historic properties is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 800.5. State Washington State Environmental Policy Act The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that all major actions sponsored, funded, permitted, or approved by state and/or local agencies be planned so that environmental considerations—such as impacts on cultural resources—are considered when state -agency -enabled projects affect properties of historical, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance (Washington Administrative Code 197-11-960). These regulations closely resemble NEPA. Under SEPA, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is the specified agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other state agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. DAHP does not regulate the treatment of cultural resources found to be significant. A local governing authority may choose to uphold the DAHP recommendations and may require mitigation of adverse effects on significant cultural resources. For the purposes of this analysis, the degree to which the alternatives adversely affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP is the primary criterion for determining significant impacts under SEPA. Secondary criteria include whether an alternative has the potential to affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the NRHP, Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1 1CF 00593.10 City of Renton Washington Heritage Register ntroduction The WHR is an official listing of historically significant sites and properties found throughout the state. The list is maintained by DAHP and includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that have been identified and documented as being significant in local or state history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. To qualify for placement on the WHR, the resource must meet the following criteria. A building, site, structure or object must be at least 50 years old. If newer, the resource should have documented exceptional significance. The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity (i.e., it should retain important character -defining features from its historic period of construction]. The resource should have documented historical significance at the local, state, or federal level. Sites listed on the NRNP are automatically added to the WHR and hence a separate nomination form does not need to be completed. Governor's Executive Order 05-05 Washington State Executive Order 05-05—which requires state agencies with capital improvement projects to integrate DAHP, the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned tribes into their capital project planning process ---was signed into action by Governor Chris Gregoire in November 2005, All state agency capital construction projects or land acquisitions, not otherwise reviewed under federal law, must comply with this Executive Order, if the projects or acquisitions have the potential to affect cultural resources. Agencies with projects or acquisitions subject to review under the Executive Order must consult with DAHP and concerned tribes and invite their participation in project planning. If cultural resources are present, then reasonable steps to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential effects must be taken. (vocal The City currently does not have a local historic preservation ordinance. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 1-8 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF 0059310 Chapter 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting Environmental Setting Geologic Background The APE is located within the Puget Lowland, a structural and topographic basin that lies between the Cascade Range and Olympic Mountains. The modern topography of the Puget Lowland is primarily the result of surface scouring and moraine formation caused by the most recent glacial advance, known as the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation, which took place between 14,000 and 20,000 years before present (BP) (Booth et al. 2009; Easterbrook 2003). As a result of this glacial activity, the APE is characterized as a moderately glacial drift upland, composed of glacial till (Muliineaux 1965). In the modern era, the surface of the APE has been modified to accommodate for development. Geotechnical borings from a previous project, excavated along NE Sunset Boulevard within the APE, revealed four to seven feet of fill along the roadway (Golder Associates 1996, 2003). It is not known whether fill to this depth extends away from the roadway. Similar testing completed prior to construction of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex in 1958-1959 also indicate that limited surface grading occured on-site during the complex's construction (George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates 1958). Flora and Fauna The project APE is located in the Puget Sound area subtype western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) vegetation zone. Softwoods such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii), western hemlock, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) are the dominant tree species in the region, while hardwoods such as red alder (Alnus ruhra) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophylium) are generally subordinate and found near watercourses or riparian habitats. Garry oak (Quercusgarryana) groves are found at lower elevations. In some areas, stands of pines (Pinus spp.) are major forest constituents, along with Douglas fir (Franklin and Dyrness 1988:72). Understory shrubs with potential food and resource value in the western hemlock zone include, but are not limited to, swordfern (Polystichum muritum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), vine maple (Acer circinatum), huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), blackberry (Rubes spp.), ocean spray (Holodiscu discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon), blueberries and huckleberries (Vaccinium sp,), wapato (Sogittaria latifolia) and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Terrestrial faunal resources in the region include, but are not limited to, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Corvus elaphus), cougar (Puma concolor), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), black bear (Ursus americanus), squirrels (Scirius sp.), muskrat (Ondatro sp.), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Dalquest 1948). Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 2 ; ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Cultural Setting Precontact Environmental and Cultural Setting Cultural developments in the Puget Sound area have been summarized by a number of reviewers (Kidd 1964; Greengo and Houston 1970; Nelson 1990; Larson and Lewarch 1995; Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Forsman and Lewarch 2001), and most recently by Kopper] (2004). The archaeological record and cultural histories of the prehistory of Puget Sound and surrounding areas generally divide the prehistoric cultural sequence into multiple phases or periods from about 13,000 BP to AD 1700. These phases are academic in nature and do not necessarily reflect tribal viewpoints. A summary of the phases is provided below, based on the periods proposed by Kopperl (2004): • Paleo-Indian Period (11,000 to 8000 BP). Generalized resource development in a post -glacial environment. Site contents consist of large lithic bifaces and bone technology. • Early Period (8,000 to 5,000 BP). Inland sites with lithic artifacts, rarely found with associated plant or animal remains, or hearth structures. • Middle Period (5,000 BP to 2,500 BP). Increase socioeconomic complexity, exploitation of a wider range o f environments, and utilization of marine resources. • Late Period (2,500 BP to European contact). The establishment of large semi -sedentary populations, increased diversity of hunting, fishing, plant processing, and woodworking tools, followed by European contact. Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Ethnographic information recorded during the early part of the twentieth century indicates that the Planned Action Study Area is located within the territory of a Native American group traditionally known as the Duwamish. The Duwamish people traditonally spoke the Southern Lushootseed language, which is one of two Coast Salish languages spoken in the Puget Sound (Suttles and Lane 1990:486). They inhabited areas that encompassed Salmon Bay, Lake Union, Portage Bay, Union Bay, Lake Washington, and their tributary streams (Blukis Onat and Kiers 2007:6). The Duwamish people hunted deer, elk, bear, ducks, geese, and other game animals and waterfowl, when available. Inland of the Puget Sound, they fished for salmon when available (Duwamish Tribe 2010). Plant foods such as sprouts, roots, bulbs, berries, and nuts were collected as well (Suttles and Lane 1990:489) Although ethnographic village locations and place names are documented south of the Planned Action Study Area along the Cedar River, no ethnographically documented villages or place names are known to exist within the the study area (Hilbert et a]. 2001) European American settlement of the Puget Sound area in the 18SOs severely disrupted the Duwamish way of life. Early contact between the Duwamish and European Americans was cordial, and the Duwamish were essential to the survival of many early settlers. As the city of Seattle and the surrounding towns grew, natural resources on which the Duwamish relied became increasingly scarce and other traditional areas became inaccessible as a result of development. Further urban expansion, combined with the banning of native urban residence in 1865, resulted in many of the Lake Duwamish people moving away from, or being forced out of, the Seattle area. Many of the Duwamish people went to reservations where they had relatives, including the Muckleshoot, Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 2.2 104059310 City of Renton Ervimrmental and Cultural Setting Suquamish, Tulalip, Lummi, or Snoqualmie reservations (Blukis Onat et al. 2005). Today, some of the descendents of the Duwamish people are now members of several federally recognized tribes in including the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Suquamish, Tulalip Tribe of Indians, and Snoqualmie Tribe, while others remain enrolled with the Duwamish tribe, although it is not a federally recognized tribe (Duwamish Tribe 2010). Historic Context Early Beginnings The first European American settler in the Renton area was Henry Tobin, who arrived in 1853 and established a 320 -acre claim on the Black River, along with his family (Buerge 1989:22-24; City of Renton 1989:4). Tobin, together with three partners, subsequently established the Duwamish Coal Company and built the area's first sawmill to obtain the lumber necessary for the mining tunnels. The sawmill was in operation by 1854, but conflicts with Native American groups in the region soon caused an end to this early business venture (Buerge 1989:22). Over the few short years of European American settlement in the Puget Sound area, Native Americans had witnessed important areas of their traditional lifeways occupied and altered by the new settlers (Thrush 2007:79-80). After establishment of the Washington Territory in 1853, the new territorial governor began drafting agreements that required the removal of the area's remaining Native American populations, to make the land available for further European American. Enacted in two councils called the Medicine Creek Treaty and the Point Elliott Treaty, the agreements called for lands to be handed over to the state in exchange for rights to traditional gathering areas, money and the relocation of native peoples to designated reservations (Buchanan 1859; Buerge 1989:22-23; Peirce 1855; Slauson 2006:3). After signing the Point Elliot Treaty, local tribal chief Keokuck returned to the Black River area to find his people deeply divided between feelings of friendship to settlers they knew in the area, and feelings of resentment and betrayal for being forced to surrender their traditional homelands. Several regional tribes, including the Yakama and Wenatchee, united together to confront encroaching settlers, resulting in the conflict referred to as the Yakima Indian War of 1855. Crossing the mountains, warriors raided settlements and even launched an attack on the city of Seattle itself. After the Treaty of Point Elliott was ratified by Congress in 1859, the remaining Duwamish living along the Black River were forced from their land and relocated to reservations (Buerge 1989:23). The Birth of Renton After the signing of the Treaty of Point Elliott and the forced removal of the native Duwamish, an increasing number of settlers entered the area (Buerge 1989:23). In 1856, Erasmus M. Smithers acquired Tobin's earlier claim by marrying his widow, and purchased an additional 160 acres in 1857 (Buerge 1989:24; City of Renton 1989:4; Slauson 2006:2). Smithers' substantial land holdings eventually became the center of a burgeoning community that would eventually form the city of Renton. During the 1860s, several additional families settled in the area, and schools and a post office were established. Rich deposits of coal found in the mountains surrounding the small community in the 1860s and 1870s furthered its prosperity. Wealthy entrepreneurs, such as Captain William Renton, who had built an enormous and prosperous sawmill on Bainbridge Island, invested heavily in the area's coal Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 2.3 [CF oos93.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting and transportation industries, allowing the fledgling community's economy to boom (Buerge 1989:24-27; Slauson 2006:6). In 1875, Smithers and two partners filed the town plat for the new community and named it Renton in honor of the investor's financial backing (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:5; Buerge 1989:27; City of Renton 1989:4; Slauson 2006:7). The coal -mining and logging industries continued to draw new residents to the area (Buerge 1989:30-32; City of Renton 1989:4-5). In 1875, less than 50 people lived in Renton, but by 1900, 1,176 people called it home (City of Renton 1989:4). Renton was fully incorporated on September 6, 1901 (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:5; Buerge 1989:37). Industrial Development At the turn of the twentieth century, the area's coal -mining industry began to decline in importance, soon to be replaced by a new set of industries. The discovery of superior quality clay deposits at the south end of Lake Washington led to the establishment of the Renton Clay Works in 1902. By 1917, this company was the largest brick manufacturing plant in the world (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:5; City of Renton 1989:5). Addressing the growing needs of the railroad, logging, and later military, during the two World Wars, the Pacific Car & Foundry was first established during this period, supplying steel, pig iron, and other equipment for the production of railroad boxcars, tanks, and later, wing spans for aircraft. The company acquired Kenworth Motor Trucks in 1945 and Peterbilt Motors in 1958, merging them into one company called PACCAR in 1972 (City of Renton 1989:5). One of the greatest influences on the development of Renton occurred during World War 11 with the establishment of the Boeing Company aircraft manufacturing plant at the south end of Lake Washington (City of Renton 1989:61. Built in 1940, the Renton Boeing plant manufactured B-29 Superfortress bombers; the plant exponentially increased in size through the course of the war (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:12). At its height in 1942, the plant employed 44,754 people and produced approximately 90 planes each month, with a total of 6,981 planes completed before the war's end (Slauson 2006:126). Development in Renton boomed with the flood of jobs and new residents brought by Boeing and other manufacturers. After the war, Boeing continued to employ as many as 35,000 workers and PACCAR was the city's second largest employer (Buerge 1989:82). Dubbed the "Hub City of Enterprise," Renton was one of the most important manufacturing centers in the state at this time (Buerge 1989:82). In the postwar era, new housing, retail shops, schools, churches, and civic services were established to provide for the new masses, and the federal government provided nearly $4 million in funds for the construction of new housing alone (Buerge 1989:75-79). Boeing continued to play a prominent role in Renton's economy through the rest of the twentieth century, producing commercial airplanes including the 737, 747, 757, and 767 and employing as many 25,000 (City of Renton 1989:6). Today, Renton's economy is shifting towards a greater economic diversification with technology firms, microbreweries, and the Wizards of the Coast, a game and card company (The Boeing Company et al. 2001:19; Buerge 1989:88). Renton Highlands Despite Renton's rapid growth in the early twentieth century, the area encompassing in the APE remained largely undeveloped until the 1940s. The area was logged starting in 1883 (Slauson 2006:42) and Primary State Highway 2 (PSH 2), later known as the Sunset Highway or SR 900, was Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 2-4 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard lCF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting established through the APE from 1909 through 1910. The route was first paved in 1920, becoming the principal highway between Seattle and Snoqualmie Pass prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Floating Bridge in 1940 (Buerge 1989:67; Morning Olympian 1909:3). Although development in Renton's downtown grew with the arrival of the highway, the area in the vicinity of the APE remained primarily rural. With the arrival of the Renton Boeing plant and its tens of thousands of workers in the 1940s, however, housing development exploded in the area with many of its existing residential neighborhoods first established during World War II. In order to accommodate the enormous work force, the federal government embarked on a series of housing projects in the area (Buerge 1989:75). Known as the "Highlands" south of the highway and as the "North Highlands" north of the highway, the development of these two neighborhoods relied heavily on federally loans, grants, and other programs (City of Renton 1989:34). During this early development, the Highlands emerged as the center of housing project development while the North Highlands evolved with the construction of mixed commercial and multi -use family housing along the highway (City of Renton 1989:34-35). Overnight, retail and social services emerged to serve the bustling new community. The Highlands area received its own post office and fire station in the fall of 1943 (Slauson 2006:45, 85), and a large recreational complex complete with tennis courts, ball fields, and a small gymnasium was completed in 1949 (Slauson 2006:81). Later improvements included the move of a prominent Methodist church from downtown Renton to the Highlands area in 1958 and construction of a new branch of the library in 1979 (Slauson 2006:62, 97), By 1975, the area was almost fully developed (City of Renton 1989:34-35; Renton History Museum 1975). Postwar Housing Development and Design During World War I1, population migrations to urban centers combined with the rapid development of wartime industries caused increasing demand for housing that was much greater than in prior decades (Madison 1971:1 -ii). Although a series of housing reforms were enacted during the 1930s Depression era, including establishing the Federal Housing Administration, it was not until the postwar era that the federal government enacted "the most significant housing legislation ever passed" to meet this need (Lord 1977:10). In the Housing Act of 1949, a goal was set by the federal government to provide "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family" (Lord 1977:10). The Act outlined an ambitious goal, authorizing the construction of 810,000 new homes over the next six years (Lord 1977:10). The result of this legislation was the funding of new homes and housing projects in cities throughout the nation. Large multifamily housing projects, in particular, were strongly influenced by the tenants of the Garden City movement. The concept of the Garden City was promulgated in 1902 by Ebenezer Howard. Howard critically examined the life of urban city dwellers and determined that they suffered from insufficient access to space and nature. In response, Howard envisioned the Garden City, a plan for smaller and denser, publically owned communities that could provide the long-term planning necessary assure ample access to "fresh air, sunlight, breathing room and playing room" required for a successful, pleasant and ideal lifestyle (Howard 1902:113; Chambers 1902). Beginning in the 1940s, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) adopted many of the ideas and methods championed by Howard. Addressing the high demands for housing, the FHA turned from single-family dwellings to larger apartment complexes suitable for the Garden City ideal (Hanchett 2000:167-168; Rabinowitz 2004:23). Known as garden style apartments, these housing projects began to increasingly serve a lower-class population and federal housing began to assume an Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 2-5 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting additional role of redefining "the working-class community along middle class lines" (Karolak 2000:67), Thus, federal housing embarked on a new campaign to elevate the poor within society by exposing them to environments which conformed to designs and ideals practiced by the middle class: garden -city ideal (Karolak 2000:67-70). These federal housing projects used the principals developed by Howard, requiring open space and holistic planning of communities, as government architects tailored "the kitchens, bathrooms, and living rooms ... of American workers to encourage loyalty, hard work, thrift, and other middle-class values" (Karolak 2000:76), Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex In Renton Highlands, federal funding during the postwar period included significant investment in affordable housing, Central to this effort was construction of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex along the north side of Primary State Highway 2 (NE Sunset Boulevard) in 1958-1959, comprising most of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Authorized on June 28, 1958, and completed in 1959, Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units consisting of both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets (Associated Press 1958:1; King County Department of Assessments 2010; The Seattle Times 1959:44). It was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company and designed by George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates (George W. Stoddard- Hu ggard & Associates 1958; The Seattle Times 1959:44). George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area. Stoddard graduated from the University of Illinois in 1917. After serving in World War 1, he joined his father's architectural firm in Seattle and later went on to create his own firm, George W. Stoddard & Associates (The Seattle Times 1960:32; The Seattle Times 1967:16). In 1955, Stoddard brought on partner Francis E. Huggard and renamed the firm George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates, Architect and Engineers (The Seattle Times 1967:16). Stoddard built such noted structures as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project (Elenga 2007:48, 230; Ochsner 1998:208, 352; The Seattle Times 1967:16). Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions (The Seattle Times 1960:32). Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to each housing unit. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake with some brick veneer. RHA completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s, when the single -level, ground -related units in the complex were upgraded for ADA Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 2-6 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Culturai Setting accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 2-7 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICFOo593.10 Chapter 3 Literature Review and Consultation Existing Data and Background Data Records Research A record search was conducted using the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database (WISAARD) to identify previously documented archaeological, ethnographic, and historic resources within 1 mile of the APE. WISAARD contains all records and reports on file with DAHP recorded since 1995. No previously completed cultural resources studies and no previously documented archaeological sites are located in the APE, Only one historic resource, the building at 2615 NE Sunset Boulevard, was previously recorded in the APE. However, the building's NRHP eligibility was not previously evaluated. Ten previously completed cultural resources surveys and one archaeological site were identified outside the APE, but within a 1 -mile radius of its boundary. A summary of these cultural resources studies and the archaeological site is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects NADB # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources 1339887 juell 2001 Cultural Literature search None Resources and windshield Inventory of the survey of 1-405 proposed corridor. Washington Light removed through Lanes Project residential area. 1352447 1351994 Bundy2008 Goetz 2008 Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase I Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project Archaeological Assessment, Dayton Avenue NE/NE 22nd Street Stormwater System Project Survey of 1-405 corridor and shovel testing. Excavated a total of six shovel probes. None None 1353126 Chatters 2009 Recovery of Two Exhumed remains Site 45K1686; NRHP Early 20th of young male and eligible, but site Century Graves older probable completely from Renton, WA female from removed through residential area. excavation 1348842 Hodges 2007a Cultural Monitoring of 20, None Resources 4 inch bore holes Cultural Resources Survey Report —Potentia I Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 3 1 ICF00593-10 City of Renton Literature Review and Consultation NAD13 # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources Assessment for through fill. the Proposed Lowe's of Renton 1349666 Stipe 2007 Verizon Wireless SEA Renton Voc- Tech Cellular Tower Cultural Resources Review 1349929 Miss 2007 Archaeological Monitoring for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project 1349789 Hodges 2007h Archaeological Resource Assessment far the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project Records search None and pedestrian archaeological survey Monitoring of None excavated trenches. 29 backhoe trenches excavated through fill. None 1340681 Cooper 2001 Antennas on an Survey around None Existing footprint of Transmission transmission Tower 12612 tower and one Southeast 96th shovel test. Street NADB = National Archaeological Database There is one known archaeological site within a 1 -mile radius of the APE. Site 45K1686, known as the Henry Moses Aquatic Center Site, contains two Hunter -fisher -gatherer hearth features likely short-term campsites. These features were inadvertently discovered while constructing the aquatic center; the site was fully excavated in June of 2003 by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited. Feature 1 was a shallow basin hearth that contained charred wood, burned earth, and fragments of hazelnut shell. Charcoal samples taken from feature 1 came back with a corrected date of 29113P. The presence of Hazelnut shells suggests a fall use for Feature 1. Feature 2, had been almost completely removed by the excavation of a swimming pool prior to data recovery. Twenty- two pieces of FMR were recovered from feature 2, however there was insufficient charcoal for a radiocarbon sample and no mammal bone, fish bone, or other plant remains were identified. (Kaehler 2004) Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 3-2 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 Chapter 4 Research Design Objectives and Expectations Review of existing archaeological records within 1 mile of the Planned Action Study Area reveals that all known archaeological sites are located in areas for which the geomorphology indicates a high probability for containing pre contact archaeological sites (e.g., floodplains and lake margins). In contrast, the APE itself is located on a glacial till plain, which has a low probability for pre contact archaeological sites. Precontact archaeological sites on upland terraces tend to be very old relative to valley floor sites, and contain lithic artifacts, with rare instances of bone or plant remains, Analysis of previous geologic research within the project APE reveals that sediments deposited during the Pleistocene epoch should be encountered at or near the modern ground surface in areas that have not been modified in the historic or modern period. Since there is only evidence for human occupation in the Puget Sound area during the Holocene epoch, all cultural materials should be encountered on or just below ground surface in areas that have not been modified during the historic or modern period, or at the fill/naturally deposited sediment interface in areas that have been filled during the historic and modern period. Given the examination of the existing archaeological and geologic information, the likelihood for encountering prehistoric archaeological sites was considered very low. It was expected that any precontact archaeological sites encountered during archaeological investigations would be surface lithic scatters. If topsoil has been removed, then it was also expected that no archaeological materials would be encountered. Research Methods Archaeological Investigations ICF archaeologists conducted a cultural resources survey of the APE, using standard DAHP-accepted methods appropriate for finding and recording cultural resources. The field survey included walking transects across the APE and excavating shovel tests to find exposed and buried archaeological deposits and historic features. The purpose of this survey was to identify any visible archaeological materials and to characterize the vertical extent of the APE. Shovel test pits (50 centimeter [cm] diameter) were excavated in areas not covered in asphalt, concrete, buildings, or other features. The pits were excavated to the depth of Pleistocene sediments or dense gravel deposits of obstructing rocks, when encountered. In some shovel tests, excavations exceeded the depth of Pleistocene sediments. These units were excavated to confirm that Pleistocene sediments had not been redeposited over younger Holocene aged sediments. All shovel tests were excavated by hand and sediments screened through 6 -millimeter (0.25 -inch) mesh hardware cloth. Upon completion of excavation, shovel tests were photographed using a digital camera and backfilled. Representative photographs are presented at the end of this document. Shovel tests were mapped using a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) unit. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 4 1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Historical Resources Survey Research Design The historic resources survey involved examining and photographing buildings and structures in the APE determined to be 45 years of age or older. ICF senior architectural historian, Christopher Hetzel, MA, conducted the survey and reviewed all properties in the APE to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Construction dates were established using data from the King County Tax Assessor, original construction drawings for the Renton Sunset public housing project, and based on visual inspection. Properties built before 1965 were identified and information was collected about their physical characteristics. The data collected included one or more photographs of each property from the public right-of-way, the architectural style of each resource (if identifiable), the type and materials of significant features, and the existence of alterations and overall physical integrity. Properties identified as 45 years of age or older were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP and recorded in the Washington State Historic Property Inventory Database, per DAHP reporting standards. Printed record forms for each property are provided in Appendix B of this report. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 4-2 ICF D0593.I0 Chapter 5 Resu Its Archaeological Investigations On October 7, 2010, ICI~ archaeologists J. Tait Elder, MA, and Patrick Reed conducted an archaeological investigation of the APE. The investigation included a pedestrian survey across the entire APE and 12 shovel tests in areas that were not obscured by concrete or asphalt, or where buried utilities were present (Figure 31. NE Sunset Boulevard Right -of -Way A windshield survey was conducted in the commercially developed areas along NE Sunset Boulevard, within the APE. The survey indicated that much of the ground surface had been paved for use as roadways, sidewalks, or parking lots. No shovel tests were conducted in this area, because concrete and asphalt paving covered nearly all the ground surface or buried utility lines were present. Edmonds -Glenwood Lot A pedestrian survey was performed in this area, although ground visibility was obscured by extensive surface vegetation consisting of grasses and blackberry. Shovel tests excavated at the Edmonds -Glenwood Lot revealed gravelly silty sand, ranging from loose to moderate compaction that increased with depth. A weakly developed A -horizon is present in the first 20 cm, which shows indications of disturbance. Modern refuse, as well as a single historic artifact, were encountered in disturbed sedimentary context. These objects included flat glass, safety glass, one vessel glass fragment, wire nails and one cut (square) nail. Harrington Lot A pedestrian survey was performed in this area, although ground visibility was obscured by surface vegetation consisting of grasses. Shovel tests excavated at the Harrington lot revealed deposits of gravely silty sand that had been overlain by imported gravelly sandy fill, which had developed multiple A -horizons from between filling events. Amber and clear glass fragments were observed in the imported sand fill. ST#8 encountered sandy fill usually associated with buried utilities, and was terminated at 45 cm below surface. Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex A pedestrian survey was performed in this area, although ground visibility was obscured by extensive surface vegetation consisting of grasses and constructed components consisting of sidewalks and buildings. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 5-1 ICF 00543.10 City of Renton Results Shovel tests excavated at the Sunset Terrace complex revealed no historic or modern cultural materials. ST#11 contained gravelly silty sand underlain by sterile laminated sands below 52 cm. Weathered glacial till was encountered at 24 cm below surface in ST#12. No other shovel tests contained sediments that were identified as glacial till. Summary of Shovel Tests A total of 12 shovel tests were excavated in the APE, specifically within the Edmonds -Glenwood Lot (five tests), the Harrington Lot (five tests), and Sunset Terrace public housing complex (two tests) (Figure 3). Table 2 below provides a summary of these 12 test pits, including their location and results. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 5-2 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593,10 •.�-�'`' : � �• risk. s �I i jar do 40 '% f ' 40 #� OL .r !' r14 I r • `"•— - ,; Shovel Test • J ,- l- ■ NRHP Eligible 1' 4 n Not NRHP Eligible 0 Edmonds-Glennwood Lot y 0 Harrington Lot - �• �f 1� M Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex r � Area of Potential Effects l:s.soa r. o 0 so 100 200 Meters rc► i �.� 'P# -' y 0 125 250 500 Feet 0 8 ICF TI Source: King County NAIP {2009), USDA r � y Figure 3 Shovel Test Locations and Historic Resources Survey Results Cultural Resources Survey Report City of Renton Table 2. Shovel Test Data Results ST Depth Width Soil Description Comments Location 1 45 100 0-17 cm: Brown gravelly silty 0-17 cm: A -horizon formed in Edmond - sand, loose compaction, few recessional glacial outwash, Glenwood small roots. disturbed, developed weakly Lot 17-65 cm: Reddish brown partial removal from gravelly silty sand, loose grubbing, contained Flat glass, compaction moderately loose safety glass, vessel glass, compaction, less silt than square nail above. 17-65 cm: B -horizon in 65-100 cm: Olive brown recessional glacial outwash gravelly silty sand, loose 65-100 cm: recessional compaction outwash 2 45 115 0-21 cm: Brown gravelly silty 0-21 cm: A -horizon, Edmond - sand, loose compaction, few disturbed Glenwood small roots. 21-62 cm: 13 -horizon, Lot 21-62 cm: Red sediment, disturbed, abundant burned mixed and mottled w/ wood abundant burned wood 62-115 cm: Recessional 62-115 cm: Olive grey gravelly outwash silty sand 3 42 64 0-14 cm: Mixed and disturbed 0-14 mixed A and B horizons Edmond - silty gravelly sand in outwash Glenwood 14-64 cm: Reddish brown silty Lot gravelly sand, increasing gravels with depth 64-68 cm: Olive grey gravelly silty sand 4 43 58 0-18 cm: Brown gravely silty 0-18 cm: A -horizon in Edmond - sand outwash Glenwood 18-43 cm: Reddish brown silty 18-43 cm: B -horizon in Lot gravelly sand loose to outwash moderate compaction 43-58 cm: outwash 543-58 cm: Olive grey to brown gravelly silty sand 5 42 56 0-30 cm: Mixed and disturbed 0-30 cm: Brick and concrete Edmond - reddish brown silty gravelly fragments Glenwood sand loose compaction 30-52 cm: B -horizon in Lot 30-52 cm: Intact reddish recessional outwash brown gravelly silty sand, 52-58 cm: Recessional moderate outwash compaction 52-58 cm: Olive grey gravelly silty sand Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 5-4 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF0059310 City of Renton Results ST Depth Width Soil Description Comments Location 6 43 82 0-23 cm: Gravelly sand fill, 0-23 cm: Occ. brown and Ilarrington dense compaction clear bottle glass Lot 23-51 cm: Reddish brown tine 23-51 cm: B -horizon in sand w/ occ. Rounded outwash granules 51-82 cm: Intact glacial 51-82 cm: Olive grey gravelly outwash silty sand 7 42 109 0-13 cm; Brown sand, loose 0-13 cm: A -horizon Harrington compaction 36-60 cm: black sooty sand Lot 13-88 cm: Reddish brown fine lenses w/rootlets, root burn to moderate pebbly sand, loose 88-109 cm: outwash compaction 88-109 cm: Olive grey gravelly silty sand 8 42 4S 0-40 cm: Mixed reddish brown 0-40 cm: Fill, plastic and Harrington imported gravelly sandy silt glass fragments Lot 40-45 cm; Medium varigated 40-45 cm: Utility line fill sand 9 43 119 0-14 cm: Brown gravelly sand 0-14 crn; A -horizon Harrington 14-20 cm: Mixed tanish brown 20-30 cm: Buried A horizon, Lot and reddish brown sand plastic, glass 20-30 cm: Brown gravelly 30-56 cm: Imported fill sand 79-94 cm: Buried A -horizon 30-56 cm: Reddish brown 94-119 cm: B -horizon in gravelly sand, loose to outwash moderate compaction 56-79 cm: Grayish brown sand, few pebbles 79-94 cm: Moderate compacted brown sand with few charcoal flecks, 94-119 cm: Loose to moderately compacted reddish brown sand 10 45 120 0-25 crn: Mixed reddish brown 0-25 cm: Imported fill, plastic Harrington gravelly sand and glass fragments Lot 25-30 cm: Very dark brown 25-30 cm; A -horizon in fill silty sand 30-84 cm: fill 30-84 cm: Reddish brown silty 84-87 cm: A -horizon in sand outwash 84-87 cm: Dark brown silty 87-120 cm: B -horizon in fine sand outwash 87-120 cm: Reddish brown silty fin sand 11 41 88 0-19 cm: Brown Gravelly silty 0-19 cm: A -horizon with Sunset sand clear contact possible cut and Terrace 19-52 cm: Gravelly silty sand fill, complex S2-88 cm: Grey laminated 19-52 cm: B -horizon with sands graded contact 52-88 cm; Sterile Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 5-5 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 City of Renton ST Depth Width Soil Description Comments Location 12 43 25 0-25 cm: Brown gravelly silty 0-25 cm: A -horizon Sunset sand, few rootlets 25+ cm: Weathered glacial till Terrace 25+ cm: Compacted weathered complex till ST = shovel test Historic Resources Survey Results The reconnaissance -level historic resources survey revealed the presence of 70 developed properties in the APE. Fifty-one of these properties contain resources that are 45 years of age or older (Table 3; Figure 3). One of these properties, the building at 2615 NE Sunset Boulevard, was previously recorded in the Washington Historic Property Inventory Database. However, the building's NRNP eligibility was not previously evaluated. All of the other properties in the APE contain buildings and/or structures that are less than 45 years old (Table 4). All 51 properties identified as 45 years of age or older were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Based on NRHP criteria for evaluation (36 CFR 60.4), only one of the identified properties in the APE appears to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The building at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard was identified during the historic resources survey as possibly eligible for the NRHP. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 5-6 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Table 3. Properties in Area of Potential Effects Identified as 45 Years of Age or Older Address Tax Parcel # Year Built NRHP Evaluation Results 2707 NE 10th St 7227801085 1959 Not Eligible 2715 NE 10th St 7227801085 1959 Not Eligible 2624 NE 9th PI 7227500530 1959 Not Eligible 2630 NF 9th PI 7227500540 1959 Not Eligible 1012 Edmonds Ave NE 0923059119 1948 Not Eligible 1024 Edmonds Ave NE 0923059086 1954 Not Eligible 1100-1110 Edmonds 923059161 1964 Not Eligible Ave NE 1007 Glenwood Ave NE 7227801400 1959 Not Eligible 1011 Glenwood Ave NE 7227801400 1959 Not Eligible 1.052 Glenwood Ave NE 7227801305 1943 Not Eligible 1060 Glenwood Ave NE 7227801310 1943 Not Eligible 1139 Glenwood Ave NE 7227801380 1943 Not Eligible 965 Harrington Ave NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 966 Harrington Ave NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 970 Harrington Ave NE 7227801085 1959 Not Eligible 975 Harrington Ave NE 7227801400 1959 Not Eligible 984 Harrington Ave NE 7227801085 1959 Not Eligible 1067 Harrington Ave NE 7227801300 1993 Not Eligible 1073 Harrington Ave NE 7227801295 1943 Not Eligible 1409 Monroe Ave NE 423059104 1942 Not Eligible 1417 Monroe Ave NE 423059104 1935 Not Eligible 2502 NE Sunset Blvd 923059058 1943 Not Eligible 2615 NE Sunset Blvd 7227500550 1958 Not Eligible 2621 NE Sunset Blvd 7'127500550 1959 Not Eligible 2725 NE Sunset Blvd 7227801026 1964 Not Eligible 2800 NE Sunset Blvd 7227801201 1959 Not Eligible 2808-2832 NE Sunset Blvd 7227801205 1962 Not Eligible 2809 NE Sunset Blvd 7227900091 1959 Not Eligible 2825 NE Sunset Blvd 7227900094 1964 Eligible 2832-2844 NE Sunset Blvd 7227801205 1958 Not Eligible 2902 NE Sunset Blvd 7227801205 1958 Not Eligible 3309 NE. Sunset Blvd 423059104 1933 Not Eligible 11905 NE Sunset Blvd 0823059111 1964 Not Eligible 2601 Sunset Ln NE 7227801400 1959 Not Eligible 2605 Sunset Ln NE 7227601055 1959 Not Eligible 2606 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2611 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2612 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2617 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2620 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 5 ICF00593.10 City of Renton Address Tax Parcel # Year Built NRHP Evaluation Results 2623 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2629 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2630 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2635 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2641 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2644 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2647 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2711 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2717 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2720 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2723 Sunset Ln NE 7227801085 1959 Not EliLyible Table 4. Properties in Area of Potential Effects Identified as Less than 45 Years Old Address Tax Parcel # Year Built NRHP Evaluation 1170 NE Sunset Blvd 0823059203 1966 Less than 45 years 2705 NE Sunset Blvd 7227801025 1976. Less than 45 years 2801 NE Sunset Blvd 7227900090 1987 Less than 45 years 2806 NE Sunset Blvd 7227801205 1982 Less than 45 years 2809 NE Sunset Blvd 89000010 1971 Less than 45 years 2813 NE Sunset Blvd 7227900096 1970 Less than 45 years 2833 NE Sunset Blvd 7227900095 1981 Less than 45 years 2950 NE Sunset Blvd 7227801206 1972 Less than 45 years 3000 NE Sunset Blvd 7227900020, 7227900015, 2003 Less than 45 years 7227900019,7227900018, 7227900021 3002 NE Sunset Blvd 7227800285 1992 Less than 45 years 3005 NE Sunset Blvd 7227900016 1979 Less than 45 years 3116 NE Sunset Blvd 423059095 2000 Less than 45 years 3123 NE Sunset Blvd 423059155 2000 Less than 45 years 3155 NE Sunset Blvd 423059096 1982 Less than 45 years 3160 NE Sunset Blvd 423059080 1977 Less than 45 years 3208 NE Sunset Blvd 423059153 1978 Less than 45 years 3213 NE Sunset Blvd 423059317 1977 Less than 45 years 3217 NE Sunset Blvd 423059127 1980 Less than 45 years 3241 NE Sunset Blvd 423059145 1983 Less than 45 years Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 5 $ ICF 00593.10 Chapter 6 Analysis and National Register of Historic PlacesEvaluation Environmental Analysis The shape and composition of the landforms within the project APE is largely the result of depositional events that occurred during the Pleistocene epoch, as well as modern land modifications. During the late Pleistocene (14,000 and 11,000 BP), advancing and retreating continental glacial ice deposited and compacted unsorted sediments, known as glacial till, in their wake. As glaciers retreated, large volumes of meltwater deposited massive and laminated silty sands with occasional gravels on the surface. Other than surface removal and filling associated with the construction of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing complex and other modern development, no sedimentary depositional or removal events has occurred within the project APE since the end of the Pleistocene epoch. Once sediment deposition within the project APE ceased, soil formation occurred within the APE. This formation is a weathering process that acts upon sediments exposed at the ground surface. Identification of soil development indicators is an important too] for identifying buried surfaces, understanding landscape modification over time, and determining the potential depth of bioturbation. The process of soil formation typically results in the creation of several distinctive zones, or "soil horizons." The topmost of these zones is commonly known as topsoil, or "A" horizon. The underlying soils may vary depending on climatic and sedimentary factors, but is commonly a "B" horizon in the Pacific Northwest. A "B" horizon is characterized by the presence of an underlying parent sediment mixed with an accumulation of leached minerals from the overlying "A" horizon. The mixture of these sediments tends to give the "B" horizon a color that differs from the unweathered parent material. Archaeological excavations at the Edmonds -Glenwood Lot revealed that the majority of the surface within the parcel has been modified through mixture and removal of the native "A" horizon. The western half of the lot had been recently scraped, which was indicated by the total absence of vegetation and an "A" horizon at the surface in some areas, and heavily mixed "A" and "B" horizons in others. While a well developed "A" horizon has formed on the eastern half of the lot, modern debris (plastic, safety glass, nails) were identified throughout, likely indicating both sediment disturbance, and bioturbation. Throughout the parcel, an intact "B" horizon was identified below surface. The sediments in which the "B" horizon formed consist of moderately compacted gravelly silty sand, indicating its likely origin as glacial outwash rather than glacial till. Since the sediments within which soil formation occurred were deposited during the Pleistocene epoch, a period for which there is no record of human occupation in the Puget Sound, excavations were terminated once an intact "B" horizon was encountered. Because all visible surface within the lot have been modified, archaeological excavations revealed mixed or absent "A" horizon, and there are Pleistocene age sediments just below ground surface, the likelihood of discovering intact cultural resources at the Edmonds -Glenwood Lot is considered very low, and even then only on or just below the surface, Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 6-1 ICF 00593, 10 City of Renton Analysis and National Register of Historic Places Evaluation Archaeological excavations at the Harrington Lot revealed that two discrete modern fill events have occurred on the property. The most recent fill event ranged in depth from 13 to 40 cm below surface and consisted of brown gravelly sandy silt with occasional glass and metal fragments. An older fill event, which was composed of silty sand with occasional gravels, had been exposed long enough prior to having additional fill deposited on top of it that a weak "A" and "B" horizon had formed. A buried naturally deposited surface was encountered between 84 and 94 cm below surface. Underlying this surface, the sediment composition was similar to that of the undisturbed glacial outwash identified at the Edmonds -Glenwood Lot. Since there is a buried native surface that would have been exposed during the Holocene epoch located within the Harrington lot, it is possible that ground disturbing activities could encounter sediments that have the potential to contain archaeological deposits. The surface upon which the existing Sunset Terrace public housing complex was constructed has been heavily disturbed. Archaeological excavations revealed a sharp contrast between the composition of the "A" horizon and the underlying sediments. The "A" horizon was composed of moderately compacted brown gravelly sandy silt, while underlying sediments were composed of either moderately compacted gravelly silty sand. This sharp contrast indicates that the "A" horizon is an imported topsoil, and that the native "A" horizon was previously removed. Examination of grading and utilities plans from original construction drawings for the Sunset Terrace public housing complex indicates extensive ground disturbance during the complex's construction (George W. Stoddard -Huggard & Associates 1958). Given the level and extent of known disturbance, the absence of a native "A" horizon, and the presence of Pleistocene age sediments just below ground surface, there is no potential for buried archaeological sites within the area of the Sunset Terrace Public housing complex. Extensive concrete and asphalt, as well as buried utilities, prevented archaeological excavations along NE Sunset Boulevard. National Register of Historic PlacesEvaluation Only one potentially NHRP eligible property was identified in the APE, consisting of the existing building at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard. No other significant cultural resources were identified in the APB, The building at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard, constructed in 1964, is an excellent example of a 1960s.era supermarket designed in the Modern style, has good integrity, and is likely the design of a master architect. It is considered eligible for the NRHP under criterion C at the local level of significance because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type and style of construction and may represent the work of a master. None of the other identified resources in the APE are considered NRHP eligible. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. The other individual buildings and residences in the APE do not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition and are not known to be associated with known event or person of particular significance. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 6 2 ICF 00593.10 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Only one significant cultural resource was identified within the APE. The building at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard is recommended as NRHP eligible under criterion C at the local level of significance. No other significant historic resources were identified. No archaeological sites were identified during the archaeological survey of the APE. Archaeological excavations revealed mixed, imported, or absent sediments or soils that would have the potential to contain archaeological resources at the Edmonds -Glenwood Lot and throughout the Sunset Terrace public housing complex. Concrete and asphalt also covered much of the ground surface along NE Sunset Boulevard. At the Harrington Lot buried native "A" horizon sediment was identified between 84 and 94 cm below the surface. This sediment is considered a buried native surface, which would have been exposed during the Holocene epoch. Because it is located within the APE at this location, ground disturbing activities could potentially encounter sediments containing archaeological deposits when excavations occur on the parcel. The potential for the discovery of archaeological deposits in the rest of the APE is considered very low. Based on the cultural resources investigations, the proposed undertaking would not impact any known N RHP -eligible archaeological or historic resources in the APE, and the likelihood of impacting unknown cultural resources is considered low. The potentially NRHP-eligible building at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard would not be affected by the undertaking. Due to the physical separation of the property from NE Sunset Boulevard and the public right-of-way, the undertaking would have no direct changes on the building and the property's physical setting likely would be minimal. Recommendations Since no native "A" horizon was identified at the Edmonds -Glenwood Lot 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 the Harrington lot, the potential for an archaeological discovery is very low. Therefore, it is recommended that the project proceed with no further archaeological investigations. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground disturbing excavations, it is recommended that the contractor halts excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. For DAHP contact information, see Unanticipated Discovery Plan in Appendix C. If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sheriff and DAHP should be notified immediately. If during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered, the proponent shall immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian'tribes, as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Appendix C. cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard -t ICF 00593.10 Chapter 8 References Ames, K. M. and D. G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. London: Thames & Hudson. Associated Press 1958 Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News. The Seattle Times. June 29. Seattle, Washington. Blukis Onat, A. R., M. E. Morgenstein, P. D. LeTOUrneau, R. P. Stone, J. Kosta, and P. Johnson 2001 Archaeological Investigations atstuweyugw—Site 4SK1464—ToltRiver, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, WA. Blukis Onat, A. R., R. A. Kiers, and P. D. LeTourneau 2005 Preliminary Ethnographic and Geoa rchaeo logical Study of the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project. Report on file at Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. Blukis Onat, A. R. and R. A. Kiers 2007 Ethnohistoric and Geoarchaeological Study of the SR 520 Corridor and Archaeological Field Investigations in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HDV Project including the Pacific Interchange and Second Montlake Bridge Option, King County, Washington. Report on file at Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton 2001 Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. King County Journal Newspaper, Kent, Washington. Booth, D. B., K. G. Troost, and S. A. Schimel 2009 Geologic Map of Northeastern Seattle (Part of the Seattle North 7.5'x15' Quadrangle), King County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Buchanan, James 1859 Treaty between the United States and the Duwamish, Suquamish, and Other Allied and Subordinate Tribes of Indians in Washington Territory: January 22, 1855, ratified April 11, 1859. Available: <http://content,lib.washington.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/Ictext&CISOPTR=15 92&REC=16>. Accessed October 12, 2010. Buerge, David M. 1989 Renton. Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, California: Windsor Publications, Inc. Bundy, Barbara E. 2008 Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase I Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project. Report No. 08-23, Cultural Resources Program. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Services Office, Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sun5et Boulevard $ 1 ICF 00593-10 City of Renton References Chambers, Sir Theodore 1902 Forward. in Garden Cities of Tomorrow, Ebenezer Howard. N.p. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd. Chatters, James 2009 Recovery of Two Early 20th Century Graves from Renton, Washington. AMEC Project No. 8-915-16415-0. Bothell, WA. Prepared for James H. Jacques Construction byAMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. City of Renton Department of Community Development, Long Range Planning Section 1989.Community Profile. Renton Department of Community Development, Renton, Washington. Cooper, Jason 2001 Antennas on an Existing Transmission Tower 12612 Southeast 96th Street. SES4XC005A. Bellevue, WA. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Dalquest, W.W. 1948 The Mammals of Washington. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. Duwamish Tribe 2010 "Culture and History."Available: <http://www.duwamishtribe.org/index.html>. Accessed: October 18, 2010 Easterbrook, D. J. 2003 Cordilleran Ice Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and Alpine Glaciation of the North Cascade range, Washington. Pages 137-1S7 in T.W. Swanson (ed.), Western Cordillera and Adjacent Areas, Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America, Elenga, Maureen R. 2007 Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation. Forsman, L. and D. Lewarch 2001 Archaeology of the White River. White River Journal: A Newsletter of the White River Valley Museum. April. Available: <http://www. wrvmuseum.org/journal/jotirnal- 040 l.htm>. Accessed: July 25, 2006. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates 1958 Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington 11-1, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington. Construction Plans. George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, Seattle, WA. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Goetz, Linda Naoi, Kara M. Kanaby, Douglas F. Tingwall, and Thomas C. Rust 2008 Dayton Avenue NE/NE 22nd Street Stormwater System Project, Renton, Washington. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Landau Associates for BHC Consultants. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 8-2 1CF0059110 City of Renton Golder- Associates References 1996 Geotechnical Engineering Study N.E. Sunset Boulevard Harrington Avenue N.E. to Union Avenue N.E. Sewer Interceptor Project, Renton, Washington. May 7. Prepared for the City of Renton, WA. 2003 Final Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Renton Sunset Interceptor Phase II, Renton, Washington. September 2. Prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc. Greengo, R. E. and R. Houston 1970 Archaeological Excavations at Marymoor Farm. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Hanchett, Thomas W. 2000 The Other "Subsidized Housing": Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s. Pp. 163- 179 in John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian (eds.), From Tenements to the Taylor Homes, In Search of"an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Hilbert et al. 2001 Ways of the Lushootseed People Ceremonies & Traditions of North Puget Sound First People, Third Edition. Seattle, WA: Lushootseed Press. Hodges, Charles M. 2007a Cultural Resources Assessmentfor the Proposed Lowe's of Renton Project, Renton, King County, Washington. NWAA Report Number WA 07-014. Seattle, WA. Prepared for PacLand by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. 2007b Archaeological Resource Assessment far the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project City of Renton, King County, Washington. NWAA Report [Number WA06- 055. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Howard, Ebenezer 1902 Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd. Juell, Ken 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington Light Rails Project. NWAA Report WA01-6. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Kaehler, Gretchen A., et. at. 2004 Data Recovery Excavations at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center Site (45KI686), Renton, King County, Washington. LAAS Technical Report #2003-09. Prepared for Community Services, City of Renton, by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited. Gig Harbor, WA, Karolak, Eric J. 2000 No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919. Pages 60-80 in John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian (eds.), From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes,• In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard -3 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Kidd, R. S. References 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Prospective of Three Occupational Sites. Unpublished A.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. King County Department of Assessments 2010 Assessment Records for parcels 7227801055, 7227801400, and 7227801085. Available: <http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRealPt-operty/default.aspx>. Accessed: October 13, 2010. Kopperl, R. E. 2004 Cultural Resources Clearance Survey, SRS HOV Lane Construction, 48th Street to Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, Pierce County. Northwest Archaeological Associates and the Environmental History Company. On file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Larson, L. L., and D. E. Lewarch 1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington, 4,000 Years of Hunter -Fisher - Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Prepared by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle, WA. Lord, Tom Forrester 1977 Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc. Madison, Charles A. 1971 Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. Miss, Christian J. 2007 Archaeological Monitoring for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project, City of Renton, King County, Washington. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Morning Olympian 1909 Survey New Renton Seattle Highway, 30 October:3.Olympia, Washington. Mullineaux, D. R. 1965 Geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Nelson, C. M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. Pages 481-484 in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7 (Northwest Coast). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. 1998 Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace $ 4 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF 00593.10 City of Renton References Pierce, Franklin 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Nisqually and Other Bands of Indians. Available: <http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/Ictext&CISOPTR=15 74&REC=14>. Accessed: October 12, 2010. Rabinowitz, Alan 2004 Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. M.E. Sharpe, Inc„ Armonk, New York. Renton History Museum 1975 Renton Highlands, aerial view looking west, Renton, ca. 1975. Avaialble: <http://content.Iib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/imisrenton&CISO PTR=240. Accessed: October 13, 2010. The Seattle Times 1959 Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job. 18 March:44. Seattle, WA. 1960 G. W. Stoddard, Architect Since 1920, to Retire. 27 March:32. Seattle, WA. 1967 Obituaries: George W. Stoddard. 29 September: 16. Seattle, WA. Slauson, Morda C. 2006 Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, Renton, WA. Stipe, Frank T. 2007 Verizon Wireless SEA Renton Voc-Tech Cellular Tower Cultural Resources Review. Bothell, WA. Prepared for Verizon Wireless by Tetra Tech Divisions, Inc. Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 "South Coast Salish". in Sturtevant, William C.. Handbook of North American Indians. 7. Northwest coast. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Thrush, Coll 2007 Native Seattle: Histories From the Crossing -Over Place. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard $-5 ICF 00593, 10 Appendix A Correspondence Denis Law - city oftMayor r ; c C � Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Virginia Cross, Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd 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 146 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CPR 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 lead agency responsibility. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment project would occur an 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 Barrington 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'widenfng 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 • 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 ISE and Monroe Avenue ISE. 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. 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 prdperties will be withheId 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 City of Mayor r" `I i r, 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.Presercration 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-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 a new recreation/community center, a new public library, anew park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastMcture: 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 • 1055 South Grady Way 0 Renton, Washington 98057 0 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 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 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Thank you for your time. Should. you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact meat C425)430-6578. ` Sincerely, Erika Conklirig, AICD, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development. Enclosure; Area of Potential Effects Map Denis Law Cl Of Mayor r -r,- 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 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 far 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 180 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 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 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 ICP 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/dr 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, _ V Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department, of Community and Economic Development Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects Map �[ Ihl �C" Limits s�lOr � ��1� �� �`U! x �•� e. + P,NE62157 Sri Parcels 'INE 21ST 5T �� ' _,+�y Q Area of Potential Effects +1 f5T- 1s:1L1>" + k.. 1F WaR ' •ADS , - t OTH?STI N R,� 17 A r _Y ----NEA -9TH!STa 500 1 •DOo ,s + s. O I S ee ._ i NE,18T#I ST, 4._ ' G rr r► .'" 4bib 14 �; F : r. NE 17THJPL R ♦`.� y mtv : +W ? i!Idfl 11wr Ik ��.1 a �.. -,a wF..W �'a - Cr '.,a# "� �:: IP: a b N �'�- ms' s * . & NE 17;THIST.: m�y.ib°�11 i"1— 4 lid., � ► it LIN, � �yey ? �.- t Jfife� v !.NE-16T"ST # ; e,-"�,a . A `} ii F NE 15TH:ST' ,..�_I .� iF1' all 1 1 �� _ - 5R W�.— - W r r _ W r S - y, k .. �r " Z .6 GYM,; .• `;, �` .. le, w�w^ 1 �,. �' .• rel �:~�� l •a- ' 15 .fir. c K 'z C ai�c{I 1 NE 14TH ST:. •..1Z i—sea,,.�ll ! Y .NE 13TH+PL -__ , ~ 1 is e` 7 x� �. +I 3i• 1' . 13TH ST Ir_ ,I t r ej - NE,12yH ST fir€ =w '. ir`��'��"■y� N `tee • 3 �. r qr 2 l i lid s "S'r: -#rte.- �O d' }Ak s p'{` p�' ME 11TFI:P.YI���r �� es, �' { �•- Y �r � : r:` 5 f� �: '' f'9 '+�NE�l1TH ST, e E�10THrIwP IV M NE'SOTHeP1�� �-,�► rl�*,-` 7 ^ r! �� r��iit i:_ F � ' Q }2 �:iflE-1DTH STS �*y T m AI.� F.. j, •1 r 7 rw F+eL Y ' i WI " _X-74 aN E l S = �� NE'!TH'PL , `: i Z jA,' z, t OT,H T - ,e +Z� !p� a 1 i„ �j�� Qr#r'fjw�l�-u►"r.i�s11�r iE er eiii.+�#I ►� .�J_[.i._'� V�� E jrra ' .�0. X12 N 4 . H JiF i &9TH ST ked lib;� u fi4 a �- Z�&ft 'n t1 z�r 1xUJI ��� �,•�}- ,��'P �'zlla`t � �:o : Ru;' ,,,�t�'. � � � Ali �.� e . ] iw LW ?fie IN i r NE-8Thl i r isae r r �iei 6a ! v ri ti$rt�Q1 , 1 s NE,8TH.ST. sfi i r T1�a;i<ik�rl�.tt veiqr wLl JMV ��F t _ Y� 1 �+ .T-- Zjl t4 • i ( y'■ r.^ Z f`j�!� 5�1 �`-L,i F_'17•�. •� rl 1 1ti1� LESrH,pj�E skltr s�,h ^ TNE7T IST's1�: rAfFgtNR €rte a.T �7k.sr. ' e 7��'-�Pr -�i# IL 1:e' *Elks '-1 J 4; �j -�'v fir. j;rT' jp�, r�a�.� 1 N.. 8 t, 19'�'wk NOW, f: - �.J��r , e7tin r ►'_ 4 ; NW.,T.H PL. Area of Potential Effects 'CF Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS leiTiRNAl111NAC City of Renton Sunset EIS 2 STxre O.n 4 � o � a � w d� q Oy ..1889 a 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) 566-3065 • 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 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091010-31--HUD-CDBG 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 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Pmtect the POST, 5hcpe the rW re Denk Law Mayor November 22, 2010 city o f', Department of Community and -Economic Development Alex Piet5ch, Administrator Ms. Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservatibn Officer ATTN: Mr. Russell Holter Department of Archaeology & Historie 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-M 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 (SR 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, 2010 and. October 28, 2020, 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 NRH.P eligibility on November 18, 2010. lcF International is'assisting the City in meeting the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA. and has conducted a cultural.resources surveyforthe undertaking. The.study comprised an archaeological investigation and a historic resources survey. A copy was provided to you on October 28, 2010. It recommends that the proposed undertaking would not adversely affect the NRNP -eligible historic property located in the undertaking's Area of Potential, Effects. Based on this finding, ince 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 Oty hall + 1055 South Grady Way + Renton,Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: FO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (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-HUD-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 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.via.gov/documents/CR_ReportPDF_Requirement,pdf. Thank you for the opportunity to review and co.- -nett. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Mussell Holter Project Compliance Reviewer (360) 586-3533 russell.holter@dahp.wa.gov DEPARTMENT OP ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Proted the Past, Shope the Future Appendix B Historic Property Inventory Forms DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6 HISTORIC PRESERVA11ON Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: Brickshire Manor Apartments Property Address: 2624 NE 9th P1, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227500530 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Maps) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224173 Northing: 794218 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Brickshire Apts LLC Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments; Survey/Inventory Not Eiigible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Zip: AKAHA OLOGF Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PMERVAnON Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: L -Shape Stories: 2 Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Original Cladding: Intact Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Colonial - Colonial Revival Brick Foundation: Form/Type- Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Roof Material: Gable Asphalt/ Composition - 5hingle Other Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1959, according to the King Count tax assessor, and is known as the Brickshire Manor Apartments. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building's fenestration. The residence's original windows and doors were replaced with new paneled doors and non -original metal sliding windows. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered fair, The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of a late 1950s apartment building constructed in the Colonial Revival style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report WSTORIC PRESMAnON Description of The property contains a one- to two-story multiple -family apartment building with an L-shaped plan and Physical platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. The north portion of the building's L Appearance: -shaped plan is one story high, while its east portion is two stories high. It has a southeast -northwest orientation and faces south toward 2624 NE 9th Place at an angle. The building was originally designed in the Colonial Revival style. It has a medium pitch gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and overhanging eaves at the front and rear elevations. The exterior walls are clad with brick with wood clapboard siding in the gable ends_ The primary facades face southeast and southwest, consisting of regularly spaced door and window openings for each housing unit. Each unit has a single door opening flanked by a wide, tripartite picture window and a slightly smaller window opening. All of the original doors and windows have been replaced with non -original paneled doors and metal frame sliding windows. The building's two-story section is further characterized by a two-story balcony on the southwest elevation supported by slender metal posts and featuring a modern style metal. A wood deck extends the length of the section's rear elevation, and a tall brick chimney prominently stands at the building's southeast elevation. A landscaped length of lawn fronts the building's one-story housing units and a large paved parking area stands adjacent. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 5 .qj.EPAFtrMEM OF hRCHAEOL4GY & 1HISfORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Southeast Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Southeast Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Southeast Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Southwest Elevation, Looking North 2010 Thursday, October 26, 2010 Page 4 of 5 DEPARTkgM OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HM RkC PRESERVATION rye Y 0. PM 9we RV hf— Historic Inventory Report EMMEM ti& Southwest Elevation (Detail), Looking Northeast 2010 Northeast Elevation, Looking West 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 5 DEPARTMENT Of ARCHAEOLOGY 6 H:STgR1. PRESERVATION ,oi Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: 2630 NE 9th PI Property Address: 2630 NE 9th P1 , Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227500540 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 5ec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224244 Northing: 794148 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Fields, Tommy M. and Brenna M. Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Bui Id ing Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District.- National istrict:National Register District/ Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SH PO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page T of 4 Zip: IMPARTW& OF A"AEOLOGYs Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Domestic - Single Family House Current Use: Domestic - Single Family House Plan: Irregular Stories: 2 Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Plan: Moderate Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Modern Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Cladding: Veneer - Vinyl Siding Form/Type: Single Family Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Changes to Windows: Slight Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1959, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building's exterior wall cladding, which was replaced with non -original vinyl siding. Because of this alteration, the residence's integrity is considered fair. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the residence is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person, The residence exhibits Modern style elements. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARiMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY A Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story single-family residence with an irregular rectangular plan and platform Physical frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a southeast -northwest orientation and Appearance: faces south toward 2624 NE 9th Place at an angle. The residence was originally designed in the Modern style. It has a low -pitch side gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and overhanging eaves and wide fascia. The exterior walls are clad with non -original vinyl siding. The primary facade is asymmetrically divided and about four bays wide. On the first story, the facade contains the residence's front entrance flanked by two large window openings in the center and westernmost bays. A wide automobile garage characterizes the easternmost bay. The facade's second story is characterized by a a nearly full-length, cantilevered balcony, which wraps around to the southwest and rear elevations. It features a modern style balustrade, constructed of wide metal panels alternated between metal posts and affixed to metal rails. The balcony sheltered by the wide overhanging eaves, which also sheltered a series of varied shaped windows. Large sliding glass doors and picture windows characterize the residence's secondary and rear elevations. The fenestration primarily consists of original metal fixed and sliding windows, although some appear to have been replaced. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M, Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records, Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 oEvvRrn,lEnlT of nrrOHAEC)LOGY & HISTORIC PRESERYRTIDN Photos Historic Inventory Report Southeast Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Southwest Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY R HISfORC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2707 NE 10th St Property Address: 2707 NE 10th St , Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801085 Plat/Black/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224627 Northing: 794691 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority owner Address: PO BOX 2316 City: Renton State. WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTNEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVAnom Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer -Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTMENrof ARCHAEOLOGY & Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines, Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 `ARCHAMBOoF RCHneo�cy Historic Inventory Report As H$TORr- PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a northeast -southwest orientation and its primary (north) facade fronts NE 10th Street. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window, Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street, On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s, Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGGYY b Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard -Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W_ "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester, Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 DEPAMMM of ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATIOH Photos West and North Elevations, Looking Southeast West and South Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRIES£RVATICN Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2715 NE 10th St Property Address: 2715 NE 10th St, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801085 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224729 Northing: 794634 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO BOX 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 ^DEPARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HWOMC PR£SERVA11ON Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stodda rd- H ugga rd & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPA MEW ARC"TEOtOG� Historic Inventory Report ARCi1AEOtOGY 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on lune 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect_ However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 ARCHAE LOGY Historic Inventory Report T OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance, design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "F" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied, rustic cedar beveled siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a northeast -southwest orientation and its primary (north) facade fronts NE 10th Street. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by two slightly shorter, tripartite picture windows. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by small metal -sliding windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window on the second story. The entire second story projects from the elevation, and the rear entrances are sheltered by cantilevered shed roofs. The building's side elevations are clad with brick, but are otherwise unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 OF ARCHAEOLOGY GY Historic Inventory Report ,4RCHAEDLOGY A HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s," In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American, John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Torn Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Ibis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc,, 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 4 OEPARTMBJT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVA11ON Photos Historic Inventory Report Northeast Elevation, Looking West 2010 Southeast and !Northeast Elevations, Looking West 2010 Northeast Elevation, Looking South 2010 Thursday, October 2$, 2010 Page 6 of 6 ARCHAE LOGY Historic Inventory Report NTOF ARCHAEOLOGY d HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1100-1.110 Edmonds Ave NE Property Address: 1100-1110 Edmonds Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 0923059161 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1223977 Northing: 795003 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: HSIEH Investments Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined -SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: DWARFMBJT OF ARCKAEOLOGY3 Historic Inventory Report HWORIG PR5ERVAnON Description Historic Use: Commerce/Trade - Organizational Current Use: Commerce/Trade - Professional Plan: T -Shape Stories: 2-3 Structural System: Concrete -Block Changes to Plan: Slight Changes to Interior: unknown Changes to Original Cladding: Intact Changes to Windows: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Roof Type: Roof Material: Modern Concrete - Block Flat with Parapet Unknown Wood - Clapboard Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Commercial Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Other Date of Construction: 1964 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1964, according to the King Count tax assessor, and is presently occupied by the Hwazan Buddhist Foundation. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes appear to have been made to the building's fenestration, but it otherwise seems to retain good integrity. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building exhibits elements of the Modern style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has good integrity, but does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 ARCHAE LOGY Historic Inventory Report NT OF 444ARCHAEOLOGY � HISTORIC PRESERVATDN Description of The property contains a two- to three-story commercial office that stands on top of a hill above NE Sunset Physical Boulevard. It has a southwest -northeast orientation, facing southwest, and is accessed from Edmonds Appearance: Avenue NE by a long paved drive. The building has a T-shaped plan and a combination of poured concrete, masonry, and steel frame construction. The building was originally designed in the Modern style. It has a flat roof with a metal capped parapet. The exterior walls primarily consist of wide panels of finished concrete block, interspersed by horizontal wood siding above and below window and door openings. The primary (southwest) facade is nearly symmetrically divided and eight bays wide. it is three stories tall and characterized by regularly spaced windows openings on each level. The large window openings are vertically aligned in paired columns that extend the elevations full height, in between wide panels of unadorned concrete block. Door openings are present in each elevation, including a second -story entrance accessed by a long, elevated ramp along the southeast elevation. The ramp is supported by a series of square concrete structural columns and has a metal railing. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001, References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing, Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development, "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets- Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 DEPARTMBJf DF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HLUORFC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report West Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Southeast Elevation, Looking North 2010 West and South Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1012 Edmonds Ave NE Property Address: 1012 Edmonds Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 0923059119 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Set 1/4 1/4 Sec T23ROSE 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1223985 Northing: 794435 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Renton Sunset -Temp Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Tran, Timothy Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King RENTON Monday, December 05, 2010 Pege 1 of 4 Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Zip: ARCHAARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHA6OLOGra maroRIc PRe5eRVA11ON Description Historic Use: Domestic - Single Family House Current Use: Domestic - Single Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1.5 Changesto Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Vernacular Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Cladding: Shingle - Concrete/Asbestos Form/Type: Single Family Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1948 Built Date Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows. Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Front Gable Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1948, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the house, including the removal and replacement of its original windows, the installation of non -original asbestos siding on the exterior wails, and the enclosure of the basement level garage. Because of these alterations, the residence's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The house exhibits elements of the a vernacular style. However, it has lost integrity and does not appear to otherwise embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPA ARLH EOLO Y Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one and a half -story single-family residence with a rectangular plan and platform Physical frame wood construction on a raised, poured concrete foundation, exposing a full basement level. It has Appearance: an east -west orientation, facing west towards Edmonds Avenue NE. The residence was originally designed with vernacular style elements. It has a steeply pitched front -gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and no overhanging eaves. The exterior walls are clad with non -original asbestos shingle siding. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and three bays wide. The first story is characterized by a full - width projecting front porch. The porch has a hip roof supported by slender wood support posts and a wood balustrade. The porch shelters the residence's front door opening, which is located in the center bay, and a single window opening in each of the out two bays. The original windows have been replaced with non -original sliding windows. The fenestration consists of non -original metal windows windows throughout the residence, A single, altered window opening punctuates the half story. At ground level, a single door opening and window opening provide access to the basement. Regularly spaced window openings characterize the house's side elevations. The front yard is landscaped with a poured concrete retaining wall, a concrete sidewalk leading to the front porch, and a paved parking area before the basement -level entrance. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989_ City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Monday, December Ofi, 2010 Page 3 of 4 DEPARTWW ARCHAWLOGF Historic Inventory Report ueCHnEOLOGr a HISTORIC PRESERVADON Photos West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT Of ARCHAEOLOGY & H€STORK PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: Calvary Baptist Church Property Address: 1024 Edmonds Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 0923059086 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1223858 Northing: 794619 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Renton Sunset -Temp Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Calvary Baptist Church Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: DEPA AAW ARCH RXOGF Historic Inventory Report ARdiAED1DGY 8 HSTORIC PRESERVANON Description Historic Use: Religion - Religious Facility Current Use: Religion - Religious Facility Pian: Irregular Stories: 2 Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Plan: Moderate Changes to Interior, Unknown Changes to Original Cladding. Intact Changes to Other: Other (specify): Changes to Windows: Intact Style: Cladding: Roof Type: Modern Veneer - Stucco Hip Brick Gable Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Church Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Other Date of Construction: 1954 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Erected as a church, it was constructed in 1954, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building, including the construction of a large addition on the south elevation. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered fair. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The church exhibits elements of the Modern style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 2 of 4 1�441DEPART ARCIiAELOGY OLOGY & Historic Inventory Report NISroRiC PRESERVAnGH Description of The property contains a two-story church building with a irregular plan and platform frame wood Physical construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has an east west orientation, with the front facing west Appearance: towards Edmonds Avenue NE. The building was originally designed in the Modern style, consisting of two sections forming a T-shaped plan with a cross -gable roof. This plan was disrupted by the construction of large addition in 1979 on the building's south elevation. Within the original building, the section containing the sanctuary has a steeply pitched gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles It is adorned with a center section of brick veneer flanked by stucco on the west elevation, and features a large decorative Christian cross, The section's side elevations are clad with brick and a series of large plate glass windows. The building's main entrance is situated on the north elevation. It is sheltered by wide overhanging eaves and accessed by a poured concrete sidewalk and wheelchair ramp. The sanctuary section abuts a two-story office and classroom section on the east. This section has a medium -pitch gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and no overhanging eaves, Its exterior walls are clad with brick and feature regularly spaced double -hung sash windows on each elevation. The 1979 addition attaches to the original building at its southeast corner. It is three -stories high and features a low -pitch hip roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and has slightly overhanging eaves. The fenestration consists of banks of metal -frame fixed windows with operable lower sashes. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M, Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. Community Profile. Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to lets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 3 of 4 4 DEPARTMENTOF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report North and West Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 West Elevation (Showing Addition), Looking Southeast 2010 Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENTOF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 1007 Glennwood Ave NE Property Address: 1007 Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801400 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224331 Northing: 794661 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO BOX 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded, 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changesto Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt /Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places: No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 OfENTOF ARC'FiAECHnEOLQGr Historic Inventory Report & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments_ All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 DEPART EW Of ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHnEOLOGY S 4STORiC PMSMATION Description of The property contains a one to two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Physical Terrace public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six Appearance: standard design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "Y building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original resawn split cedar shake siding on the first story and vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding on the second story during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a northeast -southwest orientation and its primary (north) facade fronts Glennwood Avenue NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four sections, each comprising a single housing unit. The two center sections are two stories tall and the two outer sections are one story tall. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each center section is punctuated by a single, slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by a small metal -sliding window and a tripartite picture window on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window on the second story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 26, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DUARTMENT ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report � HWORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958, References: George W, Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F, Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American_ John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep_ Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc,, 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA, "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 off) QEPAW MENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY d F MZMC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report North and West Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 North Elevation Detail, Looking South 2010 North Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 D]EPARrMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHIP No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 1011 Glennwood Ave NE Property Address: 1052 Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801400 Plat/Black/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224429 Northing: 794611 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetael, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2016 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HLSTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: intact Changes to original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 EEPARTMEM OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8, Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRNP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 1?RCHAEOLOGF Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVADON Description of The property contains a one to two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Physical Terrace public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six Appearance: standard design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "D" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a northeast -southwest orientation and its primary (north) facade fronts Glennwood Avenue NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four sections, each comprising a single housing unit. The two center sections are two stories tall and the two outer sections are one story tall. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each center section is punctuated by a single, slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by a small metal -sliding window and a tripartite picture window on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window on the second story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEP T OF HAW�OGYa Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other 'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2400. Lord, Tom Forrester, Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: lover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2904. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 �EPARTMEM OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 14! Photos Historic Inventory Report East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 East Elevation, Looking West 2010 North and West Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 0MARTMENT 4F F ARCHAEOLOGY 8, WSTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1052 Glennwood Ave NE Property Address: 1052 Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801305 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23RO5E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224371 Northing: 794787 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder. Hetzei, Christopher Owner's Name: Cole, Letty Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SH PO Determination Date. 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: DEPA BO OF AACHTMLOGY Historic Inventory Report _ ARCHAEOLOGY & HLSTORIC PRESERVATION 44iDescription Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Windows: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Roof Type: Roof Material: Modern - Minimal Metal - Aluminum Siding Gable - Side Gable Asphalt/ Composition - Traditional Shingle Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family - Duplex Narrative Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1943 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1943, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Substantial changes have been made to the building's fenestration and exterior wall cladding. The residence's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows and non -original metal siding was installed on the exterior walls. Because of these alterations, the residence's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building exhibits elements of the Modern style, However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPART ARCHA,OLOGr Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8 RSTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story residential duplex with a rectangular plan and platform frame wood Physical construction on a poured concrete foundation. The residence has a northwest -southeast orientation and Appearance: fronts Glennwood Avenue NE on the southwest. The duplex was originally designed with elements of the Minimal Traditional style, It has a medium pitch side -gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and slightly overhanging eaves at the front and rear elevations. The exterior walls are clad with non -original metal siding. The primary facade is nearly symmetrically divided and four bays wide. Each bay is characterized by a large window opening fit with a non -original metal -frame picture window. One housing unit entrance is located at the facade's northernmost bay. It is accessed by a small, raised wood porch. The entrance to the other housing unit entrance punctuates the building's southeast elevation. It features a small porch with a raised wood -frame floor and sheltered by a projecting gable roof supported by wood posts. The fenestration consists of non -original metal fixed and sliding windows throughout the residence, Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc,, 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. Community Profile. Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 bEPARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY & MSTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Southwest and Southeast Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 Northwest and Southwest Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY a IfISTDRIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1060 Glennwood Ave NE Property Address: 1060 Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801310 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224315 Northing: 794868 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Chan NY Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments. Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: 1�aio�A�°F nRcri,�aLocr a Historic Inventory Report HWORrc PREsno-v�nom Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Modern - Minimal Traditional Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Cladding: Shingle - Coursed Form/Type: Multi -Family- Duplex Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1943 Built Date Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Moderate Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1943, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Substantial changes have been made to the building's fenestration and exterior wall cladding. Many of the residence's original windows were replaced with non -original metal fixed and sliding windows and non -original coursed wood shingles replaced the original clapboard and vertical wood siding_ Because of these alterations, the residence's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building exhibits elements of the Modern style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 ARCHAE LOGY Historic inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story residential duplex with a rectangular plan and platform frame wood Physical construction on a poured concrete foundation. The residence has a northwest -southeast orientation and Appearance: fronts Glennwood Avenue NE on the southwest. The duplex was originally designed with elements of the Minimal Traditional style. It has a medium pitch side -gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and slightly overhanging eaves at the front and rear elevations. The exterior walls are clad with non -original coursed wood shingles. The primary facade is nearly symmetrically divided and four bays wide. Each bay is characterized by a large window opening, which appears to original have contained a pair of double -hung sash windows. Only one pair of windows remains intact. All of the other windows have been replaced. One housing unit entrance is located at the facade's northernmost bay. It is accessed by a small, raised wood porch. The entrance to the other housing unit entrance punctuates the building's southeast elevation_ The fenestration consists of a mixture of non -original fixed and metal sliding windows, with only a few original wood windows remaining. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton_ Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. Community Profile. Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 OEPARTHWTOF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report North and West Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 III= - .. -4—. North Elevation (South Half), Looking East 2010 West Elevation (North Half), Looking East 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY44J. & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1139 Glennwood Ave NE Property Address: 1139 Glennwood Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801380 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224203 Northing: 795198 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments; Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page ] of 4 Zip: 98056-0316 ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCNAE4L4Gr & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Slight Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify).- Style: specify): Style: Modern - Minimal Traditional Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Cladding: Wood - Clapboard Wood - Vertical Form/Type: Multi -Family - Duplex Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1943 Built Date Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places -No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1943, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Substantial changes have been made to the building's fenestration and porches. The residence's original windows were replaced with non -original metal sliding windows and non -original porches constructed at the entrances. Because of these alterations, the residence's integrity is considered fair. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building exhibits elements of the Modern style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 loi`DEPARTMENT CHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report MOHhEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION - . - Description of The property contains a one-story residential duplex with a rectangular plan and platform frame wood Physical construction on a poured concrete foundation. The residence has a north -south orientation and fronts Appearance: Glennwood Avenue NE on the east. The duplex was originally designed with elements of the Minimal Traditional style. It has a medium pitch side -gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and slightly overhanging eaves at the front and rear elevations. The exterior wails are clad with a band of original vertical wood siding below a course of original, horizontal clapboard with the division occurring at the lower sills of the residence's windows. The primary facade is nearly symmetrically divided and four bays wide. Each bay is characterized by a large window opening. The openings are each fit with a non -original metal sliding window. One housing unit entrance is located at the facade's northernmost bay. It is accessed by a non -original, raised wood porch. The entrance to the other housing unit entrance punctuates the building's south elevation. The fenestration consists of a non -original metal sliding windows throughout the residence. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. Community Profile. Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY d ISTORIC PRESERVAITON 41 0.... m'.. � . '. � -. , I a . - Photos Historic Inventory Report East Elevation, Looking Southwest East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTME r OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVAnoN Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 965 Harrington Ave NE Property Address: 965 Harrington Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map{s} Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224549 Northing: 794260 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARK (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARWENTOF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 2959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGYHistoric Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRNP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 7 WARTMEN OF ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVAAON Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original resawn split cedar shake siding on the first story and vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a east -west orientation and its primary (east) facade fronts Harrington Avenue NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non - original metal windows in the 1970s- Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 7 DUART ENT ARCHAEOLOGY IOLOGr Historic Inventory Report nRCHaEOLOGr 8 HISTORIC PRE3ER MON Major Associated Press. Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News. The Seattle Times, Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington. Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W_ Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA, Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to 5uburbanization, 1940-1960s. In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American_ John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902, Karolak, Eric J. No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919. In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job. 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. Obituaries: George W. Stoddard. 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 7 DEPARTN"T OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 North Elevation, Looking South 2010 East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 West Elevation, Looking Southeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report South and East Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 East Elevation (Detail), Looking West 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 7 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 966 Harrington Ave NE Property Address: 966 Harrington Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23RO5E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224676 Northing: 794318 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 -m. 111—.!.7.,­� . Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Nat Applicable Other (speclfy): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places: No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTM NT OF ARCHAf LOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION . - Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRH P). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 104DEPARTNAM OF ARCHMOIOGYb. Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION! Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original resawn split cedar shakes on the first story and vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding on the second story during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a west -east orientation and its primary (west) facade fronts Harrington Avenue NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non - original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 26, 2010 Page 4 of 6 ARCHAOF ARCHAEOLOGY & T Historic Inventory Report E HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington it -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007, Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977, Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Mis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971, Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004_ The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 North and West Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 South and West Elevations, Looking East 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENTOF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTONC PRESERVA?ION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 970 Harrington Ave NE Property Address: 970 Harrington Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801085 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224611 Northing: 794495 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARrWJM OF ARCHAEOLOGY & WOM PRESWVAnON il . 1. .1 1-. 1 . z - Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Social - Clubhouse Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Moderate Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Extensive Other (specify): 2nd story addit Style: Cladding: Modern Brick Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Other Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Social - Clubhouse Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Roof Material: Gable - Side Gable Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Other Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 7 °RAH''" OF ARCHAEOLOGrHistoric Inventory Report a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets_ This building was constructed to serve as the complex's community center or social hall. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units, At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. In addition to these changes, the community building was also expanded with the construction of a second story addition and its length extended the the addition of an additional bay on the north elevation. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer -appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 7 DEPARTMEW OF MCIAkotocYa Historic inventory Report hkSTORIG PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one to two-story administration and community building constructed as part of Physical the Sunset Terrace public housing complex in 1958-1959. This building is the only structure in the complex Appearance: not designed in one of six standard design types. However, it exhibits many of the same Modern style elements. The building was originally constructed as a one-story building, but was substantially rehabilitated in the late 1970s. The building was lengthened and the existing second story was added at this time. It has a long rectangular plan and consists.of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. Both the first and second stories have low pitch side gable roofs clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. On the first story, the exterior walls are clad with a brick veneer. Non -original vinyl siding clads the second story_ This siding replaced the building's original cedar siding during the late 1970s rehabilitation. The building has a west -east orientation and its primary (west) facade fronts Harrington Avenue NE. The primary (west) facade is asymmetrically divided and eight bays wide. The bays are evenly divided into to discernible sections. The southernmost section is one-story tall and is characterized by a series of original, full height window openings. The windows, which were replaced during the late 1970s rehabilitation, consist of large, metal -frame, two -over -two, fixed windows with a lower slider. The northern section is two -stories tall and is characterized by three garage door openings and a pedestrian door on the first story and three large, non -original, one -over -three light picture windows on the second story. The building's original one- story roof forms a project eave between first and second stories, and the northernmost bay was added during the late 1970s rehabilitation. A large, wraparound, covered patio area is located on the building's south and rear elevation. Paved parking areas exist at both the front and rear elevations. Thursday, October 28, 201D Page 4 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY a. Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVAMON Major Associated Press, Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News. The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington, Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA, Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. The Other 'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s. In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds, Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919. In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface, In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed, Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job. 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . Obituaries: George W. Stoddard. 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 7 DEPAWAAENF OF ARCHAEOLOGY d HISIOMC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report 2010 South Elevation, Looking North 2010 South Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 South and East Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report South and East Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 West Elevation, Looking Southeast 2010 West Elevation (Detail), Looking East 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 7 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 975 Harrington Ave NE Property Address: 975 Harrington Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801400 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easti ng: 1224472 Northing: 794512 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMW OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4i 7 . r 7 Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Brick Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W, Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places: No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 AENTOr ARCHAERCHnEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s. when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 tWAUMB4f OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PMMVAMN Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "F" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied, rustic cedar beveled siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a east -west orientation and its primary (east) facade fronts Harrington Avenue NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by two slightly shorter, tripartite picture windows. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by small metal -sliding windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window on the second story. The entire second story projects from the elevation, and the rear entrances are sheltered by cantilevered shed roofs. The building's side elevations are clad with brick, but are otherwise unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 flEPARrImENI OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington 11-I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA_ Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburban ization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp_ 163-179, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American, John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 4 MARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report North and East Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 East Elevation, Looking West 2010 East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 975 Harrington Avenue NE is in the center. West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 pEPARThAENT Or ARCHAEOLOGY & HESTORIC PRESERVhT10N Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 984 Harrington Ave NE Property Address: 984 Harrington Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801085 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224597 Northing: 794599 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural Systern: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DErA ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEPLOGY Z. HISTORIC PIMERVAT10N Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer, The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 20 10 Page 3 of 6 OEPARTVB4T OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PMERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "A" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied, resawn split cedar shake siding siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a west - east orientation and its primary (west) facade fronts Harrington Avenue NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. Each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by slightly smaller tripartite picture window and another small sliding window. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPAP ARCII EOLO Y _ Historic Inventory Report RGIiAEOLOGY & HOORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other 'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977, Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives, Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998, Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report South and West Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 West Elevation, Looking East 2010 Thursday, October 26, 2010 Page 6 of 6 O6PARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1067 Harrington Ave NE Property Address: 1067 Harrington Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801300 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224473 Northing: 794744 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Salavea, Malu and Bernadette Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: 4 FARTMMT ARC]HAEOLOG` Historic Inventory Report " -.- - " - - , 7 -,.: . - . ARCHAEOLOGY & HWORYC PRBERVA nom Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Current Use., Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Nat Applicable Other (specify): Style: Modern - Minimal Traditional Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Cladding: Wood - Clapboard Wood - T 1-11 Form/Type: Multi -Family - Duplex Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1943 Built Date Structural System. Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type Gable - Side Gable Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material- Asphalt/ aterial: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1943, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Substantial changes have been made to the building's fenestration and wall cladding. The residence's original windows were replaced with non -original metal sliding windows and the original clapboard and vertical board siding were replaced with non -original T1-11 siding. Because of these alterations, the residence's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), The reconnaissance - level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building exhibits elements of the Modern style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 CIEPART NT ARCHAN ILOGF Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story residential duplex with a rectangular pian and platform frame wood Physical construction on a poured concrete foundation. The residence has a north -south orientation and fronts Appearance: Glennwood Avenue NE on the east. The duplex was originally designed with elements of the Minimal Traditional style. It has a medium pitch side -gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and slightly overhanging eaves at the front and rear elevations. Two brick chimneys extend from the roof ridgeline. The exterior walls are clad with non -original T1-11 wood siding with horizontal clapboard in the gable ends. The primary facade is nearly symmetrically divided and four bays wide. Each bay is characterized by a single window opening. The northernmost bay contains a non -original vinyl tripartite window, while the other windows consists of non -original vinyl sliding windows. One housing unit entrance is located at the facade's southernmost bay. It is accessed by a non -original, raised wood porch. The entrance to the other housing unit entrance punctuates the building's north elevation. It is characterized by a small entry porch with a raised wood floor, sheltered by a projecting shed roof supported by wood columns. The fenestration consists of non -original vinyl sliding windows throughout the residence. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. Community Profile. Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 O6PA(tfMBli OF ARCHAEOLOGY a. HISTORIC PRESHtyA11C}N Photos Historic Inventory Report East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 South and East Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 East Elevation, Looking West 2010 South and West Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTN*NT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1073 Harrington Ave NE Property Address: 1073 Harrington Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801295 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Set 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224473 Northing: 794854 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Cole, Letty Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County [Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 Zip: RCHAMBF ARCHAEDLOGY Historic Inventory Report 8 HISTORIC PRO RVATION Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan. Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Modern - Minimal Traditional Foundation: Unknown Narrative Cladding: Wood - Clapboard Shingle - Coursed Form/Type: Multi -Family - Duplex Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1943 Built Date Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Slight Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1943, according to the King Count tax assessor_ The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building's wall cladding. The residence's original clapboard and vertical board siding was replaced with non -original coursed wood shingles. Because of this alteration, the residence's integrity is considered fair. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building exhibits elements of the Minimal Traditional style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 ARgAA"ONT OF ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story residential duplex with a rectangular plan and platform frame wood Physical construction on a poured concrete foundation. The residence has a north -south orientation and fronts Appearance: Harrington Avenue NE on the east. The duplex was originally designed with elements of the Minimal Traditional style. It has a medium pitch side -gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and slightly overhanging eaves at the front and rear elevations. The exterior walls are clad with non -original coursed wood shingle siding with horizontal clapboard in the gable ends. Portions of the exposed foundation are clad with a cultured stone veneer. The primary facade is nearly symmetrically divided and seven bays wide. The three center bays each contain a pair of original, one -over -ane, double -hung wood sash windows in wood frames. The outer bays each contain an single door opening flanked by other pairs of original double -hung wood sash windows. The doors, which are the entrances to each housing unit, are accessed by poured concrete stoops with metal railings. A one-story addition is present at the southern portion of the residence's rear elevation. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989, King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report South and East Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 South and East Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 26, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMEM OF ARCHAEOLOGY $ HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1409 Monroe Ave NE Property Address: 1409 Monroe NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 423059104 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec Coordinate Reference Easting: 1226469 Northing: 796335 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Dalpay, James W., Jr. and Jullie A. Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: EWPARTMEW ARCHA aOGY Historic Inventory Report ARC}1AEOlOC+Y d HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Domestic -Single Family House Current Use: Domestic - Single Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Original Cladding: Intact Changes to Windows: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other {specify): Style: Cladding: Roof Type: Roof Material: Modern - Minimal Wood - Clapboard Hip Asphalt / Composition - Traditional Shingle Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Block Single Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Other Date of Construction: 1942 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1942, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building's fenestration. The residence's original wood windows were replaced with non -original vinyl windows. Because of this alteration, the residence's integrity is considered fair. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The residence exhibits the Minimal Traditional style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCMAWLOGE0�4GrHistoric Inventory Report & HISTORIC PRESERVAMN Description of The property contains a one-story single-family residence with a rectangular plan and platform frame Physical wood construction on a concrete block foundation. It has an east -west orientation and faces east towards Appearance: Monroe Avenue NE. The residence was originally designed in the Minimal Traditional style. It has a medium pitch hip roof with composition asphalt shingles and no overhanging eaves. The exterior walls are clad with original wood clapboard siding. The primary (east) facade is asymmetrically divided and four bays wide. The residence's front door opening is located in one of the center bays, accessed by a raised poured concrete stoop. It is sheltered by a projecting, front -gable hood and features a wood door and metal storm door. The facade's southernmost bay contains a large window opening fit with a non -original vinyl picture window with lower sliding sashes. The facade's two northernmost bays are punctuated by single window openings, each characterized by original faux wood shutters_ Similar windows are located on the side and rear elevations. The fenestration consists of non -original vinyl windows throughout the residence. A one-story attached automobile garage projects southward from the residence's southwest corner. It has a garage door opening in the east elevation, fit with an original overhead garage door, The garage is accessed from the street by a paved driveway along the residence's south elevation. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989_ City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. 5lauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 4 OEPAUMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVADON Photos Historic Inventory Report East Elevation, Looking West East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: 1417 Monroe Ave NE Property Address: 1417 Monroe Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 423059104 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 04 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1226444 Northing: 796408 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Owner Address: City: State: Classification. Building Resource Status: Comments; Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: MARTMEM OF ARCFiA@OLOGYa Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PMMVAMN Description Historic Use: Domestic - Single Family House Current Use: Domestic -Single Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive ChangestoOther: Extensive Other (specify): Porch Style: Cladding: Colonial -Colonial Revival Shingle -Coursed Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Single Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Clipped Gable/Jerkinhead Other Date of Construction: 1935 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places: No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington_ It was constructed in 1935, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building's fenestration, porch, and wall cladding. The residence's original wood windows were replaced with non -original vinyl windows, the porch enclosed, and the original wall cladding replaced with non -original coursed wood shingles. Because of these alterations, the residence's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the'eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places {NRNP}_ The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the residence is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person_ The residence exhibits elements of the Colonial Revival style. However, it no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey significance, does not otherwise appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report WSTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story single-family residence with a rectangular plan and platform frame Physical wood construction. It has a northeast -southwest orientation and faces east at an angle toward Monroe Appearance: Avenue, behind a deep setback. The residence was originally designed with Colonial Revival style elements_ It has a steeply pitched hip -on -side gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and no overhanging eaves. The exterior walls are clad with non -original coursed wood shingles. The primary facade is asymmetrically divided and three bays wide. The facade's easternmost bay is characterized by an enclosed, projecting front porch. The porch has a shed roof and contains the residence's front door opening, which is flanked by full -height sidelight windows. A small window punctuates the facades center bay and a pair of windows are located in the residence's northeast elevation. The fenestration consists of non -original vinyl windows set in original wood frames windows throughout the residence. A large wood decks characterizes the residence's rear elevation. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 OEPARTMENT,OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report East and North Elevations, Looking West 2010 East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: 2502 NE Sunset Blvd Property Address: 2502 NE Sunset Blvd , Renton, WA 98055 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 923059058 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23RO5E 09 Coordinate Reference Easti ng: 1224007 Northing: 794825 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District. National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: IDWARTMENT OF ARCFMEOLOGY8 Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Domestic -Single Family House Current Use: Domestic -Single Family House Plan: Irregular Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Extensive Changes to Original Cladding. Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Colonial - Colonial Revival Shingle - Concrete/Asbestos Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Single Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1943 Built Date Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Cross Gable Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1943, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building's fenestration and wall cladding, and multiple additions have been constructed. The residence's original wood windows were replaced with non -original metal windows and the original wall cladding replaced with non -original asbestos shingle siding. Because of these alterations, the residence's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the residence is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The residence exhibits elements of the Colonial Revival style. However, it no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey significance, does not otherwise appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARTMENT GY Historic Inventory Report OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story single-family residence with an irregular plan and platform frame wood Physical construction. The residence faces southwest on a large parcel with a deep setback from Sunset Boulevard, Appearance: facing southwest over a slight hill. It was originally designed with elements of the Colonial Revival style. It has a medium pitch cross gable roof with composition asphalt shingles and slightly overhanging eaves. The exterior walls are clad with non -original asbestos shingle siding. The primary (southwest) facade is asymmetrically divided and five bays wide. The facade's two westernmost bays comprise a one-story addition on the northwest elevation. A projecting front porch characterizes the center of the facade's three easternmost bays. It features a front gable roof and shelters the residence's front entrance, The porch is flanked by tall window openings, each fit with non -original fixed metal windows with casement transom lights. Similar windows punctuate the side and rear elevations. The fenestration consists of non - original metal windows throughout the residence, some with altered openings. Another one-story addition was constructed on the rear elevation and a one-story, detached automobile garage stands behind the residence. The garage has a gable roof and a garage door opening on the southeast elevation with an overhead garage door. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 .. DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6 fSTORIC PRESEVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report South and East Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 South and East Elevations, Looking North 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTN ENT OF ARCHAEOLOGYa HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: Apex Auto Repair Property Address: 2615 NE Sunset Blvd, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227500550 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224416 Northing: 794079 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Ruffalo, Sam and Hazel Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - 5HPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: MBF ARCHAEOLOOGGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAb HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Transportation - Road -Related (vehicular) Current Use: Transportation - Road -Related (vehicular) Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Slight Changes to Other: Mot Applicable Other (specify): Style: Modern Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Cladding: Veneer -Stucco Form/Type: Commercial Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Structural System: Unreinforced Masonry Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Slight Roof Type: Flat with Parapet Other Date of Construction: 1958 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect, Roof Material: Unknown Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1958, according to the King Count tax assessor. It was originally constructed as an automobile service station and retains this use. It is currently occupied by Apex Auto Repair. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. The building has experienced only minor changes and its original integrity appears to be essentially intact. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (N RHP), The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of an automobile service station from the late 1950s in a Modern style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has good integrity, but does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARTM k7JT ARCHAEOLOGY GY 8 Historic Inventory Report 144JARCHAE lHISTORIC PRESERVABON Description of The property contains a one-story automotive service station. It has a north -south orientation and is Physical surrounded by a paved parking area on all sides. The building has an rectangular pian and consists of a Appearance: masonry construction. It a flat roof with a metal capped parapet above a projecting cornice that extends along the front and side elevations. The exterior walls are clad with textured stucco. The primary (north) facade is asymmetrical divided and three bays wide. The two easternmost bays each contain large vehicle bay doors, which open to an interior auto repair garage. The doors are fit with roll -up garage doors. The facade's eastern bay consists of an original wood -frame storefront. The storefront has a single -light wood door below a fixed transom light in the center, flanked by two large, plate glass windows with single -light transoms. The plate glass windows set on low knee walls. Two similar windows punctuate the building's east elevation, along with another door opening. The storefront windows and doors define the building's office space. A large multiple -light industrial window characterizes the building's west elevation. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc,, 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report North and East Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 North and East Elevations, Looking West 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 EVARTWNT Or ARCHAEOLOGY & HiSDRIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: Katie J's Bar & Grill Property Address: 2621 NE Sunset Blvd, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227500550 Plat/Black/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map{s} Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224537 Northing: 794040 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Ruffalo, Sam and Hazel Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status, Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 26, 2010 Page 1 of 4 zip: OEPARTMBNIr OF ARCHAMLOGY$ Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERYAMN Description Historic Use: Commerce/Trade - Restaurant Current Use: Commerce/Trade - Restaurant Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Slight Changes to Original Cladding: intact Changes to Other: Nat Applicable Other (specify): Style: Modern Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Cladding: Concrete - Block Veneer - Stucco Veneer- Permastone Form/Type: Commercial Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Flat with Eaves Other Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1959, according to the King Count tax assessor. It appears to have been originally constructed as a commercial restaurant and retains this use. It is currently occupied by Katie J's Bar & Grill. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Substantial changes have been made to the building's fenestration, including the partial enclosure and replacement of its original windows. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of an late 1950s restaurant building. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY B Historic Inventory Report HITQRIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story commercial building that functions as a restaurant. The building has a Physical west -east orientation and is surrounded by a large paved parking area. It sets back from NE Sunset Appearance: Boulevard, which is to the north. The building has a rectangular plan and consists of concrete block construction. It has a nearly flat shed roof that angles from the front to the back and is clad with composition roofing. The roof has wide overhanging eaves at the primary (west) facade with exposed wood structural beams in the eaves. The exterior walls consist of a cultured stone veneer cladding at the front elevation and painted concrete block at the side and rear elevations. The primary facade is asymmetrically divided and eight bays wide. It is characterized by a series of large window openings, which have been partially enclosed by stuccoed panels at the top and have stone sills. The openings' lower portions are fit with wide, non -original, fixed, metal -frame windows. Three of the windows are single -light picture windows, while the others contain multiple sashes. Two pedestrian doors punctuate the facade as well. They open to a concrete sidewalk that extends the length of the elevation. An outdoor patio area has been constructed at the building's north elevation, and a metal frame roof sign stands atop the roof adjacent to various heating and cooling equipment_ The buildings side and rear elevations are unadorned. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2005. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 DEPAITWW Of ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report West Elevation, Looking Southeast 2010 East Elevation, Looking West 2010 East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVAMN Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: Safeway Property Address: 2725 NE Sunset Blvd , Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801026 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1225103 Northing: 794231 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's blame: Safeway Inc., Store 0366 Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: PWM ARC11 fEOtOGF Historic Inventory Report ARCF1AE410GY b 45TORiC PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Current Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: intact Changes to Original Cladding: Moderate Changes to Other: Extensive Other (specify): Facade Style: Cladding: Modern Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Concrete - Block Veneer - Stucco Veneer- Permastone Form/Type: Commercial Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Structural System: Unreinforced Masonry Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Flat with Parapet Other Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Unknown Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1964, according to the King Count tax assessor. It appears to have been originally constructed as a commercial supermarket and continues to retain this use. It is currently occupied by a Safeway supermarket. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Substantial changes have been made to the building's facade, including its wall cladding and fenestration. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of a 1960s supermarket building. However, it has lost integrity and does not otherwise appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARTMWT OF ARCHAEOLOGY g Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story commercial supermarket building on a large parcel, setback at an angle Physical from NE Sunset Boulevard. The building has a west -east orientation and is surrounded on the west, north, Appearance: and south by a paved parking lot. It has a rectangular plan and a combination of platform frame and masonry construction. The building was originally designed in the elements of the Modern style, but has been substantially altered with subsequent rehabilitation. It has a flat roof with a tall parapet at the front elevation. The exterior walls are clad with a combination of stucco and a cultured stone veneer along the building's primary (west) facade. The side and rear elevations are finished with painted concrete block, painted brick. The primary facade is asymmetrically divided and is characterized by a wide bank of non - original, metal -frame, plate glass ribbon windows. The windows are flanked by storefront entrances on either side and are adorned with fixed metal awnings, The northernmost entrance is characterized by a projecting tower feature, which shelters the entry. The tower has a molded cornice, which extends along the elevation's parapet and decorative, lattice architectural elements hanging from its north and south elevations. A loading dock and truck ramp extend the length of the building's north elevation. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile_" Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to lets, Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 MARTMEM Of ARCHAEOLOGY d HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos West Elevation, Looking East 2010 Historic inventory Report West and South Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 North and West Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENt OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HfSTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: 2800 NE Sunset Blvd Property Address: 2800 NE Sunset Blvd , Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801201 Pkat/Black/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23ROSE 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224944 Northing: 794689 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Yadav & Gill LLC Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Zip: DEPARfMBJf OF ARCHAEOLOGY & Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Transportation - Road -Related (vehicular) Current Use: Transportation - Road -Related (vehicular) Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Slight Changes to Other: Extensive Other (specify): Storefronts and Style: Cladding: Modern Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Brick Concrete - Block Concrete - Poured Form/Type: Commercial Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows. Extensive Roof Type Mansard Gable Other Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Concrete -Tile Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1959, according to the King Count tax assessor. It was originally constructed as an automobile service station, but was substantially altered when it was converted for use as a gas station and convenience store. It is currently occupied by Shell Oil. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Substantial changes have been made to the building's facade and interior spaces, including the removal, replacement, and reconfiguration of its door and window openings and the removal of its auto service bays. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of an automobile service station from the late 195Os in a Modern style. However, it has lost integrity and does not appear to otherwise embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report MSTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story automotive service station, which has been converted for use as a gas Physical station and convenience store. It has a south -north orientation with a tail, non -original gas pump canopy Appearance: to the south and is surrounded by a paved parking area on all sides. The building has an rectangular plan and consists of a combination of platform frame and masonry construction. It has a mansard roof clad with wood shingles and low pitch gables at the side elevations. The exterior wails are finished with painted brick on the front and side elevations and concrete block at the rear elevation. The primary (south) facade is asymmetrical and divided into two sections. It was substantially altered when the building was converted for use as a convenience store. The easternmost section was altered by the removal of the original fenestration and the installation of non -original, full -height, metal frame storefront windows. Original openings on the building's east elevation were also enclosed with concrete block and new, smaller fixed windows installed. The facade's western section was similarly altered with the removal of original storefront doors and windows and the installation of the existing, non -original, metal frame windows and door. Original vehicle bays in the building's west elevation were likewise enclosed during conversion of the interior space. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 5 IMARMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY s HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Northeast and Southeast Elevations, Looking West 2010 2010 Southeast Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Northeast and Northwest Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 5 I]EPARIMEMT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Northwest and Southeast Elevations, Looking East 2010 Southwest Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 Southwest and Southeast Elevations, Looking North 2010 Thursday, bctaber 28, 2010 Page 5 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. DAHP No. Historic Name: Common Name: 2808-2832 NE Sunset Blvd Property Address: 2808-2832 NE Sunset Blvd, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801205 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23ROSE 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1225015 Northing: 794963 Projection. Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Greter Highlands Ltd Prtshp Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page i of 5 Zip: DEPAUM& ARCHAEOLOG? Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PM RVAMN Description Historic Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Current Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Moderate Changes to Other: Extensive Other (specify): Facade Style: Cladding: Modern Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Veneer -Stucco Concrete - Block Form/Type: Commercial - Strip Commercial Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Structural System: Unreinforced Masonry Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Moderate Roof Type: Flat with Parapet Other Date of Construction: 1962 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1962, according to the King Count tax assessor. It was originally constructed as commercial shopping center building and continues to retain this use as the "Greater Hi -Lands" shopping center. It is currently occupied by many small retail stores, including the Viet-Wah Asian Food Market, which is a major anchor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes appear to have been made to the building's facade to update the complex's appearance, and some of the original storefronts have been replaced or modified. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of a commercial shopping center from the early 1960s, constructed in a Modern style. However, it has lost integrity and does not appear to otherwise embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping_ Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 5 DEPAR MEW ARCHTEOLOGF Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESMATION Description of The property contains a large, one-story commercial shopping center building, which is part of a larger Physical complex of three buildings, The building has a south -north orientation and is setback from NE Sunset Appearance: Boulevard behind a broad, paved parking lot. Comprised of one long structure, it consists a series of commercial retail storefronts that share a common facade. The building has an irregularly shaped rectangular plan and a combination of platform frame and masonry construction. It has a flat roof with a decorative parapet at the front elevation. The exterior walls are finished with stucco at the front and side elevations and painted concrete block at the rear elevation. The primary (south) facade is characterized by a tall entablature, supported by simple square columns, that appears to have been modified from its original design during renovations to update the complex's appearance. It has a simple design and contains a series of decorative inset panels. The panels serve as spaces for signs. Below the entablature, the storefront openings are setback from the elevation. The projecting overhang shelters a poured concrete walk that extends the length of the building and provides access to the individual stores. Several original storefronts remain intact, while others have been replaced or modified. Original storefronts are characterized by metal -frame glass doors with transoms, flanked by full -height plate glass windows. The building is connected to another building to the north by a narrow arch anchored at its southeast corner. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001, References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing, Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA, Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records, 5lauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6 HWORIC MERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 y i _ [pM thiMpl� r East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 5 OOaF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 Historic Inventory Report ARCHAE HISTORIC PRESERVATION East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 6 HISTORIC PRESERVARON Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: Hillcrest Bowl Property Address: 2809 NE Sunset Blvd, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227900091 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 5ec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1225331 Northing: 794720 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name- Wong D & C 1 LLC Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: 1COARTMEWOF Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & H€STORK PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Current Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Structural System: Unreinforced Masonry Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Original Cladding. Moderate Changes to Windows: Moderate Changes to Other: Moderate Other (specify): Entrances Style: Cladding: Roof Type: Roof Material: Modern Veneer - Stucco Flat with Parapet Unknown Concrete - Block Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Commercial Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Other Date of Construction, 1959 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places -No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1959, according to the King Count tax assessor. It was originally constructed as bowling alley and continues to retain this use as the "Hillcrest Bowl_" The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. According to the tax assessment, substantial changes were made to the building in 1979. On the exterior, these changes appear to have been made to the building's entrances. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered fair. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRH P). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of a bowling alley building from the late 1950s. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARC'HAWLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story bowling alley building that is located on the front side of a large parcel, Physical and surrounding by paved parking areas at the sides and rear. It has a north -south orientation and faces Appearance: north toward NE Sunset Boulevard. The building has a rectangular plan and consists of masonry construction. It has a flat roof with a simple parapet. The exterior walls are finished with stucco and painted concrete block, with areas of brick surrounding the front and side entrances. Except for the entrances, the building has no fenestration and engaged pilasters offer the only division of the elevations. The building was original designed with Modern style elements, but appears to have been substantially altered by changes to the design of the entrances. The building has three inset entrances, one in the center of the primary (north) facade and two the northern portions of the side elevations. All three entrances feature pairs of metal -frame glass doors, flanked by wide metal -frame fixed windows, and are sheltered by projecting canopies that extend from the parapet. On the north and west elevations the canopies have arched roofs. All three are labeled with the name "Hillcrest Bowl." Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing, Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. 5lauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, Dctober 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 W OF ARCHAEOOGY Historic inventory Report 4 ARCI�InEo�ocr & WSTORIC PRESERVATION Photos North Elevation, Looking Southeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY $ HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Safeway Common Name: St. Vincent de Paul Super Store Property Address: 2825 NE Sunset Blvd, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227900094 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Maps) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1225657 Northing: 795078 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARM (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Het2el, Christopher Owner's Name: Alison Oakland LLC Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status. Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: QEPAR% EW OF ARCHAEOLOGY d HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Intact Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Glass Concrete - Block Wood - Vertical Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Commercial Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1964 Built Date Current Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Structural System: Unreinforced Masonry Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Intact Roof Type: Roof Material: Barrel Vault Asphalt / Composition Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:Yes Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 4 OF ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTOCC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1964, according to the King Count tax assessor, and is believed to have been originally constructed by the Safeway Company as a supermarket. The original architect and builder are unknown. However, the building retains the distinctive characteristics of the Safeway Company's "Marina style," which was based on a prototype design used to design Safeway stores across the country. The Safeway supermarket chain was first established in 1914 in Southern California. It quickly grew as a major supermarket chain, eventually becoming the world's largest chain of retail food, with many stores in Washington State. In the late 1950s, the company developed standardized prototypical designs, known as the "Marina Plan," for the construction of their stores. The "Marina Plan" outlined a design scheme that called for stores to have a main central arch, a high beamed ceiling, and a glass fagade. In 1959, San Francisco's Marina Boulevard Safeway supermarket was the first building constructed according to this design plan. Afterwards, the Marina Plan became the design standard by which all Safeway stores were constructed through the 1960s. The building at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard is a highly intact example of this architectural style, The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). The former supermarket building appears to be associated with the Safeway Company and its role in the development of the Renton Highlands during the 19605, and it is a highly recognizable example of the company's Marina style design type for supermarket buildings. It embodies the characteristics of this style and is a distinctive modern architectural resource in the community. Based on our review, the property has good integrity and appears eligible for listing in the NRHP under criterion C at the local level of significance for its architectural style and type. Description of The property contains a one-story commercial supermarket building on a large parcel, setback at an angle Physical from NE Sunset Boulevard, The building has a west -east orientation and is surrounded on the west, north, Appearance: and south by a paved parking lot. It has a rectangular plan and a combination of platform frame and masonry construction. The building was originally designed in a Modern style, commonly known as the Safeway "Marina style," The characteristic feature of this style is the building's distinctive barrel -vault roof, which forms a sweeping canopy at the front elevation, supported by series of slender iron columns. The canopy extends nearly the full width of the elevation and shelters a poured concrete walk that provides access to the building's primary entrances. There are two entrances on the elevation, each consisting of a pair of original, metal -frame, glass storefront doors. The entrances are embedded in a two- story expanse of original, metal -frame plate glass storefront windows that from the roof line to a low knee wall and are another defining characteristic of the Marina style. At the upper course of windows, the lower band of the glazing is painted across the center bays, and the outer bays are fully enclosed. Flanking the windows the outer sections of the front elevation are clad with narrow vertical wood siding. The building's side and rear elevations are comprised of painted concrete block. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 1.4i MPAUMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY S Historic Inventory Report RSroRiC PRESEKYAWN . I I 7. I . , Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. Community Profile. Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of b DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY144a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 ,a North and West Elevations, Looking South 2010 West and South Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 North Elevation, Looking South 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 D PARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY d, HISTORIC PRESMAMN Historic Inventory Report West Elevation Detail, Looking East West Elevation (Detail), Looking Northwest 2010 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 pEPAKTMHJT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: 2832-2844 NE Sunset Blvd Property Address: 2832 NE Sunset Blvd , Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801205 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1225173 Northing: 795210 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: owne►Address. Greter Highlands Ltd Prtshp City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPQ Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: �4GEPARfMBJT OF ARCHAEOLOGYB Historic Inventory Report HWORIC PRESERVATION .: I " -�.. I :. F Description Historic Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Current Use: Commerce/Trade - Business Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Structural System: Unreinforced Masonry Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Original Cladding. Moderate Changes to Windows; Moderate Changes to Other: Extensive Other (specify). Facade Style: Cladding: Roof Type: Roof Material: Modern Veneer - Stucco Flat with Parapet Unknown Concrete - Block Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Commercial - Strip Commercial Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Other Date of Construction: 1958 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1958, according to the King Count tax assessor, It was originally constructed as commercial shopping center building and continues to retain this use as the "Greater Hi -Lands" shopping center. It is currently occupied by many small retail stores. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes appear to have been made to the building's facade to update the complex's appearance, and some of the original storefronts have been replaced or modified. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered poor. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRH P). The reconnaissance - level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of a commercial shopping center from the late 1950s, constructed in a Modern style. However, it has lost integrity and does not appear to otherwise embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 MART ARCHAM9MT OF Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 5. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story commercial shopping center building, which is part of a larger complex Physical of three buildings. The building has a south -north orientation and is setback from NE Sunset Boulevard Appearance: behind a broad, paved parking lot. Comprised of one long structure, it consists a series of commercW retail storefronts that share a common facade. The building has an irregularly shaped rectangular plan and a combination of platform frame and masonry construction. It has a flat roof with a decorative parapet at the front elevation. The exterior walls are finished with stucco at the front and side elevations and painted concrete block at the rear elevation. The primary (south) facade is characterized by a tall entablature, supported by simple square columns, that appears to have been modified from its original design during renovations to update the complex's appearance. It has a simple design and contains a series of decorative inset panels. The panels serve as spaces for signs. Below the entablature, the storefront openings are setback from the elevation. The projecting overhang shelters a poured concrete walk that extends the length of the building and provides access to the individual stores. Several original storefronts remain intact, while others have been replaced or modified. Original storefronts are characterized by metal -frame glass doors with transoms, flanked by full -height plate glass windows. The building is connected to another building to the south by a narrow arch anchored at its southwest corner, Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing, Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. Community Profile. Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Photos DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Y Historic Inventory Report Southeast Elevation, Looking West 2010 Southeast Elevation, Looking North 2010 Southeast Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: Dollar Tree Property Address: 2902 NE Sunset Blvd, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801205 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1225251 Northing: 795359 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Greter Highlands Ltd Prtshp Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Zip: 4 DEPARTW& f OF ARCHAEOLOGYS Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRE WATION .r Description Historic Use: Commerce/Trade -Department Store Current Use: Commerce/Trade - Department Store Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Moderate Changes to Other: Moderate Other (specify): Facade Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Stucco Concrete - Block Brick Wood Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Commercial Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Structural System: Unreinforced Masonry Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Moderate Roof Type: Flat with Parapet Other Date of Construction: 1958 Built Date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Unknown Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places -.No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1958, according to the King Count tax assessor. It appears to have been original constructed as a supermarket with a large shopping complex, but has since been converted for retail use_ It is currently occupied by a Dollar Tree discount store. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes appear to have been made to the building's facade and several of the original storefront windows have been enclosed. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered fair. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building is representative of a commercial supermarket or retail building from the late 1950s, constructed in a Modern style. However, it has lost integrity and does not appear to otherwise embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 DEPARTMBST OF ARC++AoLocYs Historic Inventory Report RVORIG PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story commercial retail building, constructed as part of a larger complex of Physical three buildings. The building has a south -north orientation and is setback from NE Sunset Boulevard Appearance: behind a broad, paved parking lot_ The building has a rectangular plan and a combination of platform frame and masonry construction. It has a flat roof with a pitched roof at the front elevation. The pitched roof is clad with composition asphalt shingles. The exterior walls are finished with stucco at the front and side elevations and painted concrete block at the rear elevation. The primary (south) facade is symmetrically. It is characterized by the pitched roof, which projects from the elevation and extends its full width, The roof features a wide dormer that centers the elevation with an open panel. The panel contains space for a large sign, which reads "DOLLAR TREE". Identical tower features define each end of the pitched roof_ They are have diagonal wood siding and both flat and pitched roof sections. The pitched roof is supported by a series of slender columns and shelters a wide poured concrete walk. The walk provides access to the building's front entrance, which centers the elevation. The entrance consists of a central pair of metal -frame, automatic, sliding glass doors flanked by large plate glass storefront windows on either side. To either side of the entrance, the facade's outer bays consist of panels of additional storefront windows that have been enclosed. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton, Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001, References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. Community Profile. Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989, King County -Tax Assessor Online Records_ Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006, Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY a HISTORIC I MERVAMN Photos Historic Inventory Report Southeast Elevation, looking Northwest 2010 Southeast Elevation, Looking West 2010 Northeast and Northwest Elevations, Looking South 2010 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTWM OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVADON 444 Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name: 3309 NE Sunset Blvd Property Address: 3309 NE Sunset Blvd , Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 423059104 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 04 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1226327 Northing: 796282 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Dalpay, James W., Jr. and Jullie A. Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - 5HPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: WAMWOF ARCHAE LOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & FiISfORIC PMERVAMOH Description Historic Use: Domestic -Single Family House Current Use: Domestic - Single f=amily House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Original Cladding: Slight Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Arts & Crafts - Craftsman Wood - Clapboard Foundation: Unknown Narrative Form/Type; Single Family Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1933 Built Date Changes to Windows: Moderate Roof Type: Gable - Front Gable Other Builder: Engineer: Architect: Roof Material: Asphalt /Composition - Shingle Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1933, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building's front porch and some windows, including full enclosure of the porch. Because of these alterations, the residence's integrity is considered fair_ The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building exhibits elements of the Craftsman style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 4 EXPARTMENT OF kRC►1AWEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report LaGr s, FIVORIG PRESERYAMN Description of The property contains a one-story single family residence with a rectangular plan and platform frame Physical wood construction. The residence has a northeast -southwest orientation and fronts NE Sunset Boulevard Appearance: at an angle. It was originally designed with elements of the Craftsman style, but has been altered with changes to its front porch and fenestration. The residence has a front gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles, slightly overhanging eaves, and wide fascia in the gable ends. The exterior walls are clad with horizontal wood clapboard siding. The primary (northeast) elevation is two bays wide and asymmetrically divided, A projecting front porch characterizes the eastern bay. The porch has a front gable roof and has been fully enclosed. It contains a single door opening and a non -original window. A non -original sliding window punctuates the facade's western bay and a small, original fixed wood window is contained in the gable end. The fenestration consists of a mixture of original and non -original windows throughout the residence. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989. King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 4 giPARTMBdT OF ARCHAE(xocrs. Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESRVATION Photos Northeast Elevation, Looking South 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Common Name., 11905 NE Sunset Blvd Property Address: 11905 NE Sunset Blvd , Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 0823059111 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 08 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1223642 Northing: 794856 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Renton Sunset -Temp Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Friendly Fuels, Inc. Owner Address: City: State: Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County Quadrangle King MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Zip: �4A"AtOtOGF Historic inventory Report ARCF1AE010GY S HWORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Use: Transportation - Road -Related (vehicular) Current Use: Transportation - Road -Related (vehicular) Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Slight Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Modern Foundation: Concrete - Poured Narrative Cladding - Veneer - Stucco ladding:Veneer-Stucco Form/Type: Gas Station - Convenience Store w/Canopy Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Roof Material: Flat with Parapet Unknown Other Date of Construction: 1964 Built date Builder: Engineer: Architect: Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It was constructed in 1964, according to the King Count tax assessor. The original owner is unknown, as are the original architect and builder. Changes have been made to the building, including the replacement of the building's fenestration and the erection of a modern gas pump canopy. Because of these alterations, the building's integrity is considered fair. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The reconnaissance -level survey revealed no evidence to suggest the building is historically significant due to associations with an important event or person. The building exhibits elements of the Modern style. However, it does not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and it is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping. Based on our review, the property has fair integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district. Monday, December06, 2010 Page 2 of 4 MPART ARCHAlOtOGF Historic Inventory Report AR�+inEptOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVAMON Description of The property contains a one-story building that serves as both an automotive gas station and a Physical commercial retail building. It has an east -west orientation, facing north towards NE Sunset Boulevard, and Appearance: consists of a wide one-story building on the south and a detached gas pump canopy to the north. The building and canopy are surrounded by a paved parking area on all sides. The building has an rectangular plan and consists of platform frame construction. It has a flat roof with a simple capped parapet. The exterior walls are finished with stucco. The primary (north) facade is asymmetrical and several bays wide, It consists of multiple storefronts, each containing plate glass metal -frame door and window openings. They are sheltered by a continuous fabric awning that extends across the front elevation. The gas pump canopy appears to be of recent construction, comprised of flat roofed canopy supported by four slender columns. The canopy shelters two islands containing four, double -sided gas pumps. Major The Boeing Company, Renton Reporter, and City of Renton. Renton: The First Hundred Years, 1901-2001. Bibliographic Kent, WA: King County Journal Newspaper, 2001. References: Buerge, David M. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1989. City of Renton, Department of Community Development. "Community Profile." Renton, WA: Renton Department of Community Development, 1989, King County Tax Assessor Online Records. Slauson, Morda C. Renton From Coal to Jets. Renton, WA: Renton Historical Society, 2006. Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 3 of 4 WART W OF ARCHAM LOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCNAEa�a�r & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos North Elevation, Looking South 2010 Monday, December 06, 2010 Page 4 of 4 DEPARM"T OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2601 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2601 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801400 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Mapjsj Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 04 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224178 Northing: 794811 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetxel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places: No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTMENT 8 RHistoric Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W_ Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 DEPARTMEW Of WHA OLOOYa Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVA now Description of The property contains a one-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "A" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied, resawn split cedar shake siding siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a south - north orientation and its primary (south) facade fronts Harrington Avenue NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. Each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by slightly smaller tripartite picture window and another small sliding window. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPARTME ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVAIAON Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News," The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other 'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful. The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riffs. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998, Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard_" 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMW OF ARCHAEOLOGY $ HISTORIC PRESERVATION 144 Photos Historic Inventory Report South Elevation, Lacking West 2010 South Elevation, Looking West 2010 South and East Elevations, Looking West 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPA;iR.4WT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2605 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2605 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 04 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224147 Northing: 794734 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8. WSTOM PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Pian: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan, Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard &Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local). No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTMENT ARCHAEOLOGY _ Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates, George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district, Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of b WAi WANT OF ARCHAEOLOGY B. Historic Inventory Report hNSTOM PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story two unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "B" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied, resawn split cedar shake siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a east -west orientation and its primary (east) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. Each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks and steps that lead to the street. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by slightly smaller tripartite picture window and another small sliding window. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPARTMBJT OF ARCHAEOLOGY a. Historic Inventory Report HiSTORiC PRESERVA"N Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Sub urbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives, Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971, Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc,, 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16, Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report South and East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 East Elevation, Looking West 2010 East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 South Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRE5ERYATlON Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2606 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2606 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Black/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224251 Northing: 794706 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register, Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1. HISTORIC PRBERVAROH Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other. Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer. Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPAR W OF ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY d HISTORIC PRESERVAIFON Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the high School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRH P). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 oa=eaarula�r or ARCHAEOLOGY Z. Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one-story two unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "B" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied, rustic cedar beveled siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a north -south orientation and its primary (north) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. Each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by slightly smaller tripartite picture window and another small sliding window. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPART&04T OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTOPIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News," The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W, Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other 'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karoiak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American, John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971, Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004_ The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY I. HLiTORIC PRESERVATION 41 ...� — : Photos Historic Inventory Report Southwest and Northwest Elevations, Looking East 2010 Northwest and Northeast Elevations, Looking South 2010 Northwest Elevation, Looking Southeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 WPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8& WSfORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2611 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2611 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Set T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224140 Northing: 794642 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMEHT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVAW14 Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changesto Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY$ Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 WARTNIEW OF AR"AEOCOGYd. Historic Inventory Report HIMAIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "C" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original, horizontally applied, rustic cedar beveled siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a east -west orientation and its primary (east) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings, The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, the two outer sections are punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window and by two tripartite picture windows in the center sections. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by a wide tripartite picture window on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal sliding window in the outer bays and two tripartite picture windows and a small sliding window in the center bays on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPARTb*W OF ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVARON Major Associated Press, "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times, Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates, "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington_" Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan 5onnenschein & Co., Ltd_, 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 IDWAarr,Wwr OF ARCHAEOLOGY a WSTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report South and East Elevations, Looking West 2010 East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & H€$TORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2612 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2612 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Black/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 5ec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224264 Northing: 794614 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 10WARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HLSTORIC PP.ESEWATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 7977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahigren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard &Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local). No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report EPARTA*NT OF ARC#iAEOiOGY & HISTOR€c PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents_ Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 EWPAWN& OF AKME LOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8� HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a one to two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Physical Terrace public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six Appearance: standard design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "D" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. it has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original resawn split cedar shake siding on the first story and rustic cedar beveled siding on the second story during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a west -east orientation and its primary (west) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four sections, each comprising a single housing unit. The two center sections are two stories tall and the two outer sections are one story tall. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each center section is punctuated by a single, slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by a small metal -sliding window and a tripartite picture window on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window on the second story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 19905. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report EPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY B HISTORIC PRESMATkON Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues, To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007_ Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp_ 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American, John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylviart, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tam Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives, Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971_ Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PMERVATIOH Photos Historic Inventory Report East and South Elevations, Looking North 2010 2612 Sunset Lane NE is in the center. East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 North and West Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATFCN Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2617 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2617 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224177 Northing: 794545 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Feld Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination dame: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle MERCER ISLAND Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip. 98056-0316 ,DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY6 H5rORIC PRESEPWION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material- Asphalt/ aterial: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W, Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 WARrMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising bpth one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRNP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 ARPARTNEWaF ARCHAEOLOGY a Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PMERVATION F. Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. it has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a east -west orientation and its primary (east) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DMARTMEW ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1 Major Associated Press_ "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans, Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1901 Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American, John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives, Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc_, 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 IDWARTMBJT OF ARCHAEpLOGYt HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Southeast and Northeast Elevations, Looking West 2010 Northeast Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DFPARTk*KT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVA11014 Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2620 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2620 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224337 Northing: 794552 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded. 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY d KMORIC PRESERVAI)ON Description Historic Inventory Report Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Veneer - Brick Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 IMPARTMWTOF Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOX,G'!a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on lune 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units, At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRNP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 EffAffFMEW4 ARCt1nEOlOGr & Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "F" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original vertically applied rough cedar channel siding on the first story and resawn split shake siding on the second story during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a southeast -northwest orientation and its primary (southeast) facade forms a landscaped courtyard between another building to the southeast. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by two slightly shorter, tripartite picture windows. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by small metal -sliding windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window on the second story. The entire second story projects from the elevation, and the rear entrances are sheltered by cantilevered shed roofs. The building's side elevations are clad with brick, but are otherwise unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPARTMENT Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s," In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919_" In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998, Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 DEPA9MM OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATIom Photos Historic Inventory Report South Elevation, Looking North 2070 West and South Elevations, Looking North 2010 North Elevation, Looking East 2010 2620 Sunset Lane NE is in the center. East and South Elevations, Looking West 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY s tVSTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2623 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2623 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224232 Northing. 794448 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip., 98056-0316 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Gage 2 of 6 QEPARTM&4T OF ARCHAEOLOGY & Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project_ Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer, The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 4 RTMEW OF °E""71AE6LAEOLQG ARGY S Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PMERVATK]N Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied, rustic cedar beveled siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a east -west orientation and its primary (east) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGYHistoric Inventory Report HWORIG PRSERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 .DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1G L{LSTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report East Elevation, Looking West South and East Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTWM OF ARCHAEOLOGY44fl& HISTORIC PRESERYAPON Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2629 Sunset Ln NE Property Address. 2629 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224261 Northing: 794361 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments, Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HMOMC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan, Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahigren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 .4jDEPARTMWT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESEPVATIOM 1 Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green bake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 AWHAOLOG` Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8 FRSTORIC PRESERYATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original resawn split cedar shake siding on the first story and vertically applied rough cedar channel siding on the second story during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a southeast -northwest orientation and its primary (southeast) facade forms a landscaped courtyard between another building to the southeast. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street, On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story, The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPA OF ARCHAEOLOGY GY Historic Inventory Report ARCFIAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other 'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977, Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971, Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 oEPAMEW OF A"AEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report South and Easat Elevations, Looking Northwest 2010 East Elevation, Looking West 2010 North and East Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 OEPARTMWT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2630 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2630 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Black/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map{s} Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224379 Northing: 794481 Projection: Washington State Piane South Datum: HARK (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments; Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Nat Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Brick Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer - Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places: No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTMEW ARCi1AEOLOCEOLOG*Y Historic Inventory Report $ HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historicai significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 DEPAUMEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "F" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation, It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original vertically applied rough cedar channel siding on the first story and resawn split shake siding on the second story during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a northwest -southeast orientation and its primary (northwest) facade forms a landscaped courtyard between another building to the north. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by two slightly shorter, tripartite picture windows. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by small metal -sliding windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window on the second story. The entire second story projects from the elevation, and the rear entrances are sheltered by cantilevered shed roofs. The building's side elevations are clad with brick, but are otherwise unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPAM"T OF ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington 11-I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977, Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis, New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 IDWAUMEW OF ARC"AEOLOGY8 Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESeIVATION Photos North Elevation, Looking Southeast South Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 2010 West Elevation, Looking Northeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2610 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Project Common Name: 2635 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2635 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224325 Northing: 794307 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip. 98056-0316 1�4DWARFMBJT OF ARCHAEOLOGY a HISTORIC PRESERVAnON _. . -. �. , .. .? Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local). No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 WART NT OF ARCH#I.' LOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY 8 H;$TORIC PRESERYAAON Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard &. Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit --specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 ARCHAEOLOGY tEOOGY Historic Inventory Report & HISTORIC PRE5ERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance; design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original resawn split cedar shake siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a northwest -southeast orientation and its primary (northwest) facade forms a landscaped courtyard between another building to the northwest. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non - original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non - original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 EffAR ARCHTEOLOGr Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY d. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Pians. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY S. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Northwest and Northeast Elevations, Looking South 2010 Northeast Elevation, Looking West 2010 Southeast and Northeast, Looking West 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARIt"T OF ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Project Common Name: 2641 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2641 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) DAHP No. Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec County T23R05E 09 King Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224396 Northing: 794273 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 -Ai6EPARTMBJr OF ARCHAEOLOGY HITORIC PRESERVATION — ' I - 1: , , -.' Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Pian: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Nat Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTME Of ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCtiAEOLQGY � HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets, The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents, Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 MAK AABU OF ARCHAEOLOGYHistoric Inventory Report FUSTORIC PRESERVA71014 K Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line_ The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied rustic cedar beveled siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a southeast -northwest orientation and its primary (southeast) facade forms a landscaped courtyard between another building to the southeast. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non - original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non - original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 ARCHAE LOGY Historic Inventory Report PARTMM OF ARCHAEOLOGY � HISTORIC PRESERVAUON Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard -Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA, Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburban ization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer, Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 19171919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F, Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In Flow the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998, Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 4 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY B. HISTORIC PRESERVAIIOH Photos Historic Inventory Report East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 North and West Elevation, Looking Southeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 44iDEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2644 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2644 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224456 Northing: 794408 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder, Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description Historic Inventory Report Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material- Asphalt/ aterial:Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W, Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTIAEM Or ARCHAEQLOQ1yS Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 law -income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions, Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding, Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district_ Thursday, October 26, 2010 Page 3 of 6 4 D&ARfMENf OF M"AEOLOGYS. Historic Inventory Report HWORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "C" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original, vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a south -north orientation and its primary (south) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit, On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, the two outer sections are punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window and by two tripartite picture windows in the center sections. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by a wide tripartite picture window on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal sliding window in the outer bays and two tripartite picture windows and a small sliding window in the center bays on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPART ARCHA OLOGF Historic Inventory Report ARC}IAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERYADON Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W, "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American, John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F_ Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. 5zylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977_ Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc,, 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 or 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY d HISTORIC PRFSKYAMOH Photos Historic Inventory Report South Elevation, Looking North 2010 West and South Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 South and East Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 East and North Elevations, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 2$, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTW&W Or ARC14AWLOGY 1, KSTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2647 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2647 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224472 Northing: 794257 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Bax 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status. Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTM ft OF ARCHAEOLOGY & *STORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding. Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Structural System: Balloon Frame ' Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPA RTHENT OT ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVAMN Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two --story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 N1 OF ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHAY 6pGocr Historic Inventory Report s HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied rustic cedar beveled siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a west -east orientation and its primary (west) facade forms a landscaped courtyard between another building to the west_ The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 ARCHAE LOGY Historic Inventory Report OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVADON Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues, To Renton It's Not News," The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington," Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to 5uburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes, In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000_ Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919_" In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F, Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. 5zylvian, eds. pp. 60-80, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000_ Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998, Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 UEPARNEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report North and West Elevations, Looking Southeast 2010 North Elevation, Looking South 2010 East Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTN NT OF AR HAEOLOGr a HWORIG PRESERVAMN Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2711 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2711 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224741 Northing. 794366 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Zip: 98056-0316 OEPAIMOEW OF ARCHA60LOGY & HLSTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places: No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 MPARTMENT OF ARRCHAECHAEOLOOGYGY R Historic Inventory Report 45MRIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 WAWrhQ T OF WR HAEOLOGYB. Historic Inventory Report HLSTORIG PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements_ This building was constructed as a type "C" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original, vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a northeast -southwest orientation and its primary (northeast) facade farms a landscaped courtyard with another building to the northeast. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, the two outer sections are punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window and by two tripartite picture windows in the center sections. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by a wide tripartite picture window on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal sliding window in the outer bays and two tripartite picture windows and a small sliding window in the center bays on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 1"AKIMENr OF ARCHAEEOLOGYOLOGY Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W, "The Other 'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London; Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Lord, Tom Forrester, Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977, Madison, Charles A, Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M,E, Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 DEPAR ENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Northeast Elevation, Looking Southwest 2010 Southwest Elevation, Looking East 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 at 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2717 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2717 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224789 Northing: 794430 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Bax 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - 5HPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 DEPARTMENT Or ARCHAEOLOGY � HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding; Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date 1977 Remodel Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Other Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 I)EPAR MEM ARCK EOLOGr Historic Inventory Report ARCF4AEOLOGY & HMORIG PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of IOD low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units_ At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 DEPAAEOtOGY b TOF ARC}IAEOtHistoric Inventory Report FWORC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "C" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original, vertically applied, rough cedar channel siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a southwest -northeast orientation and its primary (southwest) facade forms a landscaped courtyard with another building to the southwest. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, the two outer sections are punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window and by two tripartite picture windows in the center sections. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by a wide tripartite picture window on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal sliding window in the outer bays and two tripartite picture windows and a small sliding window in the center bays on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 1EPARTVkNT OF ARCHAEOLOGYa Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News." The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington li-I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans_ Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives, Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan. Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2Q10 Page 5 of 6 DEPARfMB4T OF ARCHAEOLOGY a HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Southwest Elevation, Looking East Northeast Elevation, Looking South 2010 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENTOF ARCHAEOLOGY & HiSTMC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No, Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name. 2720 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2720 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801055 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224691 Northing: 794541 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - 5HPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 ItWARTMEM OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt / Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 DEPART NTOF ARCHAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard"s design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 3 of 6 MAK EW OF AMIAEOLOGY Historic Inventory Report ARCi1AEOLOGY � HISTORIC PRSERVA110N Description of The property contains a one to two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Physical Terrace public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six Appearance: standard design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "D" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia, Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original resawn split cedar shake siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a southeast -northwest orientation and its primary (southeast) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four sections, each comprising a single housing unit. The two center sections are two stories tall and the two outer sections are one story tall. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each center section is punctuated by a single, slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by a small metal -sliding window and a tripartite picture window on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and a small metal -sliding window on the second story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 ARCHAECLOGr Historic Inventory Report ARCHaEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues, To Renton It's Not News," The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington." Construction Plans. Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other'Subsidized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s," In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes, In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J_ "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City, Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977_ Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riis. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan, Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004_ The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 5 of 6 4 IffARTNLEW OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report South Elevation, Looking Northwest 2010 South Elevation, Looking North 2010 West and South Elevations, Looking Northeast 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Common Name: 2723 Sunset Ln NE Property Address: 2723 Sunset Ln NE, Renton, WA 98056 Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 7227801085 Plat/Block/Lot Acreage Supplemental Map(s) Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec T23R05E 09 Coordinate Reference Easting: 1224825 Northing: 794519 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet) Identification Survey Name: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Field Recorder: Hetzel, Christopher Owner's Name: Renton Housing Authority Owner Address: PO Box 2316 City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Not Eligible Within a District? No Contributing? No National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: DAHP No. County King Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 10/06/2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 1 of 6 Zip: 98056-0316 4- Historic Inventory Report Description Historic Use: Domestic- Multiple Family House Plan: Rectangle Stories: 2 Changes to Plan: Intact Changes to Original Cladding: Extensive Changes to Other: Not Applicable Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Veneer - Vinyl Siding Foundation: Form/Type: Concrete - Poured Multi -Family Narrative Current Use: Domestic - Multiple Family House Structural System: Platform Frame Changes to Interior: Unknown Changes to Windows: Extensive Roof Type: Gable - Side Gable Roof Material: Asphalt/ Composition - Shingle Study Unit Other Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction: 1959 Built Date Builder: Dahlgren Construction Company 1977 Remodel Engineer: Architect: George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:No Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): No Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): No Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 2 of 6 oePARTMENTOF Historic inventory Report ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION Statement of The property was evaluated at a reconnaissance level in a cultural resources survey completed for the Significance: proposed Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. It is one of 27 buildings constructed by the Housing Authority of the City of Renton as part of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex authorized on June 28, 1958 and completed in 1959. Sunset Terrace consisted of a complex of 100 low-income housing units comprising both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets. The complex was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company according to designs by George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. George W. Stoddard, a prominent Seattle architect and principal of the firm, is credited with the design of many well known public, private, and civic structures in the Seattle area, including such noted properties as the High School Memorial Stadium, the Green Lake Aqua Theater, and the Yesler Terrace Defense Housing Project. Stoddard retired in 1960, and the Sunset Terrace public housing complex is believed to have been one of his last commissions. Stoddard's design for Sunset Terrace appears to have been strongly influenced by the Garden City movement and exhibits features and characteristics of garden style apartments. All 27 buildings were arranged along curvilinear streets in locations to best take advantage of the original topography and create open, pleasing landscapes for residents. Throughout Sunset Terrace, each building is separated by open courtyard areas with outdoor space dedicated to individual housing units. At the rear of each unit, this space was originally identified by unit -specific metal revolving clotheslines. Additional design features included minimal ornamentation, aluminum windows, and varied exterior wall cladding of horizontal rustic cedar siding, vertical rough cedar channel siding, or resawn split cedar shake siding with some brick veneer. The Renton Housing Authority completed a comprehensive rehabilitation of Sunset Terrace in the 1970s, which resulted in the removal and replacement of many of these features. The original windows were replaced with new metal windows, unit doors were replaced, the revolving clotheslines were removed, and the original cedar wall claddings were replaced with vinyl siding. Subsequent changes occurred in the early 1990s when buildings in the complex were upgraded for ADA accessibility. Kitchens and bathrooms in the individual housing units were also substantially renovated at this time. The property has been evaluated according to the eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Due to the many alterations, the integrity of the individual buildings and the complex as a whole is considered poor. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex resulted from federal investment in public housing during the postwar period and is associated with a well-known Seattle architect. However, it is a late example of its architectural type and its individual elements were substantially altered by rehabilitations in the 1970s and 1990s, such that they no longer appear to retain sufficient integrity to convey their historical significance. Based on our review, the property has poor integrity and does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP individually or as a potential historic district. Thursday, October 28, 2014 Page 3 of 6 DEPARTMENT OF ARCHA OLOGY& Historic Inventory Report HISTORIC PRESERVATION Description of The property contains a two-story four unit apartment building constructed as part of the Sunset Terrace Physical public housing complex in 1958-1959. Buildings in the complex were designed in one of six standard Appearance: design types, each exhibiting Modern style elements. This building was constructed as a type "E" building. The building has a long rectangular plan and consists of platform frame wood construction on a poured concrete foundation. It has a very low pitch side gable roof clad with composition asphalt shingles and featuring slightly overhanging eaves with a wide fascia. Four small cylindrical, metal roof vents stand equally spaced along the roof ridge line. The exterior walls are clad with non -original horizontally applied vinyl siding. This siding replaced the building's original horizontally applied rustic cedar beveled siding during rehabilitation of the building in the 1970s. The building has a northwest -southeast orientation and its primary (northwest) facade fronts Sunset Lane NE. The primary facade is symmetrically divided and consists of four nearly identical sections, each comprising a single housing unit. On the first story, each section consists of a single door opening fit with a non -original paneled door, flanked by a wide tripartite picture window. Two cantilevered shed roofs extend between the sections sheltering each pair of door openings. The doors open onto poured concrete stoops connected to poured concrete sidewalks that lead to the street. On the second story, each section is punctuated by a slightly shorter, tripartite picture window. The building's rear elevation is similarly divided, each section containing a single door opening flanked by two small windows on the first story, and featuring a wide tripartite picture window and another small window on the second story. The two center sections on the second story projects from the elevation, cantilevered over the first story. The building's side elevations are unadorned. All of the building's original windows were replaced with non -original metal windows in the 1970s. Other alterations to the building include the removal of original metal revolving clothes lines outside the rear entrance of each unit, and complete renovations of the building's bathrooms and kitchens and ADA accessibility improvements in the early 1990s, Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 4 of 6 DEPARTMENT ARCHAEOLOGY Y Historic Inventory Report 144aRC!-IgEg�QGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Major Associated Press. "Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News_" The Seattle Times. Seattle, WA, Bibliographic 29 June 1958. References; George W. Stoddard-Huggard & Associates. "Housing Authority of the City of Renton: Project Washington II -I, Renton Highlands, Renton, Washington," Construction Plans, Seattle, WA: George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates Architects & Engineers, 1958. On file with Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Elenga, Maureen R. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation, 2007. Hanchett, Thomas W. "The Other 'Su bsid ized Housing': Federal Aid to Suburbanization, 1940-1960s." In From Tenements to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. Pp. 163-179. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000. Howard, Ebenezer, Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902. Karolak, Eric J. "No Idea of Doing Anything Wonderful: The Labor -Crisis Origins of National Housing Policy and the Reconstruction of the Working -Class Community, 1917-1919." In From Tenemants to the Taylor Homes; In Search of an Urban Housing Policy in Twentieth -Century American. John F. Bauman, Roger Biles, Kristin M. Szylvian, eds. pp. 60-80. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2000, Lord, Tom Forrester. Decent Housing: A Promise to Keep. Federal Housing Policy and its Impact on the City, Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1977. Madison, Charles A. Preface. In How the Other Half Lives. Jacob A. Riffs. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971. Ochsner, Jeffery Karl, ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998. Rabinowitz, Alan, Urban Economics and Land Use in America: The Transformation of Cities in the Twentieth Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2004. The Seattle Times. "Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job." 18 March 1959:44. Seattle, WA. . "Obituaries: George W. Stoddard." 29 September 1967:16. Seattle, WA. Thursday, October 28, 2020 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMU4T OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Photos Historic Inventory Report Northeast and Northwest Elevations, Looking South 2010 Southwest and Southeast Elevations, Looking North 2010 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Page 6 of 6 Appendix C Unanticipated Discovery Plan 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 Sheriffs office and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The Sheriffs office may arrange for a representative of the county coroner's office to examine the discovery. The remains should be protected in place until the cultural resource specialist has examined the find. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be Native American, the City of Renton will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes. E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F.. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard C-1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton CONTACT INFORMATION Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-6578 Stephanie Kramer Assistant State Archaeologist Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 1063 Capitol Way South Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Phone: (360) 586-3083 King County Sheriff s Office Headquarters 516 Third Avenue, Room W-150 Seattle, WA 98104-2312 Phone: (206) 296-4155 (non -emergency) Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources 39015 172nd Avenue 5E Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Appendix C Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 2 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard iCF 00593.10 a yr it a. d ►1 1. IVY of to NTON. AHEAD O� THE CUR 6 . Community & Economic Development 3sj + r 5 Itt � ���` Denis Law City of Mayor i r i + ; Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator December 17, 2010 Subject: Sunset Area Community Planned Action Dear EIS Recipient: The City of Renton (City) in consultation with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) has prepared the attached Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The City 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). The Draft EIS addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of RNA's Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. The EIS addresses the following topics: aesthetics; air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions; earth; energy, including natural gas and electricity; 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 demographics, employment, and displacement; transportation; utilities, including wastewater, water supply, telecommunication; and water resources, including groundwater and surface water. For each element of the environment, the EIS evaluates 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. The affected environment and potential beneficial and adverse impacts of each alternative are identified as well as mitigation measures. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way 0 Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Some of the key environmental issues and options facing decision -makers include; land use—the appropriate mix of land use and housing in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the near term and the amount of growth in the Planned Action Study Area over 20 years; • transportation—the type of multimodal and urban design improvements appropriate for NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900); • stormwater drainage—the type and location of natural stormwater infrastructure integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development; • other improvements—the coordination of parks and schools facilities, the development of enhanced educational, recreational, and social services, and the improvement of utility systems; and • planned action—the application of a planned action ordinance that would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs when they are consistent with the Sunset Area Community EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. 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. 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 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 S, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. before the Renton Planning Commission. The meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Thank you for your interest in the Sunset Area Community. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Signature Gregg Zimmerman, V1c Works Ad istrator Signature- Mark Peterson, Fire and F,*ncrs_2n-y o =c4 "dministrator Signature;l,t__.. __.�._! •- Terry Higashiyama, C?rrlunity Services Administrator A / Signature. L'�� g Alex Pietsch, Community and onomic Development Administrator DRAFT SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION NEPA/SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARED FOR: City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity and SEPA Lead Agency Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In partnership with Renton Housing Authority 2900 Northeast 10th Street Renton, Washington 98056 PRINCIPAL AUTHORS: CH2MHii1 Project Manager ICF International EIS Lead December 2010 CH2MHill and ICF International. 2010. Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement. Draft. December. [ICF 00593.10.] Bellevue and Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Fact Sheet Project Title Sunset Area Community Planned Action Proposal and Alternatives This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS] addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. The objective of the proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action Study Area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of three 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 he studied under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Alternative 2. This alternative represents a moderate level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area based on investment in mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Alternative 3. This alternative represents the highest level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in this EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement FS 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Proponent Fact Sheet The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, the redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. In accordance with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) regulations at 24 CFR part S8, the City of Renton (City) is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood 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 SEPA (RCW 43.21C). The City implements SEPA and NEPA, and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in this EIS. The City, in partnership with RHA and other agencies, intends to use federal funds from several HUD programs to help finance proposed project activities. Lead agency for NEPA and SEPA Compliance City of Renton Responsible Official City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Contact Person Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econklJng(@rentonwa.gov Required Approvals The following permits and/or approvals could be required for the proposals. Additional permits/approvals may be identified during the review process associated with future implementing development projects. Planned Action Study Area To implement the proposals, the following must be approved by the City: • adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments regarding capital facility and transportation improvements required in association with projected growth, • adoption of NE Sunset Boulevard Conceptual Plan, • adoption of a drainage master plan, and Sunset Area Community Planned Action FS -2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Fact Sheet • adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Prior to City action, the State of Washington Department of Commerce would coordinate state agency review of any Comprehensive Plan Amendments or development regulations. After the City action, the likely permits to be acquired by individual development proposals in the Planned Action Study Area include but are not limited to, land use permits, construction permits, building permits, and street use permits. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Federal Agencies Department of Housing and Urban Development • Record of Decision • Approval of Request for Release of Funds • Demolition/Disposition Application • Approval of Sunset Terrace project -related certifications National Marine Fisheries Service • Endangered Species Act Consultation State and Regional Agencies Department of Ecology • NPDES/Stormwater General Permit Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation • Historic and cultural resources consultation Puget Sound Regional Council • Asbestos surveys • Demolition permits City of Renton • Site plan approval • Building, fire, electrical permits EIS Authors and Principal Contributors This document has been prepared under the direction of the City Department of Community and Economic Development with consultation of RHA. Key authors and topics are listed below. Sunset Area Community Planned Action FS -3 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 543.10 City of Renton Fact Sheet CHZMHilI 1100 112th Ave NE # 400 Bellevue, WA 98004-4511 (425) 453-5000 (Project management, earth, water resources, environmental health, socioeconomics, environmental justice, parks and recreation, transportation, and utilities) ICF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 801-2800 (EIS lead, air quality, plants and animals, energy, noise, land use, housing, aesthetics, historic/cultural, public services) Mithun 1201 Alaskan Way, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 (Sunset Terrace Alternative 2) Weinman Consulting LLC 9350 S.E. 68th Street Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 295-0783 (NEPA compliance, Planned Action Ordinance) Date of Draft EIS Issuance December 17, 2010 Date Comments Due January 31, 2011 Public Comment The City will accept written comments from issuance of this Draft EIS on December 17, 2010, until 5:00 p.m., January 31, 2011. Written comments can be mailed to the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee care of the contact person below: 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 econklingftrentonwa,gov Sunset Area Community Planned Action F5 4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 City of Fenton Fact Sheet A public hearing will he 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 he held on January 5, 2011, at 6:00 p.m, before the Renton Planning Commission. The meeting will he held at the Council Chambers, 1.055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Date of Implementation Approval of City actions is anticipated by May 2011. Previous Environmental Documents Prior environmental review was conducted for the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments, including the following documents: • Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, Harrington Square, September 2, 2003; and Determination of Non -Significance, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments For Highlands Area, November 6, 2006. When appropriate, prior environmental documents were considered in the preparation of this Draft EIS. Location of Background Information See Contact Person above. Purchase of the Draft EIS The document is posted on the City's website at http;//rentonwa.2ov/business/defautt.as12x?id=2060. Reference copies and copies for purchase (for the cost of production) are also available at Renton City Hall, Department of Community and Economic Development, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The document is also available as a reference at: + Renton Housing Authority offices, 2900 Northeast 10th Street, Renton, WA 98056 s Highlands Brach Library, 2902 NE 12th Street, Renton, WA 98056 • Renton Library, 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98057 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement FS 5 ICF 593.10 Contents Listof Tables.......................................................................................................................................... vi Listof Figures... .... ........ .......... —'— ... —'— .................... — —.......... ................................... x Page Volume 1: Chapters Chapter1 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Proponent........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2.1 Project Location...............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Proposal Overview...........................................................................................................1-2 1.3.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment.......................................................................................1-2 1.3.2 Other Components of the Planned Action......................................................................1-3 1.3.3 Planned Action Ordinance...............................................................................................1-3 1A Proposal Alternatives... .................. .................... ..................................... 1-3 1.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action..................................................................................................1-4 1.4.2 Alternative 2....................................................................................................................1-4 1.4.3 Alternative 3....................................................................................................................1-5 1.5 Summary of Impacts........................................................................................................1-6 1.6 Summary of Mitigation Measures.................................................................................1-33 1.7 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............. ......................................................... 1-47 Chapter 2 Proposal and Alternatives ....................................... .................................. ............... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ................... ..................... ...... ................ ..................... .. ...................... .......... 2-1 2.2 Proponent........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Project Location............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Proposal Overview...........................................................................................................2-3 2.4.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment....................................................................................... 2-3 2.4.2 Other Components of the Planned Action......................................................................2-4 2.4.3 Planned Action Ordinance...............................................................................................2-4 2.5 Background Information..................................................................................................2-5 2.5.1 Regulatory Overview........................................................................................................ 2-5 2.5.2 Planning and Community Involvement...........................................................................2-9 2.5.3 Renton Housing Authority Functions, Programs, and Project Planning ........................2-13 2.5.4 Environmental Analysis and Review—SEPA and NEPA.................................................2-13 2.6 Purpose and Need for Proposal ........ ............................ ................................................. 2-15 Sunset Area Community Planned Action October 2410 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement I ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �� 1CF 593.10 2.6.1 Study Area Conditions and Trends.................................................................................2-16 2.6.2 Sunset Terrace Public Housing Conditions and Trends .................. ........... ...... .............. 2-18 2.6.3 Proposal Goals and Objectives .................................. --.... ..... ...................................... 2-19 2.7 Proposal Alternatives .......................................... ....... .................................................... 2-21 2.7.1 Description of Proposal Alternatives .... ...... .... ............................................................... 2-21 2.7.2 Comparison of Features of Proposal Alternatives.........................................................2-25 2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Implementation ...........................................2-52 Chapter 3 Affected Environment.............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Earth..............................................................................................................................3.1-1 3.1.1 Environmental Context ......................... ........................................................................ 3.1-1 3.1.2 Regulatory Context....................................................................................................... 3.1-5 3.2 Air Quality ......... ............................................................................................................ 3.2-1 3.2.1 Environmental Context.................................................................................................3.2-1 3.2.2 Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................3.2-3 3.3 Water Resources...........................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.1 Environmental Context.................................................................................................3.3-1 3.3.2 Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................3.3-6 3.4 Plants and Animals........................................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.1 Environmental Context.................................................................................................3.4-1 3.4.2 Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................3.4-4 3.5 Energy...........................................................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.1 Environmental Context.................................................................................................3.5-1 3.5.2 Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................3.5-2 3.6 Noise.............................................................................................................................3.6-1 3.6.1 Environmental Context.................................................................................................3.6-1 3.6.2 Regulatory Context ..................................................... .................................................. 3.6-3 3.7 Environmental Health ...................... ............................................................................. 3.7-1 3.7.1 Environmental Context. ................................................................................................ 3.7-2 3.7.2 Regulatory Context.......................................................................................................3.7-7 3.8 Land Use ........................................... ............................................................................. 3.8-1 3.8.1 Environmental Context ........... .......... ............................................................................ 3.8-1 3.8.2 Regulatory Context ...... ........... ...................................................................................... 3.8-5 3.9 Socioeconomics ................ ............................................................................................ 3.9-1 3.9.1 Environmental Context.................................................................................................3.9-1 3.9.2 Regulatory Context ....................................... ........................................... ........... ..........3.9-7 3.10 Housing....................................................................................................................... 3.10-1 3.10.1 Environmental Context ....... .................................... ............ ........................................ 3.10-1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �� 1CF 593.10 Cltv of Renton Contents 3.10.2 Regulatory Context...............................................................................................3.10-5 3.11 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................3.11-1 3.11.1 Environmental Context........................................................................................3.11-1 3.11.2 Regulatory Context...............................................................................................3.11-4 3.12 Aesthetics....................................................................................................................3.12-1 3.12.1 Environmental Context........................................................................................3.12-1 3.12.2 Regulatory Context...............................................................................................3.12-9 3.13 Historic/Cultural Resources,_ .... _ .............. .................................................... 3.13-1 3.13.1 Affected Environment..........................................................................................3.13-1 3.13.2 Regulatory Environment......... .... ......................................................................... 3.13-4 3.14 Transportation............................................................................................................3.14-1 3.14.1 Environmental Context........................................................................................3.14-1 3.14.2 Regulatory Context............................................................................................... 3.14-9 3.15 Parks and Recreation..................................................................................................3.15-1 3.15.1 Environmental Context.......... ......... ..... ...... ....................................................... ...3.15-1 3.15.2 Regulatory Context.... ........................................................................................... 3.15-9 3.16 Public Services.............................................................................................................3.16-1 3.16.1 Environmental Context........................................................................................3.16-1 3.16.2 Regulatory Context.............................................................................................3.16-11 3.17 Utilities....................................................................................... ........................... ......3.17-1 3.17.1 Environmental Context........................................................................................3.17-1 3.17.2 Regulatory Context...............................................................................................3.17-6 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures........................................... 4-1 4.1 Earth..............................................................................................................................4.1-1 4.1.1 Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................................4.1-2 4.1.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.....................................................................4.1-3 4.2 Air Quality.....................................................................................................................4.2-1 4.2.1 Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures._....... .... _ .... .... ........................................................................ 4.2-13 4.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...................................................................4.2-16 4.3 Water Resources...........................................................................................................4.3-1 4.3.1 Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures.............................................................. ..................................... 4.3-10 4.3.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...................................................................4.3-11 4.4 Plants and Animals........................................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.1 Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4.4-1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement iii ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................................4.4-6 4.4.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.....................................................................4.4-6 4.5 Energy...........................................................................................................................4.5-1 4.5.1 Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................................4.5-6 4.5.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts........................................................ ............. 4.5-7 4.6 Noise.............................................................................................................................4.6-1 4.6.1 Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 4.6-1 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures.....................................................................................................4.6-6 4.6.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................. ..... ............................ 4.6-10 4.7 Environmental Health...................................................................................................4,7-1 4.7.1 Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 4.7-1 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures .................... ......... ........... ............................................................. 4.7-5 4.7.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.....................................................................4.7-6 4.8 Land Use ....... ........................... ...................................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.1 Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures. .................................................................................................... 4.8-7 4.8.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.....................................................................4.8-8 4.9 Socioeconomics ..................... .......... ............................................................................. 4.9-1 4.9.1 Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 4.9-1 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures. .................................................................................................... 4,9-8 4.9.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.....................................................................4.9-9 4.10 Housing.......................................................................................................................4.10-1 4.10.1 Impacts......................................................................................................... —....4.10-1 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................4.10-7 4.10.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................4.10-8 4.11 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................4.11-1 4.11.1 Impacts................................................................................................................. 4.11-1 4.11.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................4.11-8 4,11.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .... ..... ..... ...... I ............ I .......................... 4.11-8 4.12 Aesthetics ......................................... ........................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.1 Impacts ...................................... ........................................................................... 4.12-1 4.12.2 Mitigation Measures ............. ............................................................................... 4.12-8 4.12.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . ... ........................................................ 4.12-9 4.13 Historic and Cultural Resources . .... ............................................................................. 4.13-1 4.13.1 Impacts .................................................................................................................4.13-1 4.13.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................4.13-7 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement IV ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents 4.13.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................4.13-8 4.14 Transportation............................................................................................................4.14-1 4.14.1 Impacts.................................................................................................................4.14-1 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................4.14-16 4.14.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts..........................................................4.14-18 4.15 Parks and Recreation .. ... ............................................................................................. 4.15-1 4.15.1 Impacts .......... ............... ............................................................................ ............ 4.15-1 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................4.15-9 4.15.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse impacts... ....................................................... 4.15-10 4.16 Public Services .................................................. ......... .................................................. 4.16-1 4.16.1 Impacts.................................................................................................................4.16-1 4.16.2 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................4.16-12 4.16.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts..........................................................4.16-14 4.17 Utilities .... ..... ................ ............................................................................................... 4.17-1 4.17.1 Impacts ................................................. .......... ...................................................... 4.17-1 4.17.2 Mitigation Measures ........................................ ............. ....................................... 4.17-5 4.17.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse impacts............................................................4.17-7 4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................ .......................... 4.18-1 4.19 Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Long -Term Productivity ........................4.19-1 Chapter 5 Coordination and Consultation with Agencies and Tribes ......................................... 5-1 Chapter6 List of Preparers....................................................................................................... 6-1 Chapter7 Distribution List........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Federal, State, Tribal, Regional, County and City Agencies ....................................... ..... .7-1 7.1.1 Federal Agencies..............................................................................................................7-1 7.1.2 State of Washington Agencies.........................................................................................7-1 7.1.3 Tribal................................................................................................................................7-2 7.1.4 Regional...........................................................................................................................7-2 7.1.5 Counties ................................ ........................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.6 Cities.................................................................................................................................7-2 7.1.7 Local Agencies............................................................... ....... ............................................ 7-2 7.2 Special Districts, Transportation, and Utilities ............................ ..................................... 7-2 7.3 Newspapers..................................................................................................................... 7-3 7.4 Residents and Property Owners...................................................................................... 7-3 Chapter 8 References and Acronyms........................................................................................ 8-1 8.1 References....................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Acronyms .................................................. ................. .................................................... 8-16 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement v ICF 593 10 City of Renton Contents Tables Page 1-1. Impacts of Alternatives.............................................................................................................. 1-7 1-2. Mitigation Measures................................................................................................................1-35 1-3. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...............................................................................1-48 2-1. Zoning Classifications and Extent in the Planned Action Study Area .................................. ...... 2-8 2-2. Alternative Development Matrix -Neighborhood Land Use..................................................2-26 2-3. Alternative Development Matrix -Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2-4. Alternative Development Matrix -NE Sunset Boulevard .................................................. ..... 2-28 2-5. Alternative Development Matrix- Stormwater Management...............................................2-29 2-6. Summary of Land Capacity -Net Additional Growth above Existing -2030 ..........................2-31 2-7. Existing and Total Growth-2030.............................................................. _.... ........................ 2-33 3.2-1. National and Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................3.2-4 3.3-1. Existing Land Cover Summary ................................................ ................................................ 3.3-3 3.5-1. Estimated Existing Annual Energy Usage from Buildings....................................................... 3.5-1 3.6-1. Typical A -Weighted Sound Levels ................................ ........................................................... 3.6-2 3.6-2. Housing and Urban Development Noise Guidelines.............................................................. 3.6-4 3.6-3. Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria .................................................. 3.6-4 3.6-4. Maximum Permissible Noise Levels at Receiving Property Line ............................. .... ........... 3.6-5 3.6-5. Adjustment to Maximum Permissible Noise Levels at Receiving Property Line ....................3.6-5 3.7-1. RCRA Generators of Hazardous Waste in the Planned Action Study Area ............................. 3.7-4 3.7-2. Washington State CSCSL Sites within 1 Mile of the Planned Action Study Area .................... 3.7-4 3.7-3. Washington State ICR and VCP Sites in the Planned Action Study Area ................................ 3.7-5 3.7-4. Washington State Registered Underground Storage Tank Sites in the Planned ActionStudy Area................................................................................................................... 3.7-5 3.7-5. Historical Service Stations and Dry Cleaners in the Planned Action Study Area ....................3.7-6 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/5EPA Environmental Impact Statement vi ICF 543.10 City of Renton Contents 3.8-1. Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementing Zones in the Planned Action Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement vii ICF 593.10 StudyArea.......................................................................................................... 3.8-4 3.9-1. Population Characteristics ...... ................................................................................................ 3.9-3 3.9-7. Race/Ethnic Characteristics.................................................................................................... 3.9-3 3.9-3. Population Forecast................................................................................................................3.9-4 3.9-4. Housing Characteristics.......................................................................................................... 3.9-4 3.9-5. 2009 Employment Estimates by Industry...............................................................................3.9-5 3.9-6. Employment Projections by Industry..................................................................................... 3.9-6 3.10-1. Current Dwelling Units......................................................................................................... 3.10-1 3.10-2, Current Renton Housing Authority Public and Affordable Housing in Planned ActionStudy Area................................................................................................................. 3.10-2 3.10-3. Household Size..................................................................................................................... 3.10-2 3.10-4. Household Income, Home Values and Contract Rent ..................... ..... . ................. I .... ......... 3.10-3 3.10-5. Affordable Housing by Income Category.... ........ ................................. ...... ............. 3.10-4 3.10-6. Rental Information...............................................................................................................3,10-4 3.11-1. Census Tracts and Block Groups in the Planned Action Study Area ..................................... 3.11-2 3.11-2. Minority and Low -Income Population..................................................................................3.11-2 3.11-3. Public Elementary Schools in the Planned Action Study Area..............................................3.11-3 3.14-1. Study Intersections.... .... .... _ .... .... .................................................................................. 3,14-2 3.14-2. King County Metro Transit Service....................................................................................... 3.14-3 3.14-3. Accident Rates...................................................................................................................... 3.14-5 3.14-4. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.............................................................................................. 3.14-6 3.14-5. Intersection Operations........................................................................................................3.14-7 3.15-1. Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities in and Adjacent to Planned Action Study Area....................................................................................................................................... 3.15-2 3.15-2. North Highlands and Highlands Neighborhood Center Activities and Usage Summary. ...... .................................................................................................................. 3.15-5 3.15-3. Existing (2010) Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Planned Action Study Area - Levelof Service..................................................................................................................... 3.15-7 3.16-1. Renton School District Student Generation Factors............................................................. 3.16-5 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement vii ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents 3.16-2. Valley Medical Center Health Care Facilities in City of Renton ................................... ......... 3.16-6 3.16-3. Inventory of Social Services within and Adjacent to the Planned Action Study Area ..........3.16-7 3.16-4. Inventory of Social Services in Renton Outside of the Planned Action Study Area .............3.16-8 3.17-1 Fire -Flow Requirements in the Planned Action Study Area ............................... .................. 3.17-5 4.2-1. Planned Action Study Area Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled................................................. ................................................................................ 4.2-3 4.2-2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Associated with Transit -Oriented Development..........................................................................................................................4.2-6 4.2-3. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations -Planned Action Study Area ........................................... ..................................... 4.2-6 4.2-4. Comparison of GHG Emissions -Planned Action Study Area.................................................4.2-7 4.2-5. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional VMT......................................................................................................................................... 4.2-8 4.2-6. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations -Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.........................................4.2-8 4.2-7. Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions -Potential Sunset Terrace RedevelopmentSubarea ... ..................................................................................................... 4.2-9 4.2-8. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures..................................................................4.2-14 4.3-1. Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative .................. ............ ......................................... 4.3-3 4.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative......................................................4.3-3 4.3-3. Land Cover Summary -Alternative 2.....................................................................................4.3-4 4.3-4. Change in Land Cover Summary --Alternative 2 ...................... .............................................. 4.3-4 4.3-5. Land Cover Summary -Alternative 3 ............................................................ ......................... 4.3-6 4.3-6. Change in Land Cover Summary -Alternative 3....................................................................4.3-6 4.5-1. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage -Planned Action Study Area.......................................4.5-3 4.5-2. Comparison of Annual Energy Usage -Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea................... ................................................................................................................ 4.5-4 4.6-1. NE Sunset Boulevard Traffic Volumes in Planned Action Study Area....................................4.6-2 4.6-2. Modeled Peak -Hour Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action StudyArea.............................................................................................................................. 4.6-3 4.6-3. Modeled Day -Night Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea........................................................................................... 4.6-4 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmentai Impact Statement viii ICF 59310 City of Renton Contents 4.6-4. Modeled Day -Night Noise Levels in Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Sunset Area Community Planned Action DecemiQ be 20 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Ix ICF 52010 Subareawith Noise Barrier.....................................................................................................4.6-5 4.9-1. New Dwelling Units and Jobs by Alternative ................................................. ................4.9-2 4.10-1. Current and Proposed Dwellings—No Action Alternative .................................... ...........4.10-2 4.10-2. Current and Proposed Dwellings—Alternative 2 ............. .................................................... 4.10-4 4.10-3. Current and Proposed Dwellings—Alternative 3 ....................... ......... 4.10-6 4.13-1. Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Sites within 1 Mile of the Planned ActionStudy Area .......... ....................................................................................................... 4.13-2 4.14-1. Intersection Operations—Alternative 1 (No Action) ............................................... ....4.14-2 4.14-2. Intersection Operations—Alternative 2 .............. ..........4.14-6 4.14-3. Intersection Operations—Alternative 3 ........ ..................... ............................................ .... 4.14-12 4.15-1. Existing and Future Level of Service for Park Facilities in Planned Action Study Area......... 4.15-2 4.15-2. Existing and Future Levels of Service for Recreation Facilities in Planned Action StudyArea ... ........................................... .............................................................................. 4.15-3 Sunset Area Community Planned Action DecemiQ be 20 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Ix ICF 52010 City of Renton Contents Figures Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement x ICF 593.10 Page 2-1 Planned Action Study Area........................................................................................................ 2-2 2-2 Existing Comprehensive Land Use Designations ........ _ ............................................................. 2-6 2-3 Existing Zoning........................................................................................................................... 2-7 2-4 Sunset Area Neighborhood Framework Diagram for Scoping Purposes ................................. 2-11 2-5 Age of Structures.....................................................................................................................2-17 2-6 Additional Growth by Alternative-2030................................................................................2-32 2-7 Additional Dwellings under Each Alternative by Subarea -2030 ........................................... 2-32 2-8 Additional Permanent Jobs under Each Alternative by Subarea -2030 .................................2-33 2-9 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Alternative 2 ........................................ 2-34 2-10 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Alternative 3 ........................................2-35 2-11 NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative Cross Sections West of Harrington Avenue NE ...............2-40 2-12 NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative 2 Conceptual Layout........................................................ 2-41 2-13 NE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative 3 Conceptual Layout........................................................2-43 2-14 Public and Open Spaces........................................................................................................... 2-47 2-15 Publicly Owned Sites in Planned Action Study Area................................................................2-49 2-16 Alternative 3—Family Village Concept....................................................................................2-50 3.1-1 Surface Geology .................. ........................... ........................... .............................................. 3.1-2 3.1-2 Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas ....... ................................................................................ 3.1-6 3.1-3 Steep Slope Hazard Areas....................................................................................................... 3.1-7 3.3-1 Drainage Basins...................................................................................................................... 3.3-2 3.3-2 Infiltration Feasibility..............................................................................................................3.3-5 3.4-1 Aquatic Habitat.......................................................................................................................3.4-2 3.7-1 Hazardous Materials Sites...................................................................................................... 3.7-3 3.8-1 Existing Land Use.................................................................................................................... 3.8-2 3.9-1 Census Blocks Located within or Bisecting the Planned Action Study Area ........................... 3.9-2 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement x ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents 3.12-1 Existing Aesthetic Conditions in the North Subarea............................................................. 3.12-2 3.12-2 Existing Aesthetic Conditions in the Central Subarea .................................................... ......3.12-4 3.12-3 Existing Aesthetic Conditions in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea .........................................3.12-5 3.12-4 Existing Aesthetic Conditions in the South Subarea ............ ................................................. 3.12-7 3.12-5 Existing Aesthetic Conditions in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea................................................................................................................................. 3.12-8 3.14-1 Traffic Study Area and Study Intersections.......................................................................... 3.14-1 3.14-2 Existing (2010) Weekday PM Peak -Hour Traffic................................................................... 3.14-8 3.15-1 Parks and Recreation Facilities.............................................................................................3.15-4 3.16-1 Public facilities in Planned Action Study Area......................................................................3.16-2 3.16-2 Police, Health Care, and Social Services Outside of the Planned Action Study Area ...........3.16-3 3.17-1 Existing Available Fire Flow in the Planned Action Study Area ............................................3.17-3 4.3-1 Potential Regional Stormwater Facilities and Green Connections.........................................4.3-8 4.3-2 Potential Parcels for Public -Private Partnerships ....... .......... .................................................. 4.3-9 4.14-1 2015 Alternative 1 (No Action) PM Peak -Hour Traffic.........................................................4.14-3 4.14-2 2030 Alternative 1 (No Action) PM Peak -Hour Traffic.........................................................4.14-4 4.14-3 2015 Alternative 2 PM Peak -Hour Traffic.............................................................................4.14-8 4.14-4 2030 Alternative 2 PM Peak -Hour Traffic.............................................................................4.14-9 4.14-5 2015 Alternative 3 PM Peak -Hour Traffic... .... ........................................................ 4.14-13 4.14-6 2030 Alternative 3 PM Peak -Hour Traffic...........................................................................4.14-14 4.15-1 Parks and Recreation Facility Service Areas.........................................................................4.15-4 4.15-2 Publicly Owned Lands.........................................................................................................4.15-11 4.17-1 Water System Improvements in Planned Action Study Area...............................................4.17-8 4.17-2 Wastewater System Areas for Improvement in Planned Action Study Area .......................4.17-9 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement xl ICF 593.10 City of Renton Contents Volume 2: Appendices Appendix A Scoping Materials and Responsiveness Summary Appendix B Land Capacity Analysis Appendix C Draft Planned Action Ordinance Appendix D Environmental Health: EDR Report Appendix E Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Appendix F Transportation Data and Analysis Appendix G Parks and Recreation Level of Service Calculations Appendix H Greenhouse Gas Calculations Appendix I Public Health in Land Use Planning & Community Design—Sunset Area Community Planned Action Appendix J Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard Cultural Resources Survey Report Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement xii ICF 593.10 Chapter 1 Summary 1.1 Introduction This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. This chapter provides a summary of the Draft EIS for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action. It briefly describes the proposal and alternatives and contains an overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the alternatives. Please see Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the proposal and alternatives and Chapter 4 for a detailed presentation of impacts of the proposal and alternatives as well as mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after mitigation. 1.2 Proponent The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, the redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and for regulating private neighborhood redevelopment, the City of Renton {City) is the proponent of the broader Planned Action that would streamline local permitting and environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). The City implements SEPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in this EIS. 1.2.1 Project Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally hounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in this EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE to the west. The Sunset Area Community neighborhood is part of northeast Renton and is also known as or referred to as the Highlands area. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary The Planned Action Study Area has been broken down into subareas to allow the EIS discussion to distinguish the site-specific redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property from the broader programmatic actions occurring throughout the Planned Action Study Area. The five subareas are shown in Chapter 2 on Figure 2-1 and described below. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea includes the Sunset Terrace public housing site and adjacent vacant or non -RHA owned properties being considered for redevelopment into a mixed-use, mixed -income community. This subarea is being analyzed at a site-specific level, and is the primary action under review in this EIS for NEPA purposes. • Sunset Mixed Use Subarea encompasses larger parcels with a mix of uses that are centered on NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route 900). • Central Subarea is a multifamily area containing the current Highlands Library. This subarea is adjacent to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment and Sunset Mixed Use subareas. • North Subarea is made up of lower -density residential north of the Central and Sunset Mixed Use subareas, but also includes park and educational facilities. South Subarea is a mostly lower -density residential district located south of NE Sunset Boulevard that includes park and educational facilities. 1.3 Proposal overview The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action. Redevelopment of the public housing community and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use transformation and growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process. The components of the proposal are described below. 1.3.1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment The proposal includes redevelopment of RHA's Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27, 50 -year-old, two-story buildings, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA also owns additional vacant and residential land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and proposes to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about 8 dwellings)'; RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans currently propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed-use residential and commercial space and public amenities. The redevelopment would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units, some of which would occur on site and some of which would occur elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be constructed with a portion of the units being public, affordable, and market -rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential 1 Only proposed under Alternative 3, described in Section 1.4. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 2 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary development and could include the following: a community gathering space or "third place;" civic facilities such as a community center, senior center, arid/or public library space; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure. 1.3.2 Other Components of the Planned Action As a result of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the 269 -acre Planned Action Study Area would be catalyzed over a 20 -year period. Public service and infrastructure investments that would support both Sunset Terrace redevelopment and redevelopment elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area include: planned or anticipated upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and other local streets; stormwater drainage systems; neighborhood parks and recreation facilities; and neighborhood community facilities that may offer education, library, or social services. While some improvements have been anticipated in City plans, some have not (e.g., drainage master plan). To recognize proposed capital improvements, the City will make associated Comprehensive Plan amendments such as to the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements as part of the Planned Action process. 1.3.3 Planned Action Ordinance The City is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs, if they are determined to be consistent with the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. By streamlining the redevelopment permit process, the Planned Action Ordinance would increase the likelihood that planned public agency investments would lead to a transformation of the community. 1.4 Proposal Alternatives This section describes the Draft EIS alternatives and identifies the key land use and infrastructure elements of each. The proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action Study Area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of three 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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter I. Summary 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. Each alternative is described in more detail below. 1.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would continue the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area, with limited public investment in redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing and in civic and infrastructure improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. With a low level of public investment, private investment in businesses and housing would be limited and would occur incrementally at scattered locations in the Planned Action Study Area. Land use form would largely continue to consist of single -use residential and single -use commercial developments with an occasional mix of uses. The development pattern would begin to transition incrementally from its current suburban pattern to a village center, but this transition would occur slowly over time due to the relatively low level of investment in public housing redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area improvements. A Planned Action would not be designated and each proposed development would be subject to individual environmental review. Some pedestrian- and transit -oriented development would occur, but it would be the exception rather than the rule, because new development would represent a small portion of the overall Planned Action Study Area. More piecemeal development could preclude opportunities for leveraging and combining strategies among individual projects. In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, RHA would develop affordable housing and senior housing with supporting health services on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. The City would not make major infrastructure improvements. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to emphasize vehicular mobility with less attention on pedestrian and transit facilities and limited aesthetic appeal (e.g., sparse landscaping). Drainage systems would continue as presently configured; any improvements would be localized, incremental, and in compliance with the City's existing stormwater regulations. The current Highlands Library would he relocated from the Central Subarea to another location in the Planned Action Study Area; since a new site has not been selected, the Draft EIS assumes a new community services building in the study area of sufficient size to house a library or other social service. Parks and recreation services would largely continue as they exist today. 1.4.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 provides for a moderate level of mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Planned Action Study Area, while continuing the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Infrastructure and public services would be improved in a targeted manner in the Planned Action Study Area. Stand-alone residential uses and local -serving commercial development would continue but would be interspersed with mixed-use development at identified nodes throughout the Planned Action Study Area such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and portions of NE Sunset Boulevard. Densities of new development would occur at moderate urban levels that are pedestrian- and transit -oriented. The environmental review process for development would be streamlined under a Planned Action Ordinance. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community according to a master plan on properties it currently owns; the redevelopment would allow for new public, affordable and market - rate housing accommodating a mixed -income community. All 100 existing public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio; some would occur on the current Sunset Terrace public housing property and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; a duplex would be replaced with affordable townhouse units. An estimated 310 new dwellings would be developed in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with more moderate -density flats and townhomes at a combined density of approximately 40 units per acre. New public amenities would include civic and community facilities, which may include a single -use library building with a plaza and/or a community services center/office building, as well as ground -Floor retail, as required by zoning, and a proposed 0.89 -acre park. Senior housing on RHA's Piha site (See Chapter 2, Section 2.7.2.2) would include supportive health services. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to meet the intent of the City Complete Streets standards (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-6-060). Improvements would largely occur within the current right-of-way and would allow For signal improvements, expanded sidewalks, greater landscaping, new transit shelters and street furniture, pedestrian- and street -level lighting, a bike lane/multi- purpose trail in one direction, consolidated driveways, and a center median with left -turn vehicle storage. No on -street business parking would be available (consistent with current conditions). Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Chapter 2, Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced through coordination between the Renton School District and the City such as through a joint -use agreement. Possible locations for enhancement include a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and North Highlands Park and repurposed public properties or acquired private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher. 1.4.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 provides for a high level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area while maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea into a mixed - income, mixed-use development according to a master plan. This alternative also includes major public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation, drainage, sewer, water, cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternative 2, environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be created, some of which would be public, affordable, and/or market -rate, resulting in a density of approximately 52 units per acre. The existing 100 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; the other duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would he 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 he transformed to improve all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. A wider right-of-way would allow for intersection improvements, bike lanes in both directions, and sidewalks. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median with left -turn storage, and u -turns. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting would promote walkability. Added bike lanes would promote nonmotorized transportation. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would he 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 he forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for parks and recreation. 1.5 Summary of Impacts Tablel-1 highlights the impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this Draft EIS. The summary table is not intended to be a substitute for the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Chapter 4. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 6 ICF 593.10 E E N N a CL m u c 0 v O V m v m C w u w w Y L 6F Q 00 om Q V_ E d It v n w � u y a = i N Cn O ¢ Q Q Q ¢ � O co m cm Cv'C cid w w w w as a C cn vs cn cn cn ro w L cl Q C O > >Y Un rYC cYV tYC ro t"C C ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q Q a n ro cc m a c w w w y w 4, cn n cn Wn sn ucc w i p Q d Q ¢ Q cn v CA v cn Vn GD [6 rC c6 m w w w w v w aj acn cin cn cn cn L r~ Q � .d cC c cD rC cd C C C q C C ¢ d d Q Q ¢ ac`o m c"a r`a tn m cu m m a V) C V3 cn S. L v _ m w d ^n ¢ c? Ct V Ccl) C fiat' _O i 7 _O i ar Ln a s O _¢ awo-3 � Zon w y [ s- ra �, � n4 � - y, •a o ° -v o yA " �.G(Li p ra ¢ V rG c b_ o E c E i v iv tn cz = u m my Y ca ra r_as a 'C ow ccz E C"' +' C w C nG yy `C7 y + O rp as 'w t'' L�G C "p vi '4 ZLJ L6 Li w 0 4-1 Q. C y d b0 Imo. 4Y. w i ccz O -� C i E i' aw.+ CU o cC - E° C sc c c w s° a' O u u c Q L .c!' o C k -0 .0 'a ° o o Cl 4 ( .L `tl �' `� x yCl. o o m q04 '0 3 cca Q E w W o= rwa c° aL, m L am. E¢o wc`�o � vx a yo a ;�� a3°=�_a�ao ¢ Ci C v, •vi cr cc rG '� •L Y V1 '~ W '� = O � a s" b •� tt"e 3 61 v A i O 4w. E E O V O O a 0 N +' b m '�'' ° 'C-' �" CU >, w y u -L C -a N m b .G ca ° a'' ° oL m c ro o roc 7 Y v o c ai ° o ra E" a ° L �' °. c c cn 'w °L' y ;u aL.') c a 4 '� C 'B .0 vi C y 4 .V y .g .� C id -� p 0 V¢ 'O i a 4-1 cwp C ro rC L C '� w L i' +, vi C u co .3 v o tv c a t a c c4 w u, o L° u w lu w w a cu c ar a c nn V') vi C o w Q E u MD yy ,UG. ,O - d Q sw, ',�—, 9, °' •`° v :Q qi — C G a y ty Y c4 ++ C b 'C] 0 C•' m C, rG v •� "y CL tVC C a, , 'r- ro -p w Q, R. CL7 c°i1 a'�.+ O L O O O C a C y�. S: rC •� 4J v o v° m o ^ o a a � m � v co E fi a c ai b �u W Q w � a z d' c f vii � m r+ ti n Da n G m 'C n V] w r* 4 m n %M �" n v n n Q w n y a= - cn _moa s ny° o �• c o c° m am' n n rA � fl. °c c �. N r tn =� y %j Q do n b (`DD (CD C ? [f d �• (D m d Q„ a n a r6 7 N a rn+ (D r. ry SDS •may �r E' Q ro Ll..� S I • Uroi .CL n rt A�1 ICD H y m v o w m o CJ Ln a y ° A 0� R x ro o' ° te a o rD �� � 9roi � a m ro °' , C p a a' ro ¢• C °rt' z C `� � �' w= E CDD n ti `C C" ro eo 0 n S. m w C m n ¢ Ei . j ns w ro sn m m rD a ''? m rc rr ' '�. m o p '� E On. c n T, As 'G m v m i O '* n 0 o n roi � ` _� ❑ �?. o vY rD, v"i y C O r6 w CL O Ca n w ro (Dro' C OQ M Ort < O ,:K' ,y a_a CD 0" '�' y (CD O p• ,°.y W, S �, v"i rp n v r' o =rrn rr .O ° R, "a a n CL m ro rD 't CD m r6 O w n O. " r-, m_ rt N a w " v C ¢. m •45 N D"dCL O .fit �. ro p ° 'i� " d O rC•r Q �' Z4 et, ro Ln n' CDtn y C�'r O m Q N y L w =- CD (D (0 0 m ((DD d � f"9 fin GI Sn Ul (n "1 ro � ro 23 o CD p rD 3 CD Q ❑ JM. a aQ. rL a. a a a a a y wb O p ❑ ro ° ❑ ° cn (n c c c C rD V) rt Lr rt rri c vs o p o CL o. a a a o Qa 'C 'C `C 'C f�•r n• CD D+ w of aroi o " n (n Uq n En Ua cn UC ❑ N n V)Uq B j w d Z .7 ... N rt m.,� A7 '� 9r- `J, �-� N r' I'D d rr Z �:r... y N rt A7 '��"''y'y E rt ==y w i m � '"� e"-' -1 CL ' M r"•' '%S rL �' M G N -1 SIS 1�j as r° a o Qa a s aq a o aq a o rr CD CD ❑ ° � ° I) !Yn n❑ c6 v F m m m v, n O F+ c m c m ❑• 0 s yts ro a V) svn ° ar D ry �' Q' D 7 'L =r R �' U" ❑ (D m 7 O (D rD p ro CD p rp rD p. a fl a LA Ln co w w w CD N ( (C D M (wn r -I 2) w Vi w w n� W •+ CD a ft m 0. n. ron. a a a a fD CA Ln V) rn c c c c a. a a a a a a a m ro m W W w w w UQ o n oqrD ❑ rD wow .� (c ai R 0 rD rY C ,y.' d rpt C ❑ z 0 O p-vb @ ro rt w rj n (co vnn a CD r'r ° w y zu ro ° y tA ❑ a a p eD p `L cr a. CD (n m ;Y ro m p' CL m juCL rr 'r L6 "�i w",;• rrm rC6 9 O rD °' m r7 rD n p+ a g m a' c m � m �� o � o✓�.n =r a. =r M n N CA Q .+ vai p' " r 0 rt p. ° c rD 06 W 0 p M En ry ❑ rD � m rn R .'3rt' r7r ro � a n � p C�'r O m Q r�•r " � C L • m p m m CD m O e�,rpc� Vl V1 Vl 7 ❑. O O .Oji Ul rD H ro � m cn 97 +9 m a CD " pa rt G rD F-� b m (D ro a p a r+ C a m d `0 n v C L U m m r6 m H y Ul H CD p rD 3 CD rD JM. a aQ. a. a a a a O p ❑ O ° ❑ ° cn (n v7 Crs C C n. a a c I -e Ce �c a a a a " ro CD ro " cn 97 +9 m a CD " pa rt G rD F-� b m (D ro a p a r+ C a m d `0 n m Q M, au > .y iC F: a Q u ra � G -d N .� yam, CC a •y��,, >' a N y s a v n L +-+ s 0 a cn s. c a <o c v= U ?� C C� C� > td Cr C y 0 tOn L O � coLh u F � ta6 � a❑+ C @ u � '^ � a E n a A" ° rc c r cn ¢ rC •� c y y "� w a 5 rLn )^ a SLC a. v cn ar L a o v 0 a o a: Q a LD p a V V y aY •L -p y L" ami ❑ C a C > Oak' C Ln CJ Ln p a V N [C ''❑ .ti i U p ❑ a5 +' =� C b U L C ❑ ❑ C� L, IJ Le) Cy6 L" Da VOL Cl, O > I.U. p O a CC d +� -� �? ^y, N 'pp" `� Q??i >> V C C cC .� C �' U U y z 0. GL.i L ❑ N O O [i} U N U '0 CC _•. 0-' i C f� >' G a 4 6' ,.. cn tt7 ri C a) -p a! ❑ ❑ *' r3 U 0.. }' %' to C7 y QC CL O m C a G C C6 'ice Oy C O U ro C= v ay 7 O 'C CG ,� 7 p O t4 U ,Lti O r� OD O ❑ vn +-' a y.r a C a .� a 'C V CLJ_� % ff+ F"' a ip aJ a' a L a) 6. 7 •�- ❑ C ;!; _� O ❑- V m '6 "" ❑ L V ❑ a ,L v; V d L aj L V C V ❑ V ❑, '� y, :C a C a (Q i+ C +) d' '� 'O O C v >' ,'�.+ ,� � 6) G' ❑ M ,� C>6 bTq v ayj Y Q ~ C 't a a C 73 CLC +' U }' 7L5 -E a +.+ O cu C a 'B O i., = C r v. a C +' aC) O C O O C '�, U C4 C C al C tE C > M O R. rC U ?� c/7 to s.+ �, cn C/l ti C Cs. C V G ¢ C i+ GL —4 O C c p x b rLo ua $ a s Q a= 3 v v 'G a, a o .p ._ C6 rC C U "o ❑❑ Q v u 'C6 G' p `� D O O CC6 O � v +p+ O a>J CU '7'' i N v a �- V} a�1 '6 a rC t].. O a� E-' >a hD 4. �+ O., �+. V'J a.+ 2 ,>. ¢ - w R i 'C 'O ;Ji w ❑❑ N V� d -� OLD u J r i U N L a S 3 cC ¢ Sa, d C O U a "❑ CC6 EGD O G Eaj v 71 L o � g O 3 v r a cD Q m SG L i y= y cC J v .--� .� ^ _ as wG '_ ca - o > a v U U a > y ¢ Q > V C4 CO O � (n u ai � L ami p a V) EL r tkO c 0 y ❑ ❑ CJW ro m 41 y.+ •b yC, ❑. Q V G V = V a = to E CP L. > = L `, OA 1-, Cl a U �'' Ir. m n o yL p a {4 ce U ra � G -d N .� yam, CC a •y��,, >' a N y s a v n L +-+ s 0 a cn s. c a <o c v= U ?� C C� C� > td Cr C y 0 tOn L O � coLh u F � ta6 � a❑+ C @ u � '^ � a E n a A" ° rc c r cn ¢ rC •� c y y "� w a 5 rLn )^ a SLC a. v cn ar L a o v 0 a o a: Q a LD p a V V y aY •L -p y L" ami ❑ C a C > Oak' C Ln CJ Ln p a V N [C ''❑ .ti i U p ❑ a5 +' =� C b U L C ❑ ❑ C� L, IJ Le) Cy6 L" Da VOL Cl, O > I.U. p O a CC d +� -� �? ^y, N 'pp" `� Q??i >> V C C cC .� C �' U U y z 0. GL.i L ❑ N O O [i} U N U '0 CC _•. 0-' i C f� >' G a 4 6' ,.. cn tt7 ri C a) -p a! ❑ ❑ *' r3 U 0.. }' %' to C7 y QC CL O m C a G C C6 'ice Oy C O U ro C= v ay 7 O 'C CG ,� 7 p O t4 U ,Lti O r� OD O ❑ vn +-' a y.r a C a .� a 'C V CLJ_� % ff+ F"' a ip aJ a' a L a) 6. 7 •�- ❑ C ;!; _� O ❑- V m '6 "" ❑ L V ❑ a ,L v; V d L aj L V C V ❑ V ❑, '� y, :C a C a (Q i+ C +) d' '� 'O O C v >' ,'�.+ ,� � 6) G' ❑ M ,� C>6 bTq v ayj Y Q ~ C 't a a C 73 CLC +' U }' 7L5 -E a +.+ O cu C a 'B O i., = C r v. a C +' aC) O C O O C '�, U C4 C C al C tE C > M O R. rC U ?� c/7 to s.+ �, cn C/l ti C Cs. C V G ¢ C i+ GL —4 O C c p x b rLo ua $ a s Q a= 3 v v 'G a, a o .p ._ C6 rC C U "o ❑❑ Q v u 'C6 G' p `� D O O CC6 O � v +p+ O a>J CU '7'' i N v a �- V} a�1 '6 a rC t].. O a� E-' >a hD 4. �+ O., �+. V'J a.+ 2 ,>. ¢ - w R i 'C 'O ;Ji w ❑❑ N V� d -� OLD u C i LA L a S 3 cC ¢ Sa, d C O U a "❑ CC6 EGD O G Eaj v O 7 � g O 3 O v SG L i y= y cC J v .--� .� ^ _ as wG '_ ca - o > a F u '.-� > o a a`� � ? c s ? C: c c7 y aai V '� a in W v C > a +� - ',� > C t rC aJ V; cd .a L ¢ a a'Ji �., cu Gq O ami r Qj y +cua C y ❑ ❑ CJW y y a C C a y.+ •b yC, ❑. Q V G V = V a = to E t6 L. > = L `, OA 1-, Cl a U �'' Ir. m v 4-1i+ C ce ra � G -d N .� yam, CC a •y��,, >' a N y s a v n L +-+ s 0 a cn s. c a <o c v= U ?� C C� C� > td Cr C y 0 tOn L O � coLh u F � ta6 � a❑+ C @ u � '^ � a E n a A" ° rc c r cn ¢ rC •� c y y "� w a 5 rLn )^ a SLC a. v cn ar L a o v 0 a o a: Q a LD p a V V y aY •L -p y L" ami ❑ C a C > Oak' C Ln CJ Ln p a V N [C ''❑ .ti i U p ❑ a5 +' =� C b U L C ❑ ❑ C� L, IJ Le) Cy6 L" Da VOL Cl, O > I.U. p O a CC d +� -� �? ^y, N 'pp" `� Q??i >> V C C cC .� C �' U U y z 0. GL.i L ❑ N O O [i} U N U '0 CC _•. 0-' i C f� >' G a 4 6' ,.. cn tt7 ri C a) -p a! ❑ ❑ *' r3 U 0.. }' %' to C7 y QC CL O m C a G C C6 'ice Oy C O U ro C= v ay 7 O 'C CG ,� 7 p O t4 U ,Lti O r� OD O ❑ vn +-' a y.r a C a .� a 'C V CLJ_� % ff+ F"' a ip aJ a' a L a) 6. 7 •�- ❑ C ;!; _� O ❑- V m '6 "" ❑ L V ❑ a ,L v; V d L aj L V C V ❑ V ❑, '� y, :C a C a (Q i+ C +) d' '� 'O O C v >' ,'�.+ ,� � 6) G' ❑ M ,� C>6 bTq v ayj Y Q ~ C 't a a C 73 CLC +' U }' 7L5 -E a +.+ O cu C a 'B O i., = C r v. a C +' aC) O C O O C '�, U C4 C C al C tE C > M O R. rC U ?� c/7 to s.+ �, cn C/l ti C Cs. C V G ¢ C i+ GL —4 O C c p x b rLo ua $ a s Q a= 3 v v 'G a, a o .p ._ C6 rC C U "o ❑❑ Q v u 'C6 G' p `� D O O CC6 O � v +p+ O a>J CU '7'' i N v a �- V} a�1 '6 a rC t].. O a� E-' >a hD 4. �+ O., �+. V'J a.+ 2 ,>. ¢ - w R i 'C 'O ;Ji w ❑❑ N V� d -� OLD u i LA L S 3 cC ¢ Sa, d a O = sU O c F-av O 7 � 'r In SG L O D � �-' a L < F ¢ ? c y M y.+ •b � � a y L � (] G c cz a L _ s o v .� 5n- U c a wa p. v U O C 7 ¢, '4 ❑ ,� a� Cr CL m >� ❑ +�-' y Ca CC cC ''� rC a••' y V a) V �, o a ❑ � -o o N C O N O v C .❑ E '� O C O a C V7 L a> c a > ;J ;C y N .O N a y? a m¢ rs cinaj o n c 7 n a� c ra � G -d N .� yam, CC a •y��,, >' a N y s a v n L +-+ s 0 a cn s. c a <o c v= U ?� C C� C� > td Cr C y 0 tOn L O � coLh u F � ta6 � a❑+ C @ u � '^ � a E n a A" ° rc c r cn ¢ rC •� c y y "� w a 5 rLn )^ a SLC a. v cn ar L a o v 0 a o a: Q a LD p a V V y aY •L -p y L" ami ❑ C a C > Oak' C Ln CJ Ln p a V N [C ''❑ .ti i U p ❑ a5 +' =� C b U L C ❑ ❑ C� L, IJ Le) Cy6 L" Da VOL Cl, O > I.U. p O a CC d +� -� �? ^y, N 'pp" `� Q??i >> V C C cC .� C �' U U y z 0. GL.i L ❑ N O O [i} U N U '0 CC _•. 0-' i C f� >' G a 4 6' ,.. cn tt7 ri C a) -p a! ❑ ❑ *' r3 U 0.. }' %' to C7 y QC CL O m C a G C C6 'ice Oy C O U ro C= v ay 7 O 'C CG ,� 7 p O t4 U ,Lti O r� OD O ❑ vn +-' a y.r a C a .� a 'C V CLJ_� % ff+ F"' a ip aJ a' a L a) 6. 7 •�- ❑ C ;!; _� O ❑- V m '6 "" ❑ L V ❑ a ,L v; V d L aj L V C V ❑ V ❑, '� y, :C a C a (Q i+ C +) d' '� 'O O C v >' ,'�.+ ,� � 6) G' ❑ M ,� C>6 bTq v ayj Y Q ~ C 't a a C 73 CLC +' U }' 7L5 -E a +.+ O cu C a 'B O i., = C r v. a C +' aC) O C O O C '�, U C4 C C al C tE C > M O R. rC U ?� c/7 to s.+ �, cn C/l ti C Cs. C V G ¢ C i+ GL —4 O C c p x b rLo ua $ a s Q a= 3 v v 'G a, a o .p ._ C6 rC C U "o ❑❑ Q v u 'C6 G' p `� D O O CC6 O � v +p+ O a>J CU '7'' i N v a �- V} a�1 '6 a rC t].. O a� E-' >a hD 4. �+ O., �+. V'J a.+ 2 ,>. ¢ - w R i 'C 'O ;Ji w ❑❑ N V� d -� OLD u i LA ❑ S 3 cC O = sU O c F-av 'r In V Q a O C w u o ,� w � �-' a L < Z t �. m D O n y m b LM n v 3 CDrD o w r 3 ��- m m �, rD nCi �+ a L rD W ..r 3 C a v a ac rD U v R C m �+ O rD �. N -s � q a. � � C n @ S En v C CD m m cra. � S � rp `Y o rD (Ln W y CD s ° 4q b (D rfl �� a a C O rD rD rD a_ o (D rt m [D v n �-t rJq C G r N � D A rD a ; a - C' � o q rD a C r'* CDD rD rL CD C (CD 7 O [RD C b (Iq C C v: n -3 cD w pU� rA d O c'n m m En C o n. w CD R -rb S m y (D m rr C rt a of G � O � � Q 6 (D 't R G � C T w a � 0 n rD rD -s w Q. a o r -r O rD m (D y � C5 G C n 1D O c as w m y O r~c ps � C 0 2 r� r•' o q m r�•� u� rfl 1p N w p s+ o O w (D n v r v as = C/1 O '0 n rr rD r* CS 7 9 R� n n) -3 p 0 O x v rD o G n° `Dn Da -n (D ;:F- R qrL C cep O O q -1 a rD O (n nrD O N " O 3 n an o. .p CL O rD C Cl,.y v rD n (A rD a CD a yfi a o rD � C C a = y Ln rCp V)�s a 9D rt ry ?S C rrDD w CA S 's y a C rD cn n rn rD q Gr .Oi a s �. a s C ttA '� C f1 o E3 rD P% w (D n v r v as = C/1 O '0 n rr rD r* CS 7 9 R� n n) -3 p 0 O x v rD o G n° `Dn Da -n (D ;:F- R rrc CD [SD � "• �z w ° a rD O (n nrD O N " O 3 n an o. .p CL O rD C Cl,.y v rD n ° r' rCr w rrb Z W CD a yfi (D o rD � C C aa rn to rCp V)�s a 9D rt C rrDD w CA S 's y a C rD v ;n [CD rc CZtd q Gr .Oi a s �. a s C ttA '� C f1 o E3 rD P% p rp a v, rD CD Uq a' rD °+s C v, n S vCi rC•r En rev R y 0.� rn C G amfl. a q'K :uLn a m _ n S � C• C-� C G rnp .n^.. rrb Lq CDD .� n CrD It n C ;=CD Qj (D `� Ln x °' , ? eo rr n. m N . rD fl n y �' o rC•r Q. LA +.0 rD y to a o rr rt �. [n S w S RLnC 7 m A b S n C S O '� I q � rr rD °; mn C S rD ¢ C' tA CCD rL O It orD D rC•' CL rD ^ ^i m C O (Cc �r O H rD ro rq DS Q7 (n0 It rdD m !n �. n. cf�rLo O q It . It fl O S K f :3 o o r°i a C= O" CL m n `rts C fl. (D x n. a C �• vo y u CD m r9 = o ro Lq M rho C° o CD rr (D C -1 w C C. to rr C tn rD CL rD -1 41 6-3 q b v as N tD ((D `Dn Da -n (D ;:F- R CL [D • S mow°° c On C ° a a m T L ., -3 .p CL O rD C Cl,.y v rD n ° r' rCr v CD a m (D o rD � C C a rn to ,b cn v b v as N tD ((D rD (D rD � t m rrb m C a � a r��r rt T L ., -3 M R r r (D n W rD a a v m -CD m o CD a V) Ln O ((DCL DJ Qj N tD ((D rD V� ren rP rt' � 'G [n rrb m C a C eD rro r��r rt T L ., -3 M z r r (D n W rD a a v m rn In t7 DJ Qj � rD m 23 a rD m rCD � CD y Ll a a a [C (D S s M z (D n W rD a a a V) -CD m o r a a rD w 0 n O � rD rD � rCD v a a E4 rt '* C O R KCA M m [C (D S s r r z (D n W rD 0 n E E d L lJ w 5 S4 C Y w aJ C s. a Y Q Q.. 0 - C1. U a p a f a m C p OL C O y_, LIS �r O L O > O tq ri a 4� a a m � a = ro .O ¢ '4 c03 3 L '~ v V1 C ami y C ai k cu +., - ai m ❑ C .'� +' y L }, Y C sa. 00 s`c. qA y C :v a aJ a yU a L= L rC Gk '3 �'" a Ia. O b8 U tr w C'1. to � m as M -- .0 C O u O U ?Sp ^ ,y C;ai ,9 ^f• W a �. a P a ci -0 " fl. i .E '� ❑U tea, O Y p L' GAJ U M va U > 0 ELI u A C o ❑u m ai L cmc tau ° 'd cmc p ii n a C v, r; C ❑ a �. > � �r O L O L Vi C onW o a7 ro v. ri a 4� a a m � a = ro .O ¢ '4 c03 3 L '~ C icu cep mr4a• a a 'C u C L y0 ❑ C .'� +' y ate-+ C o '❑ C 7 A 6 t _u O > ❑ � � m � � a C a [ a a ° m a) � m as M -- ro � a o au L y � a o cara �. a a CL, cu ro tgTG �'a �-y4^, U y a L Ln b a ro= L4 � C9 O to C C a Y 0 c C III tv C S C u.� v E i a H p cd °�' C m m u 3 m v Y a L aJ ii C rC C a L a Q r; C ❑ a �. > ia,., a O S^ C 0 ! m ri a 4� a a m � a = ro � Ll O > ui +� 'ate-+ '� •Q C icu cep mr4a• a v a 'C u V� O rG ra r o i V r �'• C •ca _u O ,a, � a � L aJ ii C rC C a L a v. O r; C ❑ a �. > ia,., a O S^ C 0 ! m m C i0�- "C7 aao r a C 'C� a cc cn ❑m mro a �' 0 O_ Gro u oa aro v y °y ro r7 cn vyi U O L 'y Ci V O C In MV C U 4 Q' OD y r --y O "6 'r�1 ro Ln i _u O tn s �?, OA 'm 'O ❑ �' C D V5 - L C m y a 3 ttl O «! GO tq aCn U ?Sp S4 ro •a ay fL4 C 7 ro a� u o $ U u .a m t' °' ca CO "a 0. a ca m > ai y ,�- U L m 'Z a w O a Ln C rC C a L ai t v. O L q Cr v i ey ia,., a O r-� C7 ! m m C i0�- "C7 'C in 'a o y sa. cn 4.0a L c4 O Wl �' 0 O_ u .0 v� rc O p �' C ro r7 cn vyi U O L 'y Ci V O C b �. C U 4 Q' OD y r --y O "6 'r�1 ro Ln i _u O ❑ 'a '+ O a C U a s �?, OA 'm L U as U y C O V5 - L C m y a 3 ttl O v 'a v_ Y `° oA C {O n m y o a ro •a Q a u o $ U u .a m t' °' ca CO "a 0. a ca m > ai y ,�- a a m Ln a z c ._ `� m L �- ' y m o a +�-, *a- nn, r Om ro a m a a ro Y C7 C O pCp r y �, p Z U •� T C- 3 i U0 ` a❑ 3 ° I- Qb Ga�'`-a °ay'cm _ o ;; msa ro O as CJ O y y F" ba C cc [n ¢, SC +, _ a SG C •y +.' o O Y CS, C +' a o .L cn L �c�w3w3u� �.y¢°��'X.vro��� R�woI`3oao O o :�•p a m "6 L C o 3 'O G o �o CL u o C O. o C a a � ,0 CLI u ra v O Q Cl.C1 O L ` TS fC Pf Cu_n +� aa.+ v ami M. ami U OC r4 V] 3 S! Cl .0 E'^ G. Gi Ln� CL = Q U W tea" i [LC w m w}'-� m F-' Cl fC6 cr . ❑ Q m O o Cy H O m N rn v L) C v V d m Ua E Q1 � C C L= v a E T p E c E w E a 6 U w� Q � Z N C o Ln n` •C, L., sC 4 � It � y O � � M O o Cy H O m N rn v L) C v V d m Ua E Q1 � C C L= v a E T p E c E w E a 6 U w� Q � Z N C o Ln n` QN m = m D D � en n v n 3 m 3 o K = v m 9 v rD — tz 3 n v o� v rD r N v o °' to a v fum w n r<ro< y r 7 rr rD O m z It Q. a -- m n w *c w ro 'D d m �- tD -s r* p rD < a -s o� w o o h m$ � fl- w 0 (D n O •b O n G rOr n p o a c m m p �• `G rCk Q n U El m w r-+ rD 'nr a O R. ro '•r m � z m �• ,T ,C cn O � � fli rr fl c O Q. O fi O O FZ m m N oo am w m m '* a v ro 8- tn C' ro ¢ 8 y Y C a Wi m -M g -was M C o Q W M a n o m a C i4 v 07 w n y w, m w y rD rr n w R R n rr rt cr S a o C- On w V m o= 0 'b m rasa m o rt tr Ln w CrL < rt rxD� t, = m C m 'C C" .O R. tom-) `{ C, cn "') m C„ q y— CSD Y' ro °"�' <. Q CD �!Enrb ID L CL rn ro G^ n d- mCD CL C s vs Q C v) ro .c v m ¢. n n M. e�9 b w o m w G h 3-2. cn m y � ro R R Cl. m aroi o `U a ro m rt m m w n h C- � rr a �} to O w -t to p p, vms Q. W C, C -•t C• `C _• umi to •* -1 C. r+ m > C to to .+ n n O w Q w 9) G M 11 Me O n ..0 G m a r9 a CL m_ C. Oq C ra C ro m r"'o m m C. ro a' O. `� a = n @ o o rD E C - CD n o — rr ro 7 C' y ;� rr a w O �• n < `� �i w rr C 9� -1@ n w 0 r, m c CD b w -s x C 'e] o w rp CD < w ro rr �s p fl w p , ro oo `C cwn v C C n w v, Ln cr rD rt C'rs- c' G el)v °C rr m ro O0 C 7 O m �+. O G Oj �t C �7 �C G S• a w rv'� mnY .r�r "tzaj rD C O. p ""'e W vii C w m O w i9 •Q - n' "G eL a'G C v0 O C m '•'s N t� CD' ro C. �-4 O 4 •� w ~' rt {p �e•t 6�3 ^C d �{p-s p a p' b- d O `* rc p, y n 0 �O y M *Cu c ro o O^ n y �n ry m eCo < C, _r} n m tu t,13o 4 0.,1 ° rD `tel O rD m nni <?. C .'3 d o d n C �' n F Z C cn rho -1 p C ^nr. } Z A m C n 6 R rC•r ti D• ^t r~6 =• i9 ro w C y a) "s R G --• ry n ro n ^s d w ^i 4. p"' C Q ,.. to a O C - rt 3-0 C O•' C d' m ds y �. 6 y m = �' D rD rt a O ro O w d . C 7 ID C. .--'� � rn Q. �- G •y (D Oq rD � oc � *- r�D cn C_r fl. `< 7'b7C o Q rr rD T l R =n CCD "s ro rD A C N n C ;$ w w O ¢' -�j d Qp' rnr y 6�) v trtd sCn C• .rtT cwn OO R Q wd rt rp Oto rip m ro -rtS R vpi 6 4 m r�"D ro -p+• M rD •�- n 0 in �, o r -D wry{. CL CL 0. rn w rn w to w CD 3 CD w w Lh fn w Di G G C rCD eC9 tCL f7. a. C. a A A � n•1 � Cn G/5 N} G � a n. sa A A A m w ro w w W n) v v o °' to a v fum w n r<ro< y r 7 rr rD O m z It Q. a -- m n w *c w ro 'D d m �- tD -s r* p rD < a -s o� w o o h m$ � fl- w 0 (D n O •b O n G rOr n p o a c m m p �• `G rCk Q n U El m w r-+ rD 'nr a O R. ro '•r m � z m �• ,T ,C cn O � � fli rr fl c O Q. O fi O O FZ m m N oo am w m m '* a v ro 8- tn C' ro ¢ 8 y Y C a Wi m -M g -was M C o Q W M a n o m a C i4 v 07 w n y w, m w y rD rr n w R R n rr rt cr S a o C- On w V m o= 0 'b m rasa m o rt tr Ln w CrL < rt rxD� t, = m C m 'C C" .O R. tom-) `{ C, cn "') m C„ q y— CSD Y' ro °"�' <. Q CD �!Enrb ID L CL rn ro G^ n d- mCD CL C s vs Q C v) ro .c v m ¢. n n M. e�9 b w o m w G h 3-2. cn m y � ro R R Cl. m aroi o `U a ro m rt m m w n Q w Q Q U oa L aN m tC 'n 9 V_ yam+ as � O Y a C w G c6 � C C y aJ X35 Y o a >E- y F. aw aj 'II u v y k � W u p � G p V cC '9 v ro o u o a� L 3 Q) CyC�S L x Y cC rC .Q y m w � a m � � o � ° 3 C aCi y v o cn v O tr 'G 4 ❑ cti � Q y� t, a' m 7 y 1-4 cn 0 ti a� o � C 3 � N au V L 3 ro Y I] C °1 w U � Q cC C 73 � m y 9 � a7 G 7:3 S a' Ln m C � U r C aJ L' GAY yOj Q ra y V � 47 as w a5 O aj � � c D ? v � C � o `"s C � � q3 v N co > n tic � Ct 4d o s.. •' a G +; w ¢ E Q L v a m fTi C C M. C E rC7y a E rC w � E a fu�� E cns." i a w _ U a Y fd N Q m m C a vS L S!1 � .9 -0 '= xi Cl r -C n O L ai — 'i Q > M `q m Q <U M H 1 � Q v c.4_. N m L y y i a vii a1) O +' y O CO w C sri co C > C� W ID9 G i} a7 aJ to z C d y Y cz Y p C a a� pp A ar as } a, �4A yJ y C ¢i } m — aj 7 m Y 4Y v M w rC .= C O �Gb X4-1 cz,9 N CL LnSti Q) i v ?✓ bA 'b C vi G P C cCr O + Q + co 7 r �' cC v .�. [C '+aJ c4 a % m C i �V7 N cu a.baA> W Ly: U YLo Y O S aL fl t c O y as., om > a, G on Com' Z cn O cz ,C aCi O -0 m O. L. cOn c, oa L aN m tC 'n 9 V_ yam+ as � O Y a C w G c6 � C C y aJ X35 Y o a >E- y F. aw aj 'II u v y k � W u p � G p V cC '9 v ro o u o a� L 3 Q) CyC�S L x Y cC rC .Q y m w � a m � � o � ° 3 C aCi y v o cn v O tr 'G 4 ❑ cti � Q y� t, a' m 7 y 1-4 cn 0 ti a� o � C 3 � N au V L 3 ro Y I] C °1 w U � Q cC C 73 � m y 9 � a7 G 7:3 S a' Ln m C � U r C aJ L' GAY yOj Q ra y V � 47 as w a5 O aj � � c D ? v � C � o `"s C � � q3 v N co > n tic � Ct 4d o s.. •' a G +; w ¢ E Q L v a m fTi C C M. C E rC7y a E rC w � E a fu�� E cns." i a w _ U a Y fd N Q m m C a vS L S!1 � .9 o '= xi Cl r -C n � C O M `q m Q <U M H 1 � Q v c.4_. N m o y Co a vii a1) O Y lz byq C am.+ V5 0 cp cz Y p C a a� pp A ar as } q•, ? y V)Ln co C ¢i } rCl C m cn O a '9 tz W rC .= C O a.1 X4-1 cz,9 N O 'i - LnSti Q) i GA • SGA .O YC y b4 N aa„ H ru + al C Y L O v, I v+ M t s. . m oc u a. % QJ to s +' m a. °' is ro Gai a.baA> W Ly: U YLo Y O [C v aL fl t c O y as., om C O p G. }' cn O cot w N G C rp d Q oa L aN m tC 'n 9 V_ yam+ as � O Y a C w G c6 � C C y aJ X35 Y o a >E- y F. aw aj 'II u v y k � W u p � G p V cC '9 v ro o u o a� L 3 Q) CyC�S L x Y cC rC .Q y m w � a m � � o � ° 3 C aCi y v o cn v O tr 'G 4 ❑ cti � Q y� t, a' m 7 y 1-4 cn 0 ti a� o � C 3 � N au V L 3 ro Y I] C °1 w U � Q cC C 73 � m y 9 � a7 G 7:3 S a' Ln m C � U r C aJ L' GAY yOj Q ra y V � 47 as w a5 O aj � � c D ? v � C � o `"s C � � q3 v N co > n tic � Ct 4d o s.. •' a G +; w ¢ E Q L v a m fTi C C M. C E rC7y a E rC w � E a fu�� E cns." i a w _ U a Y fd N Q m m C a vS L S!1 'C .9 co '= xi Cl r -C n M L t-, C. '5 d y Q <U M H 1 � Q c.4_. C m o y Co a vii a1) lz byq cz Y p C a a� pp A ar S.O., L_ O 'u C co C ¢i } rCl C m cn O a '9 ro rC .= C O a.1 u v M +' a� v, ct to O F LnSti Q) y W v ru M a13 0v al C Y L O v, I v+ M t s. . m oc u O Ru cz c Gai a.baA> W Ly: U y [C v aL fl t c O y as., om C O p ' O }' C aNa dJ, tom. C C 'O C W +� co .� L jO C U 7 , Y CI S� �' Qj Q w .0 �+ }, ct Oji 7 y +� Vi V1 V V C C 8 Ou Ci i4 d' V vCi 6�1 rCr+ Yom.. N OU > p a o i� a-� O •� U m = C C cu 3 p m Ln C v C U O Vi M ar v a> � I a ia, CID to d .. 411 ro ami s L Q- N C C O rz C V 4 ti •L �+ 'p G, c�•!! G N a +v' L al +i C D➢ _ C � u O +' OLn GHQ F. y Q n7 t cc [YC v ,� "cn j C ca Cr m aj i p M tG C yO m sa 4 cd W m rC �+ L y G GA m M cC V S. M 6) C Y +ri' 'yC, V _ 4n m GA _ c cr 0 O Cn u ra O � b �Ln , a � a a, oa L aN m tC 'n 9 V_ yam+ as � O Y a C w G c6 � C C y aJ X35 Y o a >E- y F. aw aj 'II u v y k � W u p � G p V cC '9 v ro o u o a� L 3 Q) CyC�S L x Y cC rC .Q y m w � a m � � o � ° 3 C aCi y v o cn v O tr 'G 4 ❑ cti � Q y� t, a' m 7 y 1-4 cn 0 ti a� o � C 3 � N au V L 3 ro Y I] C °1 w U � Q cC C 73 � m y 9 � a7 G 7:3 S a' Ln m C � U r C aJ L' GAY yOj Q ra y V � 47 as w a5 O aj � � c D ? v � C � o `"s C � � q3 v N co > n tic � Ct 4d o s.. •' a G +; w ¢ E Q L v a m fTi C C M. C E rC7y a E rC w � E a fu�� E cns." i a w _ U a Y fd N Q m m C a vS L S!1 'C .9 co ° M 1 � Q C m o y Co a vii a1) lz byq to ? O 'u C co C ¢i } rCl C m cn O a '9 ro rC .= C O 'C °'' u v M +' a� v, ct to O F C y W v ws +� C o C p C .o 3 v, I v+ M t s. . m oc u O Ru i.0 a.baA> W Ly: U y am�w O W d y as., om C O p ' O }' C � dJ, tom. C C 'O C W +� `� u .� L jO C U 7 , Y CI S� �' a) VI C a � :b ,C- Q w .0 �+ }, ct Oji 7 y +� Vi V1 V V C C 'C Ci i4 d' V vCi 6�1 rCr+ Yom.. N OU cC i� a-� v •� U m cR M C C cu _R oa L aN m tC 'n 9 V_ yam+ as � O Y a C w G c6 � C C y aJ X35 Y o a >E- y F. aw aj 'II u v y k � W u p � G p V cC '9 v ro o u o a� L 3 Q) CyC�S L x Y cC rC .Q y m w � a m � � o � ° 3 C aCi y v o cn v O tr 'G 4 ❑ cti � Q y� t, a' m 7 y 1-4 cn 0 ti a� o � C 3 � N au V L 3 ro Y I] C °1 w U � Q cC C 73 � m y 9 � a7 G 7:3 S a' Ln m C � U r C aJ L' GAY yOj Q ra y V � 47 as w a5 O aj � � c D ? v � C � o `"s C � � q3 v N co > n tic � Ct 4d o s.. •' a G +; w ¢ E Q L v a m fTi C C M. C E rC7y a E rC w � E a fu�� E cns." i a w _ U a Y fd N Q m m C a vS L .9 to L 1 � Q c6 a lz byq to ? O 'u C co C ¢i } rCl C m cn O O U 'iy U O ❑ 'Q E3 i, ❑ C lz DaD GA L a. O Ru C cu W Ly: U y U O W d V C C W cn co C W t!7 d' oa L aN m tC 'n 9 V_ yam+ as � O Y a C w G c6 � C C y aJ X35 Y o a >E- y F. aw aj 'II u v y k � W u p � G p V cC '9 v ro o u o a� L 3 Q) CyC�S L x Y cC rC .Q y m w � a m � � o � ° 3 C aCi y v o cn v O tr 'G 4 ❑ cti � Q y� t, a' m 7 y 1-4 cn 0 ti a� o � C 3 � N au V L 3 ro Y I] C °1 w U � Q cC C 73 � m y 9 � a7 G 7:3 S a' Ln m C � U r C aJ L' GAY yOj Q ra y V � 47 as w a5 O aj � � c D ? v � C � o `"s C � � q3 v N co > n tic � Ct 4d o s.. •' a G +; w ¢ E Q L v a m fTi C C M. C E rC7y a E rC w � E a fu�� E cns." i a w _ U a Y fd N Q m m C a vS L o� v� ro z * m D nrD O m h y CD -1 n m 3 a c " y ..y m 7 3 rwW-r. (�p <_ ti ❑ 0 ra p n N a a. ro n n < n rD ti a .. v r7 rt ID n Z a' "t Q. n rw-r w to 7 m M ns AOi W n' I m V) i• -i m w m❑ ° v O O C a 3 ARDCD (D `{ o 3 Arai w V%1 R '�'� rD -R, a. vm w{ CM LA OCa 4 a CD CL N R;, rr rp O 7 'YEAO• o cn n O p O r0•r a n n w C yn CD O w O -y rp O qOp O �C -n v =* �wr O rD CL m 'S rD C' On �' 'n R r�%D 4 7' m C w C C<. W ^s C ro` n _ CD y n S 0 v O. w C) n rp m &' w R O � ^ fl. n ' G C. 0 a 6. ��• n r•'o — m m C fD rG ° rw*< ] rt n m y' C =! R D x rt a rt ~ O. ro O ro 0, m R'� w n O n A W¢" D O G a cD y uGi w S n C CD a. o. M ?Y Ky m m R rA a CD m �' S m = G n w of rD n 7 0 rD — m �s C7 �. CD n m w CD n L �' V `3 0- rD rD m m Qq av' 'G S tl7 y ii < rt 3 o R LA R R CSX rt w w Q p M g a m m C7'rL C' R O m Ma C og to w a `� �A7 a. > O. ID' m O �• 7 `C ° x n 7 - a C va C- C o 0 G n m m C C �' S VQ m m m a y .wg R O R CL fD '� ��• fl �, fl o rSr o` a °' o V: U rL CD a Ej " m << a a y C m y CD CD CD Q y y w w f° m p ro O S O Q O O v' ro roO eb C rD .`Y. ro a C ro a❑ �. m 0 C m O m O O Rim �-1aa- b-�+'D0 °q• ro Q. y ii rD f VS CDMCD w r� ro m o o C m {D a C rt r+ 7 M rT (D � r! V O CD �, �• a •� CDD -a a m ro, R m o c, o ❑. w �w .� �' m m ro ro CY {/1 �Q VCI -e- (D rD f-+ "�'r C R m Ai r�•r vOi :16 1-0 Cu W m r<o o w0 M m c a :M :L3" CD S o G 0 CD mCD m w w a vOi S ° O O � .Gr fD CA w w Cb CCD tn Ln V v v o Ai Ai ai C O O o. o rr frL O O O O C C n n G C r�r C A 9 � ry ry C"'sD w w w aa;z 0 c a m rA C two " -ns C C C 0=� �. C :rrD �• w = (D -s = � wn (D C� � � N C .a w � ° ' C to ro '� 'a C] 'YS G. TO � rt Q rwr rt ro -1� R ^t UU'I R C _0 0 O 0 0' ID � C_ [CD r�•r q)q 0 rD m m 0'Q rD CST m O w VQ R m ' CL< C N 0 .s' r-rRo Ami µ° `* r0•r C G O A m rp rt 7 rD " S m vro, rt 0 rt- S M a �. CD O rp CD rr v, < S S CD CD vi ci eb CDr0•r kD rt 7 -O+, rw•r R `e CSD O 4 N CDD d O � Vroi � '-' rD C. ro �. AA) umi < y � ro Z, rD a w m w `� S CD -1CL r* O w :a O- c R CSDEl CL w CD ro [7 m CL CD m- Li. C+] C� 'T rp -y y = O� R%S O n .� C v w O n ra rL O m R S3 w Gmmrt < wnn rmmn rD O' ro r9 O rrtn AVi CD CD M CD m ro t aj v w w � 3 a o. rL (D m 0 o Q zi :1 C/) U] LA m G G C CL< m `r 9 > > r m w co a a :p - C7+ z O meD rD fA a C ^y n ro "'U CDD 6 rt m m a CD O Ln G rD V) r m 0' m w IV CCD O m. ro c o m 3 c CD V� = ro m � � n w m j s tR F+ 1-+ c m CL Q 7 6 Q u cn o 00 0 N pi w Q V_ E v N 0 U ro a sR N N N E• 3 y a C y a ai C ai C a�"i � Ln 0.• � � � cn cn � O v Q ro a of vct a s Sj a ul a VJ a v ❑ L Ji 'O a7 c� •� ✓ .9 'GS a Qi Uro "U lu C i Cc F '� r O h 2 e--� �a }, ❑ y cn = L a3 a a g o a .� _u ❑ = s OL a _G ay0 L fy0 tc p y sty d 0. Zj w d C rC Q Z' U V F.C. O i❑ i Q S❑. y 0 cua o LA L a}cu ,~ aa+ m o Q u> +u o a d ro p y vai v -'"• :J N a C a, -a a 3 c� O y .�' 0.F C a v a 3 a u a E a E .0 C 0.O an a .0 C tl. ❑ �, a a R cn O i ^� 6i R v0 a G E •� y a �j v ai o ca L., R ca o aro aG,t` c a� °=' v vE� G ao -ate rw—C„ V,,� y '� a -a � f° � R r.+ C �., 7 � o � i.. O L R � ❑w � y . a O u cC G 6 C 'TJ .a 3 —a C ni E i O C F- zn a a y a At s g rc Lq E a +' a R m s_ is a~ y� cn a v E +�.+ E Ea p o q R '" ra ❑ ro en p0. 7 O u ,�, A O L Q m C •• y 6) O O 7:1 a r C G y y a) W [a `d 'y N ya-, R L" 7 r a L a b" aq a z c s 3 uu E z E a o u sa uu Fes- Ems- ca �a E w OO W v1 N 47 D G y,, y sC vs a s �❑ L R �_+ a M a aF'+ m C7 O v- .6 tG .d _ y <D Vi O N R U w �, C u= a V m +' G sr ro +' �^ O 'G ro L > G •9 tC. 'q6 R ❑ r7 a ',C - C G 'p O �,� ¢, Y Ln 'B v❑ G O a L cn .1 N a f9 ❑ Q; N C? R R a y 6 'C ❑ 7 ;p c 3 C G C ,sa. ❑ p 3 L to ° u ao E O L C +% "s: p E u R H a ,�' +S ro E N C❑ d. '6 Q M6 O C a> A �... v, aM 'm ^ of ❑ aj 4 m O C c O -0 0 a C G 4 Cc ¢' •� [° 4' Q C C "m+=' C �^ .7. ea L a Y w Ln E a C vCi O •q ^C ro G y q 'a G 4w p a .Q O c`na E i- a a a a s. G u a' G- O J p ro vi ^ •�;. q p *�-' '� o C C '4 y G m C a s� a a� 9 S7^ O sn •C N '� d) ca C 0. a O ro O 'b a� G � a O. a C a2 a a t m F- E L ,. p. ,R, R o y 'C s•. a ,� F- en E ,� t, Q Ca a ",~ a } 3 C a a s'y�y3= c Gft u a R a C cd V C a 7 y 'q mi N�^ a 5 ca �6 Uaja) W sii a a" L -I= y E R wl f6 G Y C C rg p y H O C a 'G Q. y a �.. VJ o E L cn y Q 3° -�c u aui b {p t4 m r aT c4 a a C O cl,a ctf ❑ to "m O v y L y w -4 O— yj u v u C -C tz q C a O � .� G a � > y .� .0 yZ. o ro y q v 0 u .a +� y y v a, y° a a u N— C +� a G L P. a, C a r� w r L ami S M °u y *� dD {� ❑ a 4� .E 4'2~ M t6 O, O t4 vi CD C R x C 's_. V1 a a a 4A C. X CD a .� a s..L a a E o O° 3 a a. ❑_ a' ❑ am cu as a .E � 7 a L O C N .0 41 .0 b y Ln y y a V ❑ W G� y C�� y �. � y a❑ .L ❑ ro L G 'C3 vi O ❑ a y %d Q G N tti V Li '� n _G ai o azzC mu 'C ❑ L [a uu m C O U 4- a E a = = v t9 E u O ti r O G cu �a 4 w n N Z d c o cn o 0 to C v � .ter f6 z m q v � to n M b 3 m 3 C C o Z CD rD a rD 3 n to d ro ro 731 0 (D m r m to w p 00 4 C? o rt aq <a_ n M, G rDw G- ^ C7 R rD a y❑ Ly w n <� � ro p C � Ln toQ C. rn- f'] ^rot a R1 ° 7Q o O S 4N W rdD O ?- O O O a 4 n a CDD [D rD y G W 7 R o fl. rt � va rn .� S � rD 7 mr� ro r<D S 'S O n r D a r�^r ro'q S fD `i N n CD O rD r? �- '-.+a R Rs R Q "h r'•i rt Vi V7 N N O O 49 �, C 'tw o H rD aj g w CD to 0y w 00 �' o w A n � rb EnCD ct En F- rD m o n O. ro 'r y R ❑ n C C.f' r p n< 0' w rD R Q 97 Ln = 'D C ro ❑ = CD rD y p, o C ,w.. K fl. rD pj vQ a� O �' O `o n rt c0 CD<o rt C rt rD fn ❑ (r9i Q 'O .qrD 'i a C tGD x �' O y ro 0 ton n R 0 CL m r^p w .0d R Cj � o ❑ � � CL n - =.' x 1+ rD CD y ��' rD < (D CL (D fD -S O -fl o. to w~ tr m c C c rr a' % rD r m o o w° w r: ?; � Mw y aQ s D CD a m M rD ro m 7 Z M �' M G S m m a m roil 7- °, °� rD m ie m m O p °" a „�' °' 'a ~. o w d. c7' ❑• rD O. O vn rD 7 C op rrtD Arty y= n m< rD �. R rt< rt C C p n O nq coil n ro n m n S Cs -r Q rD w m m C� o O r~r n K � `c z a y ft, W r ,rtz' p rL 'd W G 7 G 'Cl S M O ,^,. {D (D n• (D rt_ R '-l. n C1 VQ R w ? 0 n CD @ h rD r�D ° `f' 7' ro m dQr�D n [on Ay rn < < ° L* CD d y w n r°n ID N `° n o w w rD °' S a rD CL w C rD rt '-C N 'ej .t rt rt 1V 7 rD 7 Q C 7 a 'b ro rt O R r�D O G Q C O R. S C6 'a ° w D G a, 'b � rt o w ro S ro rD �-+ ,..' rD < Q. o N C (D ° G n' C C R w O a a rRr m w ri 44 C. Q. w S � �ff❑'yy Q. '%i 'C 'Y L � r`CD Q. a. rD n, O a CCD va ?,j (D p 7 S (D w C y W nl A - rT n Ul 'n C cr .°q Q vG (CSD w O= w rD rD rD y N rD N C pq a` �' w 6] -ct rD O. �• rt rt O rroie ro n ro O 0 Q. p, ror m Q+ C t3 w rD E' R � Ly R 4q \ +C .�.. � a pSj C �� rn 'L+ �+ .Q �. G � Qy CL C_ w to C O ❑' rD 7 '� 13 o C rt C Cy ^� G j�' rD C rn O rt CL m Rr O rD m Ln n m CD m CD ro. m p O m o VQ w rD M aeD �ra.a '4 m a•c w a V �• rCp ^s rfD m C w (D m p rD rho 23 G 'C, rw•r 1 O N A O '1. G- � VGQ W y CLro < X C LS -1 � � < C � n � O < 'b nNCL=FD 0rD w 'A N p,-rorys CL 0 CL O ASN C ro°°❑ a R (D m o o aom ° A r, G. n ro rp `C 0 ;� rD cn 7 H O O w rn m C Ln CDD o CCp ° con � 7 C' `C W W C rD ear n w CD p ro p CL rt rD ro° 's O¢ R C rn ro �' w �+ o rD 4 :s ❑r CL CD R d R R o aha °. n -ro+ y rrt° ro r+ rDfA c r+ D yj w Vi :r O a ❑. * w n w s:L a w rt. w O w Cy rL -0 n n� S a U4 7n V)n ❑ C,Cv "" ro o ° CDD OOQ ry n O �. D O C< O W -; w rRD ro e'D R G rt Li �. rp (AD rni, C 7 a rn R 0 4 Q rD FrO N m rCDD CD pj yr o* TQ m arty �. nr CD rcn CD rt° °� r6 ii w 6' o G a rD o o y cr+ °Ry w ro rte+ O' a = n p, `�_ . y°CD Ln rD n C 'a—' O m °�..�' m CD o :n 'o .❑ O < X > 4 a m ro "� 16a m m Q 'c En 4 o w nl o@ Is ar ro m " @ a c❑y 5i 'p G ror rt O - rt r^D ° * rron CL w' °- rrtDw'3 O �- CL rt ° fD n d rb _ m aon @ T. a �' m (D m a m o Lay ro m° X c C rDtA C F a c S w rD r6• VQ 4'D r,4 CD rD rb In_n rn �' ❑ rn rn R `i'. 'b - n :7 "y < ro N �^rs rt�yP�ba°=a Vu ya�y'rMn.%��� mrD v'raD� o�,ac m p C F'n N ro !i 0 `� R ❑. rt H .rt.. n rGr OQ w rt C Swy N m n�• �. -@s aGa d' w Q SL °, ".7 "' ❑ m 1• a' r* a ro n Q p rD C rt N `� A❑ C' w r-, a' -, ❑- (D ro O Q' r, rD O vrty V '� OaG eDD rt m ("D �' n w oicy C G M In n 'd 0 n C C w '± -� "'= O y Q. 9 N 0 w C S w n p, rD .p a Q- Cvy b "03' rRD w -1q a. w C R w❑ Q "S rr�D R O �- y < rD rn, r❑D w rn 'q ro a. -q .n.= d CL �i'i Z ro e- fD e%r (p. K CL n ,.q 0 O n w En Crab C a. CD� w '�''CD 0 pq• •� l� C O O r'YD ro ,O.cy rw•r K n O fl. `w'• h "CS da O R rra `C C ii rOn C "��' n r<D ID R� CD "'s V n� m 0 �• CCo O a w O ° G ro a d4 ° w =r r' CD ry o W n G O w rt CL W R 'G VQ w a, "^s' w u7 R "i '9 Q, -S w.s• rt CCD G rn 'q rt w '.z' Q rt m w ro Loy rD ❑ p, rn .••r CD Q Q. n rt 7 C w S 'qQ• m S y rt S o C Q. rD rt Q W qQ C' �• cn Oa 4. p C. '-' ID w 'o C SD C ^ Q a d rD w `C eo RSi (`(DD O O n A a 'd 'b rD rD rD O O. S �•'d OQ C/7 '-'S .-r G rt C H ()q w 'q El w R n S 9 O, a el) CL o m CL C' to O y rn rD n -i R rt03 rD 'C ^ CD Cep V CD O (n cn rD w rD CD Ay . C ro ❑ m rD o O OGQ CL w 7Q m to Q. Ory •CU lci _� n n m? Oro �' V, CD Q w 1 -2r� rDLCf < y ro R z .q w ` ro G7 rt y y UQ CD ro Q G n ro "V Ili A a w CD i.' 0 cr F N rl li O n 7 C m Q 00 r wlu w p. H M � q � n h '•d Ll 'q a VI y c7 m O w CL _n p r' d o rD 7 CL CD O ID p, y C �^ rrto o w° r CD CL CD CL ra rt °' -1 c 4Ca eDD (SD a n � o d @ O O O -@s �. ° A m M VOQ w rD Q w Ln N w ""+ CnD w Q to a q rDCp ,rt rD W y r�r ro g p ro 7 CC E3 rt Q DSI `'3 rGr�� Q. rD tGn e9 L7 O Q En (D 6~7 t =r -h r7r m an ca rt d C a py n n' G 7 r�D Ln eD `� < rD ❑ "d G "t CD "Q Cin uroi 7 O O tn w ro (A y VI - - "o ro m a. m [D to O rD CD 3 y O GO •a rt Ow CD R F- rD m o n O. ro 'r y R ❑ n C C.f' r p n< 0' w rD R Q 97 Ln = 'D C ro ❑ = CD rD y p, o C ,w.. K fl. rD pj vQ a� O �' O `o n rt c0 CD<o rt C rt rD fn ❑ (r9i Q 'O .qrD 'i a C tGD x �' O y ro 0 ton n R 0 CL m r^p w .0d R Cj � o ❑ � � CL n - =.' x 1+ rD CD y ��' rD < (D CL (D fD -S O -fl o. to w~ tr m c C c rr a' % rD r m o o w° w r: ?; � Mw y aQ s D CD a m M rD ro m 7 Z M �' M G S m m a m roil 7- °, °� rD m ie m m O p °" a „�' °' 'a ~. o w d. c7' ❑• rD O. O vn rD 7 C op rrtD Arty y= n m< rD �. R rt< rt C C p n O nq coil n ro n m n S Cs -r Q rD w m m C� o O r~r n K � `c z a y ft, W r ,rtz' p rL 'd W G 7 G 'Cl S M O ,^,. {D (D n• (D rt_ R '-l. n C1 VQ R w ? 0 n CD @ h rD r�D ° `f' 7' ro m dQr�D n [on Ay rn < < ° L* CD d y w n r°n ID N `° n o w w rD °' S a rD CL w C rD rt '-C N 'ej .t rt rt 1V 7 rD 7 Q C 7 a 'b ro rt O R r�D O G Q C O R. S C6 'a ° w D G a, 'b � rt o w ro S ro rD �-+ ,..' rD < Q. o N C (D ° G n' C C R w O a a rRr m w ri 44 C. Q. w S � �ff❑'yy Q. '%i 'C 'Y L � r`CD Q. a. rD n, O a CCD va ?,j (D p 7 S (D w C y W nl A - rT n Ul 'n C cr .°q Q vG (CSD w O= w rD rD rD y N rD N C pq a` �' w 6] -ct rD O. �• rt rt O rroie ro n ro O 0 Q. p, ror m Q+ C t3 w rD E' R � Ly R 4q \ +C .�.. � a pSj C �� rn 'L+ �+ .Q �. G � Qy CL C_ w to C O ❑' rD 7 '� 13 o C rt C Cy ^� G j�' rD C rn O rt CL m Rr O rD m Ln n m CD m CD ro. m p O m o VQ w rD M aeD �ra.a '4 m a•c w a V �• rCp ^s rfD m C w (D m p rD rho 23 G 'C, rw•r 1 O N A O '1. G- � VGQ W y CLro < X C LS -1 � � < C � n � O < 'b nNCL=FD 0rD w 'A N p,-rorys CL 0 CL O ASN C ro°°❑ a R (D m o o aom ° A r, G. n ro rp `C 0 ;� rD cn 7 H O O w rn m C Ln CDD o CCp ° con � 7 C' `C W W C rD ear n w CD p ro p CL rt rD ro° 's O¢ R C rn ro �' w �+ o rD 4 :s ❑r CL CD R d R R o aha °. n -ro+ y rrt° ro r+ rDfA c r+ D yj w Vi :r O a ❑. * w n w s:L a w rt. w O w Cy rL -0 n n� S a U4 7n V)n ❑ C,Cv "" ro o ° CDD OOQ ry n O �. D O C< O W -; w rRD ro e'D R G rt Li �. rp (AD rni, C 7 a rn R 0 4 Q rD FrO N m rCDD CD pj yr o* TQ m arty �. nr CD rcn CD rt° °� r6 ii w 6' o G a rD o o y cr+ °Ry w ro rte+ O' a = n p, `�_ . y°CD Ln rD n C 'a—' O m °�..�' m CD o :n 'o .❑ O < X > 4 a m ro "� 16a m m Q 'c En 4 o w nl o@ Is ar ro m " @ a c❑y 5i 'p G ror rt O - rt r^D ° * rron CL w' °- rrtDw'3 O �- CL rt ° fD n d rb _ m aon @ T. a �' m (D m a m o Lay ro m° X c C rDtA C F a c S w rD r6• VQ 4'D r,4 CD rD rb In_n rn �' ❑ rn rn R `i'. 'b - n :7 "y < ro N �^rs rt�yP�ba°=a Vu ya�y'rMn.%��� mrD v'raD� o�,ac m p C F'n N ro !i 0 `� R ❑. rt H .rt.. n rGr OQ w rt C Swy N m n�• �. -@s aGa d' w Q SL °, ".7 "' ❑ m 1• a' r* a ro n Q p rD C rt N `� A❑ C' w r-, a' -, ❑- (D ro O Q' r, rD O vrty V '� OaG eDD rt m ("D �' n w oicy C G M In n 'd 0 n C C w '± -� "'= O y Q. 9 N 0 w C S w n p, rD .p a Q- Cvy b "03' rRD w -1q a. w C R w❑ Q "S rr�D R O �- y < rD rn, r❑D w rn 'q ro a. -q .n.= d CL �i'i Z ro e- fD e%r (p. K CL n ,.q 0 O n w En Crab C a. CD� w '�''CD 0 pq• •� l� C O O r'YD ro ,O.cy rw•r K n O fl. `w'• h "CS da O R rra `C C ii rOn C "��' n r<D ID R� CD "'s V n� m 0 �• CCo O a w O ° G ro a d4 ° w =r r' CD ry o W n G O w rt CL W R 'G VQ w a, "^s' w u7 R "i '9 Q, -S w.s• rt CCD G rn 'q rt w '.z' Q rt m w ro Loy rD ❑ p, rn .••r CD Q Q. n rt 7 C w S 'qQ• m S y rt S o C Q. rD rt Q W qQ C' �• cn Oa 4. p C. '-' ID w 'o C SD C ^ Q a d rD w `C eo RSi (`(DD O O n A a 'd 'b rD rD rD O O. S �•'d OQ C/7 '-'S .-r G rt C H ()q w 'q El w R n S 9 O, a el) CL o m CL C' to O y rn rD n -i R rt03 rD 'C ^ CD Cep V CD O (n cn rD w rD CD Ay . C ro ❑ m rD o O OGQ CL w 7Q m to Q. Ory •CU lci _� n n m? Oro �' V, CD Q w 1 -2r� rDLCf < y ro R z .q w ` ro G7 rt y y UQ CD ro Q G n ro "V Ili A a w CD i.' 0 cr F N rl li O n 7 C m Q M a R-� U a. CL m v d a j .a U 'G r6 V W S, N W Z m C Y Q L4 :b v ro SJ7 -4 cu > y m w L id � � F � � y 3 � a O O O lu C amcu E Ct 4+ c+. !�-, � a •a '1= m h d i .q � N q > w C rG V as 5 r]. m m u C � CL @ m E ; o v = n. o v v Y a "m L C C W o F; y "O w w t Ln r_CC C cvn a V, C 41 'C7 0.7 N QJ b a w b y L m a, v Z ro Y v ¢+ td [^ L �' ,ro M y' G? 4-1 OtJ qyj Y is 'cu x. % O U ror= E au] "M Gmi=MC L� r E L y""° +U+ v10 w vj c/y .D m y C tLC m ¢, ILI V - v aLi aLi=M m �' L b t�4 N a byQJ Z 6 $1. s.. g ro 2� 0. G..' . O L O iC N ro C V N V] a� E m Vf C C Y O H GJ 4D O C 03 G) UL" U m u L Y yrz .0 YC. C > 4¢ a u_ y m CU Y L >' O O C tm i Ui _� ° u v; F cn o 0 Hca v o � ,d a v ... 1 cc S a a +- MC > > ami 41 o V . E E LS O s' q q O V ro y Y rCj D V C 3ro3 o v yttaLo 4Y C Ln ro u tq � C u � O Ls c4 > CU C O v tn 6tL i7 u F G U i0 vy C U F to v$ u FO .a > di C N V MI 4J V w O vi wi a i- U C rLC Ci, V)IA Q} q q U vii U a v �Sl YVi G, -=-S 3- U E .� U 4mJ O u " S a a +- MC > > ami 41 o V . E E LS O s' q q O V ro y Y rCj D V C 3ro3 o v yttaLo 4Y 00 Q a w n -j O -t w -s -3 rt rt w m C- n ' w n a w 'g T tn n o a D, �:;- n -3 r_ rD O rt rD w [n M= O N= a n O m d O p, ..s D '.T n rt m g O ,:r CCD rL rD m x w a� rD C" -s d C O y �' d O Qa .0 C C w .w.j C z rCD n m * m -s N- x' y _ p oro rt w m° v ro CL _ 7 5 D y-, m n C p, w n C O C 'C 'Z3 D y d �{ C a .b _ n C rp '•G O C m O w `-� '� rr w C C MrD 'M S• 'm•1 O ,wy n n. M m p ACi rD CD rD O• 'n @ `C rA -�C} y rt m vrli, tO�D [�D• C� p `C ro �. 7q v w CD ro O sn C rrr fD J C 7 m_ y 7 G n P5 >C rT. y V rt d 6 °.' rD O b. C O "• d �, ry'P 5 n Rrr� d y a W ❑. CD a r Groh ¢- m n% n C' m C "'+D r<Dn In O., -1 n �� n ° r(D n"t Lf)~ 0 a' 3. -W n M 'Y or � `S � m y CCp m w- n Cyr rrrL Dd'' vmi n ,C a 7�a d �s G5 rD ^d n rD D XTa p. v rD ro y C O �, q• w m v� ". -ms o JET, ° CL w n '� O w Q. C a -f D �. o n rD rD v°J, C�/1 n CD m o R Y. al °' m Vf rD y r�i rrtr y 0.ro7 n C' �. C 6 7 CL ,�.r { O � D rD �' a �, a y. w c a rw, y m ,: ;; m s�'Fs c CCD 7 Q. C C " m rD .��' rD _t rt Qj �' `C rw•r. C D •'"' �C ,.., Sir' CL R. p L, a. tD ll�rp y C. lb w b O Mro y r..s•' rDn [n C S Ln w p3 nr_r cr rJ a m ;0 a w rn Cl. n a m n w C a p a D m m m m 0 m n m d cD w o o a d = o = o c D M. "i m Q o y w C m aro < m W "r rD 6 fl- '^3 < i _ O ° a m OT m = aCa R m rD y a iYn 7 ti rdD m rCj rJ7 a (dD y rtn ro CCD Qa %„ U}a 's� C 'L3 b w a w y' o o o e cn D n row w trtD rt@ y O D Q' rD C d rMr yO R; K O 5C d m C Q- S C C O ro C C G ¢. M O.. C C fl? '-' r4'r a n rC•r 7 reD d v rDR. 97 rTr rC-r M rt M C_ .b 0 Q. `O D fD CD O w .T W" w(�6 'ms C a rD G. O R rC-r rD w w m ;Y `C O m O z ;u a y 9 7a y rt rt y r'r �' y y `"'+ w C S m O Cl. CD �. C a. O rD rD n "T rD C y n Gi O a rt -s r•r m r•r CT ,..m rDr ,Y 'b v ^� t C� rD m p m En 's vs rro rp y 'Z O m A� 'a w 's O O rt Sa,. rDro ca. •z rr C m cA m C ¢. C w m m n C w -D y '¢ m ''s w C m y D CL o n wCL =rM o '� °C g a O o Y C' rorDfDd CL a> n-1 CL CDrD m CL fD ¢. n w Cr a�h'A -1 � O n d ° W w y 7 ao'w '� �a-n �a C rT C z D¢ d a, a rrtp a, v 'O G° C rDi ° a O C ro m Q q -1 w rt m rD =i ti -' p rt tv C' O 4 =s' G m x y d Y S❑ y C c ¢ o T 7 fl w ¢ z c �. nCi rn ny rta— v m m m ro rp a N rt rr .-r "'s C w [rl m rt rt d ❑. m m n� rr r. �' O rt p O ro rn C m py -s Ineb O .� C• �. m a7 '"r -mi C ma d C w ~, O rD n 0] Cron rD 0 °• r -r C O ',�� .yn Ln ~, v w m .b rwr N �_ rD. r,D O a, frtD n rt• Cyr m m DT LL C ,C-, r%r rw7 6 ro S CCD Ort [Cp "�'i orq Uq w W a rt - t Ci n d y -s �. y C 7 W ¢- �. 6 C rD p tD ro rD :S w Q y d O w O �. rD a) C w m �. "+ '� .y r•r a- w .r R- n w ,:t 9) y C On C C F-+ cn O y n r� 'i C rD rt r -L A• r rD -Y 43 W �. y a' G O V) n v O Q rda d rD m C 'b cCrs o o y C C n m m rt [T �n-r E �, rw•r .r m �' C �* a n1 CD ErrrD v p m r� rm-r i' O 't,�' CL C r�D 6 'Y. n w .i SCDC_ y (DD (D rt m G� 7 Cin y m fn rD :u o n a d rD c o vim, o c LM Q m `�' o b i 7' C rr y cn. �' d C ora O rD r•r m Cr ti o y > s m v C CDn CD CD rD CCD C w C/s ;* r^ d 7 M r rho a CCD CD.Aroi ro y ro n m y, m n. m .-r y' Q rw•r P. y ° w r�6 CCD p O g CD CL tz * y r7 CCD C• r ro 'y6 m ro a O �' O rOr oQa .w•r n0 v'Ti 6 'C '•r =• 7 C d rD O rD `C CD � d C CD _ D C 'I n Q. C ¢- n ','� C Q. vCa ro rD rD r rD rD N m ss n r"D 0..2' CJ' Ln a" d ' 0. uI O = S5 C' (6}s D O n rw•r 1 ro rDm .�• w rn y fD rF -s ..5 ba rp w W w O} y n n O w m �+ O Tr n w C C 7 7 y m' y +'D y e�{� -3 "J' w n' W q r�D rD — �_ m w C X- CD 4 D C W = rD '�'S w ro .rrt.: �. a y m ° D R rD C y m fY y 0 a 7 w nrDi rD rp a rr rD a rD S Ua n CDrD rD CL CL d _ C" rD z a z d s w .3 eD .��. ' CDD c ro d m rt D C m n rD y R 7 CD m m �_ n w cn as rD - a. m -ros rCo d m rD rD p _^ O '�• O r -r ^•r 'ti CR7 `"' CS m-. 0 m w m y Q a� 3 fD rD 0 rro w O .'S. rD O rt ❑. m w a D 7 C CCD �_ cb --1 a c rt 9 o w CI- 't ada m a rt W rr CD m R S n w rD nm C p w R a n. ru orD m O w �' . n ,, n rs m C C7i C R' °•n d' R. w C O a m' C CLO rC-r w O ❑. A-ro+a 'yr w rrtD 0 � vroi rrDD Dn C• C_ C w C S -. W �7,. rn-r `•C nl rwr wm a m J On rt m Oa C O rb rp A rD m m^5 C w D N n d to n A� n -cu C: m < rD �o FD Q. m d M 0 rt -. r•r ••. n -ms -n 7 = n 7 w -rti 'a O N R ro A ry rD p O W P r o C�D rt -n q 0 aT CD 0 0 ro -`Ds z -S9s ai C-rLo m m 3 O y � fD A ro 6�7 ocl O N n y rD ... Z m m p �' C � CD rt o c o CD° m Qa ro Ua C f.?- UQ m Q '! O rt wCD R rD r�D CD ro M O, cn CL Q a w n -j O -t w -s -3 rt rt w m C- n ' w n a w 'g T tn n o a D, �:;- n -3 r_ rD O rt rD w [n M= O N= a n O m d O p, ..s D '.T n rt m g O ,:r CCD rL rD m x w a� rD C" -s d C O y �' d O Qa .0 C C w .w.j C z rCD n m * m -s N- x' y _ p oro rt w m° v ro CL _ 7 5 D y-, m n C p, w n C O C 'C 'Z3 D y d �{ C a .b _ n C rp '•G O C m O w `-� '� rr w C C MrD 'M S• 'm•1 O ,wy n n. M m p ACi rD CD rD O• 'n @ `C rA -�C} y rt m vrli, tO�D [�D• C� p `C ro �. 7q v w CD ro O sn C rrr fD J C 7 m_ y 7 G n P5 >C rT. y V rt d 6 °.' rD O b. C O "• d �, ry'P 5 n Rrr� d y a W ❑. CD a r Groh ¢- m n% n C' m C "'+D r<Dn In O., -1 n �� n ° r(D n"t Lf)~ 0 a' 3. -W n M 'Y or � `S � m y CCp m w- n Cyr rrrL Dd'' vmi n ,C a 7�a d �s G5 rD ^d n rD D XTa p. v rD ro y C O �, q• w m v� ". -ms o JET, ° CL w n '� O w Q. C a -f D �. o n rD rD v°J, C�/1 n CD m o R Y. al °' m Vf rD y r�i rrtr y 0.ro7 n C' �. C 6 7 CL ,�.r { O � D rD �' a �, a y. w c a rw, y m ,: ;; m s�'Fs c CCD 7 Q. C C " m rD .��' rD _t rt Qj �' `C rw•r. C D •'"' �C ,.., Sir' CL R. p L, a. tD ll�rp y C. lb w b O Mro y r..s•' rDn [n C S Ln w p3 nr_r cr rJ a m ;0 a w rn Cl. n a m n w C a p a D m m m m 0 m n m d cD w o o a d = o = o c D M. "i m Q o y w C m aro < m W "r rD 6 fl- '^3 < i _ O ° a m OT m = aCa R m rD y a iYn 7 ti rdD m rCj rJ7 a (dD y rtn ro CCD Qa %„ U}a 's� C 'L3 b w a w y' o o o e cn D n row w trtD rt@ y O D Q' rD C d rMr yO R; K O 5C d m C Q- S C C O ro C C G ¢. M O.. C C fl? '-' r4'r a n rC•r 7 reD d v rDR. 97 rTr rC-r M rt M C_ .b 0 Q. `O D fD CD O w .T W" w(�6 'ms C a rD G. O R rC-r rD w w m ;Y `C O m O z ;u a y 9 7a y rt rt y r'r �' y y `"'+ w C S m O Cl. CD �. C a. O rD rD n "T rD C y n Gi O a rt -s r•r m r•r CT ,..m rDr ,Y 'b v ^� t C� rD m p m En 's vs rro rp y 'Z O m A� 'a w 's O O rt Sa,. rDro ca. •z rr C m cA m C ¢. C w m m n C w -D y '¢ m ''s w C m y D CL o n wCL =rM o '� °C g a O o Y C' rorDfDd CL a> n-1 CL CDrD m CL fD ¢. n w Cr a�h'A -1 � O n d ° W w y 7 ao'w '� �a-n �a C rT C z D¢ d a, a rrtp a, v 'O G° C rDi ° a O C ro m Q q -1 w rt m rD =i ti -' p rt tv C' O 4 =s' G m x y d Y S❑ y C c ¢ o T 7 fl w ¢ z c �. nCi rn ny rta— v m m m ro rp a N rt rr .-r "'s C w [rl m rt rt d ❑. m m n� rr r. �' O rt p O ro rn C m py -s Ineb O .� C• �. m a7 '"r -mi C ma d C w ~, O rD n 0] Cron rD 0 °• r -r C O ',�� .yn Ln ~, v w m .b rwr N �_ rD. r,D O a, frtD n rt• Cyr m m DT LL C ,C-, r%r rw7 6 ro S CCD Ort [Cp "�'i orq Uq w W a rt - t Ci n d y -s �. y C 7 W ¢- �. 6 C rD p tD ro rD :S w Q y d O w O �. rD a) C w m �. "+ '� .y r•r a- w .r R- n w ,:t 9) y C On C C F-+ cn O y n r� 'i C rD rt r -L A• r rD -Y 43 W �. y a' G O V) n v O Q rda d rD m C 'b cCrs o o y C C n m m rt [T �n-r E �, rw•r .r m �' C �* a n1 CD ErrrD v p m r� rm-r i' O 't,�' CL C r�D 6 'Y. n w .i SCDC_ y (DD (D rt m G� 7 Cin y m fn rD :u o n a d rD c o vim, o c LM Q m `�' o b i 7' C rr y cn. �' d C ora O rD r•r m Cr ti o y > s m v C CDn CD CD rD CCD C w C/s ;* r^ d 7 M r rho a CCD CD.Aroi ro y ro n m y, m n. m .-r y' Q rw•r P. y ° w r�6 CCD p O g CD CL tz * y r7 CCD C• r ro 'y6 m ro a O �' O rOr oQa .w•r n0 v'Ti 6 'C '•r =• 7 C d rD O rD `C CD � d C CD _ D C 'I n Q. C ¢- n ','� C Q. vCa ro rD rD r rD rD N m ss n r"D 0..2' CJ' Ln a" d ' 0. uI O = S5 C' (6}s D O n rw•r 1 ro rDm .�• w rn y fD rF -s ..5 ba rp w W w O} y n n O w m �+ O Tr n w C C 7 7 y m' y +'D y e�{� -3 "J' w n' W q r�D rD — �_ m w C X- CD 4 D C W = rD '�'S w ro .rrt.: �. a y m ° D R rD C y m fY y 0 a 7 w nrDi rD rp a rr rD a rD S Ua n CDrD rD CL CL d _ C" rD z a z d s w .3 eD .��. ' CDD c ro d m rt D C m n rD y R 7 CD m m �_ n w cn as rD - a. m -ros rCo d m rD rD p _^ O '�• O r -r ^•r 'ti CR7 `"' CS m-. 0 m w m y Q a� 3 fD rD 0 rro w O .'S. rD O rt ❑. m w a D 7 C CCD �_ cb --1 a c rt 9 o w CI- 't ada m a rt W rr CD m R S n w rD nm C p w R a n. ru orD m O w �' . n ,, n rs m C C7i C R' °•n d' R. w C O a m' C CLO rC-r w O ❑. A-ro+a 'yr w rrtD 0 � vroi rrDD Dn C• C_ C w C S -. W �7,. rn-r `•C nl rwr wm a m J On rt m Oa C O rb rp A rD m m^5 C w D N n d to b "C w m CL n n 0 rd w 70 o C R O � Ln C ro a y rt m V� C m d � rD n W rD a a a n Sr a m c 3 3 n A� >w n �w°n a C: m < rD �o FD Q. m d M 0 rt -. r•r ••. n -ms -n 7 = n 7 w -rti 'a O N R c ry rD p O W P m C C C�D rt -n q CCD "Q'+ C m aT w 0 0 ro -`Ds z -S9s ai C-rLo m m .1 a rn y ba _ O rt y C T fD A ro 6�7 ocl O N r -r N y rD ... Z m m p �' C c o c o CD° m Qa ro Ua C f.?- UQ m Q '! O rt wCD R rD r�D CD ro M O, cn a• 6 cr ;: rD m C O y w � C rt b "C w m CL n n 0 rd w 70 o C R O � Ln C ro a y rt m V� C m d � rD n W rD a a a n Sr a m c 3 3 c 0 m m a� R F 4] �.a a Q R O U Q a a. a N al R C 0 Q R aJ E R CA Gq i O QLi '6 X y Tl z G -u R 3 •E o � � � �' su• F tli � O CA M '-6 "� t0 L U y Y C 1 R r W E G on L- CL d^ _� = 71 10a' a'' 3� 41 " y y R fL4 C L ] 00 G a? tO G ro ate-+ En fl R rtl ¢ c° O mss. Lna •� = r n is G a ro L' S•" {n ro U 4" E 0 C. O aU•+ R ? cc..C.. � 4. aJ o m a R O a aJ � G C13 N SG L R L Ln N y O Q C ar cc }a aRi c 4. sC, Oro 'C .n + N G G M ¢ M N L m I'3 X y E R •� P —4 ro � � � �' su• F tli � (4 C O y L U y Y C 1 R r W E G on v> 6. y Z O H 41 " y y R :O U Q > 4� r - G a? tO G ro ate-+ C'4 R QCi 4� tLc .0 H C � � L aa+ s aU•+ R ? cc..C.. � 4. a co w u C R J C u i U .0 a.V9 � L� � L U 7 L CA 9 03 � R- a=Y ro - R3 CU ami _ oa v a, Y as C It 0�� c � aai � E'.11 G O .--i O o a",Eczcs°—'> b Vi i1. +� Q o COAal E O b C G L h G G.' • +� o L ra s Z a, .ri q as Q+' O u C U a1F °� O I'3 X y y� y to R •� P —4 L O v' � Y F tli � (4 C C aCi un 1 C L O C mID vivi on v> C QJ O •= 41 " y y R :O U Q > 4� r - R C�„ a? tO G ro ate-+ CD Rs' m ¢ a C � � L F viC _ico 0 Q ¢ ca 7 O L F- to 'l3 m E^ L a co w u C R J C u i U .0 a.V9 � L� � L U 7 L CA 9 03 � R- a=Y ro - R3 CU ami _ oa v a, Y as C It 0�� c � aai � E'.11 G O .--i O o a",Eczcs°—'> b Vi i1. +� Q o COAal E O b C G L h G G.' • +� o L ra s Z a, .ri q as Q+' O u C U a1F °� O Ili ca c L R d R Com/ b O C .r L R U -05 ar C M R , E Z C p c O •p G Y I'3 •r �,., O � ur aJ civ C ami ] 9 O L -1 i ) ra C aCi un y C L O C mID vivi on v> C QJ L V O p ra.. p y .� t4 L C ~ �-' GO •� ar :O U R U4 U A Q O? 0 9 cc cc CD w W a U F viC _ico 0 Q ¢ Ili ca c L R d R Com/ b O C .r L R U -05 ar C M R , E Z C p c O •p G Y I'3 •r �,., O � ur aJ U O Y ] 9 O L -1 i L L tlO 40 v C L O C mID vivi on v> {, y L Q, y a3 U J-•" G O O v M C to 7 L N to CD Cu C [LO o U o `a o v O OD C M O fito � L O U O 6. X v> {, y •� U G O O v M yVi6. y 'n 0 O G Cu C [LO o U o `a o v fito U O 'iy •� U E 0 m r; N O O C O Q tD `�^� mroy,�• ��.� z cn°O� � ro F- -0 oo 0oa iow Q = =5 n = " ra -I -,a s r) mm " C ID nID C m ° d mC n Y[Cpn•1�r7 7Cn-vC 7 S n °� m A' GT •a 9 rt m �. �, a- - m m .= < m m n°° m m n �, o rt a Em CD m wi a� m- m `^ -t CD m ca G m p m ct) 'p n Gi y 7" 7 Q a o o a a �' a �'. T m o= o o r° o ni a o m � cz " a C r m G v m 3 m CL n== CCD 0. -t ^c C rP ❑ D a O G D n rr A^ S m rmn .Z �^ D L]. a p r '[3 m �" Q. n d m �' p .b C C y O 'p rr b C v 6 °❑ C O i w -pn cY rC•r fi D .+ p"' r-' m n C y m O O m n 7- ❑ a. p m 7 rrt r M CLip L m C� a7 %'''] m n S < -- 7 v got rt G W aro rSo b?. o =' T T rt o' 'Cla_ o o w o o° rho �. o m 4 w y' rmr m $. O G O G �' n .p+ Opeb O cu7 G Q� mT rCF el)a m o- ` ami v, A o �* a o. m ro �. m p N D tD -1 's cr N n r-' w rD .O c;r 'Q a 'C S 'O d p rn a. ❑ tJ 't n m m O m C p D p m x. ❑ m C ,..* O m ..j .-n., m m '+ C n G r. p m CD CD .d r�o m �' a Z R. n 35 'm -'h � m - -n m d " ❑ W � rC ,Gn � y 'e7 � � � W rD � Srt nitro -1 mOm r- n• ❑-'rt w. =. w xS�'.m ro a 0 m D i p w <- ❑° 'cl v, CD rD oG C d" %C n p r rn p �• OS o m �. o o m C C -� ° O m w o �". ❑. m 't% C D, 'r G ua :� �' p rr C ° [i7 ryCq m X m rCn ro R rn < n Q k O GTO a` m❑ V7 II m O.:� ,•T .X.. Q n m C ti. C 70 Q m v' C° m p7a 3 rt O O'•;zr raD m y¢ m O m rY• a 4° G rD p m ''S o -i rC•, y a :. -y O m a �* m [n -1y n nCL b o m °' H .�' c tea, o¢ f s° m Z tar d< m n G --i '6 rt O rr II rb �l Q' rt rt m CCD 7' O' n n m m m CD CL r w lz 'Cl n° C w Yrro C L> rt O ti D b v' C r•r 3 w a a, S- m o n w �- p❑, O. Cr �. A W A+ n DC. Q ' a r ❑ Ci Q• 1 O n C' rt p. O C:rDD [CD C C C ❑ M 7 O y C C C❑ CD rr° v z m A CL 7' ?� m Q g b n 7 a CCD o O 11 O C n W O 7' p y rSa y k a a CD CL ID cr n r* rt S n W -1 r w y -1 n rt ZS y❑ • m Q. -s rr, a s v n 'C r* rn -•t n r* -� � p S 7° D m to C m 0 7' C m rt a. ro G O„ p p -y G*J' S C m p �' m m 0 a rD 7 C b p C- rt Ca C m� C b' CL CL C C t3 a m m a O C m ..t m Q rr m O ro m m Q m n raa °ti n' Or ❑ `' o< K CD rDG O v n� 5 < CD a n G W 7 rn n G C G m n< O [D m m A� W 7 TP rr , 't5 D n m m A3 m r'. n �' ?' m r�D ° m O as O W D �. rG,T W S ,� ❑ m h` O m CL d G �. p'; n N -j v p= G �. < m C rCr a mi 7 6� y 0 O '� U7 6 n rD E. rT ms G "f' R cD cl ro by ,�.� a, eD W enr QJ fl "D Cn Mm m r, D C it �. S 7 'C r�•� i to •C -r d p :" `L 6j [ID m o m �' 7 N n �, rmi, �{ ❑. 5�c'• `S �r Q Q, D n C r�r O OQ O r7 rrto -On �' CD ;D rn o Gi "a W C o troi� �' O C_ 4 'fl d a, Al vs rt rt �. r°t Z "Z' C a rt m n �. p rp' C C ¢' M O. D n' vCi rM m N O -- rSD 4 'a W C W a, cD w C w R p, S m p S C -� m D m C . m z� n n m C . n Ln p d v 0 a. d O 'M� [S6 -1 M �. n ' M Q. d' V -'i' �. O m o n CD -" p m 61 m r y -! '•n a rt 47 ❑ C r+) m a. 07 ''Cen-r C m fl. rrtD �' ,..r '� a' ,� 7 n w= C C 'c G G O cn' py m C C ,m,•r CD fb v 7 m< n• ❑ C M b' ° S p 97 rr O + ^n p. O `G O a r' O. m a n. n Am 3' LA S Cl. L O C fl. rCD -4 C -tt W 65 rt i✓ ^Y -roy a C O M. D M rOr, C' "+ m M> •� C fD rt 3 �' y S a C. ,� m rt� n S p OFa � p R7 R P: ❑ ._*, -s O n❑ w r, CMw_ — r° r+ w a rGr o. m A 45 !-1' ¢ " -0 _ro y nr•D n m r+ v r r v p pj rd rCr �. Oo m � t-- �. G m O '.� m W_ r, b T m p' C Lt G m A m < Lt m C rmn A: a Ci ❑ W _. 6 m <' ro o Qr C 'a W d -c m rD Q. a o 'o W "p m rp s fl r~D _ tCus CD a tiD C. ."1 rt M O. C• '} fD tIn r -r N 00 •n < 4 m CD rL CD C C -„ 0 O =D. C a. G C 9 a 7 y O rip v,' y a. q 0 m 'a C D O' � b C, n v> rr m -z O r+ rt C O m o n y w G '* ro a �. �+ a vm a °' D art w y rrDD m SU n �' `� y 6�7 W G y '�' Qi O rt 67 W p° rD M@ ?i O m c�D �• '_�. Ort p' 9v O t m® 0• rCt M m p , ,O�-r ❑ y, N C. rn OR < n y n y < ci �. m C C. m 'B V7 D n p A. rD n At rt y m r•r C K a. m b cs' G ID ' j rt DS m 0. [p OT y @ ¢. T..7 ,..* C �n 6] ,..' = m y a{D m C ff� C , nt y ..y p „•t W a ^h p•' ° m ..t r❑r m [3. y p 'a [n rt CD ro ID CL m a .n3. rb `C O Q. _rT (DD "S'rL CD 0, ^� GSi 1 91 `G N 41 '3 -S 67 M y. M b' O r�•r =' D a v C rt. 7 C W W raD C 0 CD n q• C m `b ,y 0 CLyr C G r<o m as m y A C Q. " P7 0:E o D C 'T a C_ Gt O m R m rL m .'C m n C S� eSp h ArCr toD Q. AV) cr rC-r CD Ci a7 N CL m ;: 'rt ^, M d 7 - Q Q c O c K O u 3 � p po oM ry m � u E m a� 0 U� � N i c Ln y cn Q' c d cn GJ 41 C ro a v ° C as f° S°tn a ,�3 w ILI:a�a, N y y (ate 4 u v� ro � H c a E c cu L il. @ N rLC y y O r Y v + O C qyj D L OA E L ;L.r L.7 N 41 ro .4 u rm a. a *' ro y �. =CO .� p v ro ca v vi c i C) Qu 0 t7 S4 � R L u O i u > a CU L ry C ca o ro a +� y wun C O 7 i P� C 0 v "a d ¢ +� M G a —• y � y � � CO v � � CCC C W � 'O +_' L a� .� y +� E a F ca a � a 3 o o m o CS u u ^O ra C m a u 'G GA �, p u a a c m y U 4 y � ate -+ N= v y y v a E 4J cn a = m a y m a m c m 8 a Q 1 o G v '� Z a 13: �~ y u a o. °1 crop ro �; � L a ¢ tr ++ O L f4 T 'G C O N y G fa L. CO m p u vu a m Q G Ln b '0 C O tx N .O O O 'a i 'y, ,P tC C �, .'" Ld A LT- Q7 .L ro Y C) ro= F O v Q 1A O p p V U y V 4J 'J .y L U ?, O p N rt a o 7"�- curs vv u 4 > u t7 Cr a ,v, ' co c o c¢ v _¢ V 0 j v 0 cl w su. ,�, O E _ n cu a s _c o y e. c C a a a. v o46 v a a c ry o v c a o a _ � a C E -O - v m � C C � N E 4 ?C5 O U y vi u J C 4 9JE a w c w � V y Q N c}' cin 3 � p r KiN ro rD3 Tm w p 0 0 n fD S rD C Da m C a.1 CA a Cd w C v n ro R X Q• rD ❑ CL n 0 rr -%j t:r tv N 0 rn -t rt C7 U- R ^+ C' " Vi w V1 'S 'b C C• w '_ CL G n ^ N d C D°, .� ro 6i — � C «4 ro �. C [On @. C C On ro. D = `C ° -1 a. rD rA m �' D � 0 a. ❑ N m ro p 2 a Q C A� R. C'i R L1. �_ `.' C .n... '�. S 1p 41 r6 (�]. 47 C ro 7 S a' C rD (y O ❑ n rr`r D rD ^ ccil rlq n v = ro = O ro rD 'C3 Q (� rn 0 Lr0 rp ❑ rD n C G n v rn y d % vXi d ,-r 't ° ara 'II -t O w W a y 'S n `b O -c: d Q r'~o n o ro c °'s' n^ Y O tv w cn coj " 6 is rD ro O r ❑ r�r rD ti G G y 'G ❑. a❑ -t rD n G -s Q. m rn rD a a. a� D �, d a q ro rt r.f ❑ ro n c ^ 4 p 0° d' CDD ra'7 n .^'T' w� d r W5 � p, ¢' '``yrty rt 53. ro A n a a [n to ^ 9 a G rD ❑' 'G Al � C3 C , rr IDrr 't cc n y F O rt ❑ to '� ,� rt ❑ n T ❑• D n -n r* v n -❑+� O m C O .-r v p Q4 p D CA ci O w❑ ¢' �. d o O 7- '-' G O O v. crop C❑ C 0 w ? �. ro D rD 0❑ rnr C C pa, ¢, rD M, m n, v `C w -1 n O " fl, ..,, '❑_ � rip '0 's C rtrcp 0 ra m ON n ❑ 'rt rw+ ro oq rt < � CL cc n n' 0 9�i ❑ C R. q t4 C o z S X' b0 a. 'Y oq ❑ 5 v O ° ro n rD rD fb ro O R Al d !� ❑ 2- (D . d ¢ 9r Qq O ? rr C f3. 0 'y trG O m ❑ y C p ❑ a� a ❑ Q. W Cn 7 to C n z O. �` w n rD a m trtn C" C7 rL Ln CIL CD M rt rD 0 M Coro' G- rD I v Cn ao' d rD C ro O 'IQ' ro ' G ❑ Q. '� ro M ° �n mti CL -1 ❑ q' O. -1 w a rD Ct4 cr r•r ''� �, p Ln y rt ^ d rrD 6C ^1 w rt r^. -1 rD q * R nt rD C Dq n 0 S rp rD CU C @ rD W 0 w O rD .ytto Al er/-r Q 4G O "7 CD O 4 ZP� D CL �' "' C ri _ = -I v _trp % �, r^ rr•'r rt a ro 0 C wrj C w rCD i77. rt C rt Q6g ro m ry su O w° v cc =r Ort ❑ < p' 4. ° et)❑ rD❑ v n M y [D m -1 a w y rt CM� � � 4J a m = a to •r CCD rD rn rD ^t n �' w to rnr O sl C N rar G vrt•. O �' rr rr. z ❑' 0 O D d z ro soca y w y rb CD o ro y o w ro rD m 0 �' C� rD 0 a O j y (D 0= C• p G G rD O rD 'a n x 0 °' 0 _ Q 0 A J = rNr = C 7' C < n rt a' v M C '�S < C 0 ❑ d r^D ° .-•r ro. 0 0 A� x =� '-'. rD ID Q. a rD y v, n ro .❑. C R rD cwn ❑ O '�. n ro Q. X ❑ C M ; ° m CD " T "^t ❑ '� d az O ?� " `< w n rD w X ^�S 0. R ro rD N '¢ R Al ...j .�, rT ❑ K ,w.r C.r') w n lD '� ,~-r fir - {5t >^D O y C to ^ '� p o- O rD M � C1 � 'D R M 'g < � � G :.? � � a ,rrb iTD ro G C• ❑ , rrtD vo ^ y O a rD aq rD a. O S ft O fb CL ro D^ S v n ❑* d rD N �• `< � 7 - n r<D C rr ❑ cn sri roy Q ''C C D rD Cr p ro s❑ .0. TJ n a Cfq 0 rD d 2.) ro-1 W C rD 'Y rD D w tDt n=° o r* y 0 7 xi w �. m ro �° cn km a M a D ro C Q w rt ^. T m C= p v- Q• Ul �- p, �. 7 G y vqi q rCt G cCD Q g n ro ❑. <" C d 0. C❑ 4- z rD w C rD m o �'n� O a❑ q rD a' Q rp 0 �' D �' rJ0 m^ r<D m a. C G rD G G .b a ^"+ a C C a ?' Cq n N¢ 9 O ^• m O C wn D -a. = 9 p n CD O �. rD rD rD= r�D ~ rr 0 m q 'fl ❑ (r: 0 n D cn Q - n -r CL = @ mArts`•r ❑ cTD Q D 71rl t6 Vq n" ,� ^ = q' C rt a' '1 C?- a L7. (D M Ort . rt C P1 w rD O O C C p cn ?C n O CCC p rr, m O y❑ rD ¢ cn rho v> d C1 rdD w m w -1 C m ° rn m ..t C -r, fl- -t •-r m rD n m a. -1 P1 rn n a: rD D,. n n -s En v''Oi O cr 7 a S y oo v, ro n G O Q. n m 'r fD C ❑ n Son x 9 ^fit �,� �. CD < ca. rD a ;n ro p ' r �' rip -rot y C '� D ❑ a. ,C z ro rD Q. ° r~MD" flea n. n z w r�o CD w r•F rn 'C v^, C O ❑ - rD '� 7 CD rD C v, ro 0 G ° a ro, rt Al v ❑ :3 rD N, qCq' nl Q- ❑ ❑ 'a Q D fv CM rD d❑ 0 (D rp rr rD d --r^. tt0 ro to p d n .t y r9 o m e y' nroi a ° R z m Q' ° w o. -I n CD rD ro o ro m x' a m m v n cA ro^ 0 0100 rD (t)G y A. L6 el) M CCL CL n rt z rn cn =r En�" a tb C g tA a w = ro' a a v n� n o rroD C �" `C" rdD r rDCL W e 'p ,rD•i O cCn �^ Ot} A h '1 b0 rD V, TCDD n ro o rq L ro❑ rD21 T D o ¢ o rD n a< C fb -t a 0. C C d Ln d rrop rD fD �n co -I IT, x"t n v rD '? C^ -rot r'* A. Ef: C C C -I ❑ a' C rD aq r•r = r•' 0 0 G rr `ly ro D =- w �.�❑ CD rD ° � 0 W ro 0 . O 0 CT 0 rD 0 v n a ra m to 0 C rrp C_ `C n0 •roy Q. tn I a UQ c 11 n �. V; m= -Gt D -1 C O, a a m ,� C ro � (2 G- w rp m rD ❑, °C -t m CL r.) n a m r9rr rD < rr rD a m ro Qq 0! n 7 rr C Ly 0.s C rr dOrt C @ m rC-r ��o.rt a rb m In a rD 0 m y ro C a. a CD° S v C y w a a' n n -rot rD m v v C� a. o. � ❑ = ❑ a ° z p4-) m r<D CDD yr fD Y cr O o o O I'D. I_ 61 CDD c9' rqr W "0 D' n d ra�•r '-r '� rD MI rT 0 to n ° -tY n v . ^❑ w❑ �, d C rt w rD CA 5� CD O n G v) Qj v C G K H v C a rD rD � � � a C v w r•* (D `C c77D o a C ^ G rD a w rt ❑ VS C rDW rj CD n W rD "Q r�D O rD rt rD ro < rD D � C rD r•r ro E G ro C7 .z a: -Y rt Al W ry .ti w 0 rp a n o' C VS no- rD C ^2 a v M c' rb RE 0 m ro w v a m Y Y 3 fD CL n M 41, Q Q u U aJ O L L L ry N ti r 4.., u U y N LqCIS ¢ N 1 N C y G G C C C L Y 1J [riO 'n Vj V7 L ; L., m cC m � aJ 71 aJ U aJ R, CC, V) ra Cn EA G L CL U aJ aJ y a) O z cn O 0.a � � ,�' � �. � '""£" U U O ❑ Qi � a) 6 6 ^SSC � U a ar v ai b as <u O aci cC � "" w aLi Lo aJ U 'd C U td 41 v °�' y v O °" a❑i U G O AO aroi ° 3n c O a.l aJ rA m _U ; ili C; y w ❑ ..G ryG O a � G 'x U jam' m y a Ln @ cur O L L C G aJ � O 4.., u U y N LqCIS ¢ N 1 N C V V� p RS Q ay}' w L cc p ? L p ra E" cn ? p cGa qC +❑•' � L, u 7 V7 CL V O Hw C � rG6 G O O 4° m u V E ro u V C3 L U to Ln to '� a� v u u 'c a.+ 1 ❑ 6i U �' C:4y r6 a x aG b m F- u a u u Q O o aj i m ro � ❑ ar GO O tp o., ii•; ` U oA u � s. G L CL U aJ aJ y a) O z cn O 0.a � � ,�' � �. � '""£" U U O ❑ Qi � a) 6 6 ^SSC � U a ar v ai b as <u O aci cC � "" w aLi Lo aJ U 'd C U td 41 v °�' y v O °" a❑i U G O AO aroi ° 3n c O a.l aJ rA m _U ; ili C; y w ❑ ..G ryG O a � G 'x U jam' m y a Ln @ cur O L G O C O C G aJ a:a 4.., u U y N LqCIS ¢ N 1 'Cf C a3 aj V V� p RS Q ay}' w L L p ar C a1 bUq P "d E" cn ? p cGa qC +❑•' � L, u 7 V7 CL V O Hw C � rG6 G O O E V E ro u V V] p„ U G Q v to '� a� v u u 'c a.+ 1 ❑ 6i U �' C:4y r6 a x aG b m F- u a G L CL U aJ aJ y a) O z cn O 0.a � � ,�' � �. � '""£" U U O ❑ Qi � a) 6 6 ^SSC � U a ar v ai b as <u O aci cC � "" w aLi Lo aJ U 'd C U td 41 v °�' y v O °" a❑i U G O AO aroi ° 3n c O a.l aJ rA m _U ; ili C; y w ❑ ..G ryG O a � G 'x U jam' m y a Ln @ cur u c u ¢r a G O C O L a:a 4.., u U y N LqCIS ¢ N 1 'Cf C u V+ W O rn a mCZy FL a � � U Cl 4 +'❑ V. a its G or Ln C O O CL O C z, � Q v to Vw t4 L L a' ti u L x 7 M COn ar er CC u c u G O C O L O �3 ❑ C O 4.., u U y N LqCIS ¢ N 1 'Cf C u V+ W O rn a mCZy FL a � L U Cl 4 +'❑ V. a its G O Ln C O O CL O C z, m Q v }" CL � p C ^C t •� �' H a n sa' .3 r� m w: a1 s, r6 i O U 7 @ rGV y � aJ y rcc e U G y �"I � Ci � ra 'J•1 N � u m V5 V u r/i m m v N ° �.•� � Ai N > a�'i LnL Ai O rrA 'cu v a% G Coro+°'+ -5y �3°:¢03ac�i 00 0 0 'Q rD p O G C o A= c ro � y T ro � n C CD S w ry � m w ro .9 C'D� O d r -r f6 (6 ra D b rr7 ro � 7 CD T r„r Ln G Cb Q w t rrb w to m .b 07 cr m N F+ A O 7 C fb CL n Z b .p � D d a O n � N } O m 3 n C c < O O n 2 o O 0 rD o v ro c — a rn D n v �:3 Ln m ro CD ['tib 0 "� -Cm a (�D N O rra '> O 0 CD En a w o m a o ff npi S a °a fD �' c rt a py, z s uro 'o [i7 C b m y> 7 O d T T fD p p (D @ O b❑ o ro a O ro ro d rn C rCD c ro T s y rn CD c tA S tn n— 2 E. n A w T y ro %ti Wra 'i G y r ro❑ w R C Q. O rDyr a ?. p n p 9S] S = rD CD [n 0CQ ( C o rD C p— o y C ° y,' -t w 'rt n T o o w o c ow a b c C CD CL. aqra m s p n Zn to T(M w c ca O ro rt [n n, L9 w EM JU G�A o c o C n p CA y C L (D 61 ro rD CD w rya r� W LC ra CA (ID Z' 'Q C n •'C Cw � � as C fl y rD r to R CD rn ED .Z (n C)926 C) Ln CD CL a n O [DCA ct ro m C k rrJ c CL a r p a rD ¢' CD CL ("1a p O "I 'ONO Cil CG M P. O nl T x Z N A > S a L�7 O p n a .q ;: Z r m w O< p p p C < p < rD C ^t (C C n '-t ba co rD p .n .c w C Ln "t C R rTp CD 'rti O w O. vCi w y C Ul 'fit l'�6 r7a "i A. w CL y C 97 `7 C C 0 'S M CCw `? (CD S t.�, �' �CD ' r�jl W a T n CL ro rt `'p �.. CD C �. S w'w. Q. .yA, w J� rD .'�. '* y CD to Q C' Z rD C LTJ C' .r < a rp < �. p Cl, < = rya tA T C C CD ca '; ro c a a N A ti o . , m o w tj w 3 CD r j rb fl n n' w �_ �' F N o a a z o c a = 'o m a srL m (° °o CD w p o Cl. y m �`. ; L.< iD 0 Enn '1 a= S c rD m a A d (�D `< ti x n 2 w Su o c m c m d ro rD� 7 C n0 n (''D w w n n y r0r Xw Cr] 'C3 C a P. 3 M (D r r~o rr, rt C rn C rD p z y ro C `{ y p� C. d 6. �- C a ro Q (D ^Y -s w EL- G- C LCri M r<D N N < rt, C O �W-n = m R p V7 r� y a R (6 T N 7 "r rD CD y w G C CL v O ,fit rrDD LA VS r17 rG ro M OT n m a � 7 C 4. �3 Q. a, rt CD V T C. d a I � w = 0.0 arca w fl.� mcn 'rt n a 0 �� rD C VCi m A. 04 ro r~6 N rrDD -1 rD Cep m 'T �' M '* C C; O'%S rn-r, ° P7 O r%t n' a � CD C� rD M=, rD C O CD q. C ?C Q r 0'Q r 0 y R ?T O T O W py cn p p p fiR M IDD C , O ID rrCC n C S n a d 67 W V5 to @ X. — n y Tu ra= P. a mp < m(D y pCq d7 rr p "_ rD (D W < rp rr m C G• '7 (Ta < k w ro N= C -n CD c ro = -s z CD C < C6 r;R o rD rD (D d y pCqM Gn 7- O O s w N C m C j C Z N I c p rt a c a y y fa ro rD .� y R rD O. CL (D O. y w 0 C y E4 aro ro sa S rD Sa `LA rn p, T S (D r!7N p C] m -' R r :; o a rD p r�D "' m p, T rD rD C7 'a rD rD "'r .. rA �j CD 74 y M y CD C rn L> Cb z =r fl c CL < roi `° V)m a ..r r -t -ti Z ('D . n as O m C 7 S ro C' M "s 7" Oa rD cb m a O C C rt w T w rD rD K O S p [A � O rrD C " = y int � �' ria rD (n Q r -t N rn rD > rror m p ,rpr tiro rDrD rt 3Fi C rD "s N rn-t CD � C w L1 Q ro C D y w N T w a z C ro CD 23 u a o m M y 00 0 0 'Q rD p O G C o A= c ro � y T ro � n C CD S w ry � m w ro .9 C'D� O d r -r f6 (6 ra D b rr7 ro � 7 CD T r„r Ln G Cb Q w t rrb w to m .b 07 cr m N F+ A O 7 C fb CL n u Q C v LnC C G G N C C N 0 C z sr-, C O ar iv O' C a"r�., C7 U G Q cn rn o v ¢ m a G iJ y �dl Q as uC ro .QLn vi a M N G G QM W V j u j 'B CL Q v v O �_ OL 3 O cz vi ac a Q w w0 cc r C C ar sC. M .� C7 . ar -+ N ro ai N u U L [�6 S.' y P, P. C4 v air �_ m au m ar Q d m v d d Q c c c o G G T U U V Q d Q 75 au G.) a G G C C C C ro tC ca d. C. a, t cn uy ro ro ca v v v ro r3 cn v, to A v LnC C G G N C C N 0 C z sr-, C O ar iv O' C a"r�., C7 U G Q cn rn o v ¢ m a G iJ y �dl Q as uC ro .QLn vi a M N G G QM W V j u j 'B CL Q v v O �_ OL 3 O cz vi ac a Q w w0 cc r C C ar sC. M .� C7 . ar -+ N ro ai N u U L [�6 S.' y P, P. C4 v air �_ m au m ar m v d d Q � T T c � c ar m ✓s cn v� C G ca [6 ro ro C CL � a V7 cd V7 CC vy t4 Q z 41 s a c r a m ILI — y auW N roil.. G to ro L 5M6+-+ 4 IIIL y CZy •� �..' :;- 4 V)V] ro [�/y V] y v sv Q ^C '� p d Q y 9 GA ruG C of v y ct to ^O C h z O � Cfl ?. u 0. a a..� cr Gai � LU > >' C Clr Cn 3 d O. t *' ?' -a cn .u— '6 O W O iL c�i� ti r4J C 4a N (In;g o° >t � W a 3 U c CA au tic U rt n v o to aui c 7 v O V7 [n Q_ P O �, ��. N y L .� L +.+ 'm N C C +' 'n V3 Q 'C: .0 b y 'B aroi G u cvn ra O p y Cn C ar C a aLr td O ar ,L^, C r °�' ci w ar ami °u -o v y v acr 'va 5 o P p y y C d c v Cq u a a. o O cc m au En m W i o Cs +� C7 u u v Q rG ar ca V ca 4J Q ..) y CC S O O C Qr ro Q Q Q G cc r cG O v v "aj a1 C v c cG V" C C) 'B v v G oa G a A. LK to V} G n U N U '� '�' L a.J G N .� w h 0. L N ro C t4 ro C CU Q G ar p 4 0 CC0 a Qj r; b CU C y ai C G yo'q tic Li u o y u O u � "mri 0 CO c�CG Ln O LJ ¢• ,v, C.C., u O O v ca cCa --m 0. U v u zl : v cUj � to a � as a t CL? o o� � C w � m q rn On 4. rp D fp O h m c c O 3 rD � D Q .n n Qj o •• y C,� rt CL -b z ' w 'D Vl m C 'til rT "% n f' p7 r•r '-•n �, Q w n rr y `G n w "'l+ Vs � d C) o ° -ro ws @. IIa rD n o C. rwi, m ew2+ (b O. w ro D Q. a o a ° rrtp 'mss v D -, CD a y w m p ro rD wW rx C VQ p p m n' S]. n R C 'r f�D x `C TCDD "'� 4OQ rrDD N ns to d Cr w O.. rCD CD nr CD ni m n Gn d O. 4 `C ¢' ['tio y K K D .y rd 's' a, rt C rQ n y cl CL n0 N O n W `mss rD �? '� t<9 -t et, rD 0roQ•-`�s yr a. Ow Ll n D `n G Sa. O°.Q .a 00C u°cw ��=ro5'Ip--'sm���c°�rocne"^i� o��y c k Q. `t n rob d G G ro ryr n 7 ,"}r C �' = C w G. C m n -, a w fD ro rD y ° rD m .r ro o rt n fl. Ln le 0aro -, rD w m a s� g v m ro ¢- 0. o aq a o = n aro O� y p m ro a y O m a y CD a ro °' b m C G O a n CD v p _ `Y {{ rD o y:13 y d o N "� °' aq rn-r a -w's C n0 7' IIs•'. w° d r•r _W rt CD N n C vOi o -t o s 6. CL o ro �• w� ro n �^ '+ in rJ Q° v S L? d ryD m rD 'C rt O ro O rD N Vwi 0. y C ro ro ''1 rD 0• = a Q D = OOq. p d ro n ;:rp x. O = O k. O D fE ms C 'p n vG C O tm Q a y C7. D �' 0.1 '* 'O•r rC'� rt y in m- n pa ort m y C a Q y C o = rD �- CA rD �-, 5 S`Y C ro ro ti d 7 rD rD n rD (DD m y m flT. 4c rn o rr C o C 7 C O O O s G n C 4 O y C.� �. `� n. ; o w o y p y �. y y ro �7 n CD O Cd = CDrt . " ro CL vis y OD� rD � a ar w 'G ;c 'G n 9 -1 a• ^p '-E fDort R b �' d n n L1 ,Dq f=D O 7 Z; 'S3 G y rr ro O �O+ y n y w V) :j Vl rD �. O rD 0- O ro rD :ti tA ap E.? a7 'T1 m fD G EX v b � eD -hD O ro y srD - 0' ro ,a 4 R '-•r CL co _ fa ai G w G � ❑ p EL CD � w r•F (Dr~rD o � a rrtp ro ❑. C d C, w O. -ns r5 n C 7 w °' rL �' m .� m n y o O W o 'g a. Co V rGD O CD CD=r C n w C. - A D n D w �, _ rD s a C m CD `°iy °' ro DO cl , Y ry CL j -^ •Y y w r,D m 0 �? v' y o w 'el z rD o C. a 'a 4' `0 -1 3 rD ra (0 O n �• tn IIDD �[ N ,'�. W D y CD 0R m C V] D ,CY '° y a� C m y p, v y fD c g a. w m -, o C ul CD o a �g��a rA QAC. a R f-ly fD fD ro fD V1 fD .� "G m R ro w rb rt R rD it V1 y le ro G7 ro a M O n 67 O' O rt d C C pCy fl. ID II1 v - G `s -•i m C Z D3 CCD ro a rn rr] o' M rD rr°, aq D �. n w Cn -1 m w= In m, G w D z rrDD -o m° c r. n ITI np p O ° m x y CrQ . x� p.r<D pSaa D U)a en rD n eD fD w fly rD m *.� mM ro ¢' m av rD ro a =' CD n rD o y w w ro G fD ' 'o rD o f rD ! n. 7 ra x oD rD D ` m C. b � y CO , yy y m aq O tD v y w w -s to O C C a n Q =r.ro+ C CL a ti EL y R WI W 11 . ro W< D n CL rL :n CD ryr 4 w G y rD A C G. n rt n rF .� Vs � 1rtD lD � ryD a r�D Q o r<D ro/ o o 4° m m C �' w tD -wt O m EA rn co '0 - CO n ra rD O D �y •w ro rC•r b IDrti '[3 'O rnp G T a m O .r w ns Z O' a q En O p rt O CD n O O n y y m ew�-r rwn CL m C� O. O O �w•r rD r,,O O, Q. Ln .¢ rD O '� D bra G N n0 G _• rw•r ro w v fl. R• C rD T' v ro R Ln O d A=" `a IIsi r4•r [zI] O D ro 'Q 0 CD C. !yam' C C [OD mrD m�' 'a �. y. Z rG•r C C �' -�,.ti 7`*' rD .7 D in. 'I 't w "I 'C R7 � C y m Q. -1 to K �• rC9 1 -CwI a o W 10Y p 1 Q rp— pw nr 7 ui w y m� 09 `r � > 2 rD aq El 0. rr O 'a rD n 09 0 rt C n G. rD O ID 9 trtD w O. m m r' �' CL ,Y -V 4 R O D p fl. ro Ort = a m rr% O `�' �_ rw_r• O n m rb p' m C w n m O y¢ m y CD C ray n m rD = O C ut ro �. rD G n 0 -fl, W O p, as rD Q. O W "S~. w aC' rD rD a. rD a1, y -1' ra ❑. C'7 .w.= = w m C d m as "nS �' " '� z a7q n m rD 4 'C ro urDi C O � rD y -i rn rT z av m o [n O ro W n b C 'n 'a 6 p rr 4 s. = , �' tom, n D G m X a ro ,..r Vl N O p rD GrD w w a 's rd y `C 00 41 F, Ln 'G w N M x7 Cb CD m rt v ro O C n rD a rD rD w r�D o n. r* rD rD < rD � 4 toy rD � D y R e'D 14 � G s-s f w W CD .d a m w tPCD 4 C O ro o °= Z5 cn G rD 7 M C rD n w rD a a 0 O II7 r -r c• ro a 1+ -s v R fD W v cr N N n 3 rt m CL n D 0 7 a m r 3 3 M 41 m c a >u L Q W a 7 ro C v Q Q V m a cc a ro 41 w a L Qi L Q L Q C ' 7 } L ❑ C C o a ❑ U U U N Y Q G C a c O •Y O •y cz ro ro N U d U d _ro a � S6 cC (4 a c c cCcC � L M V) CA _c U Q R ri cu (n (n O z to U a v an b L 0 0 0 uV� Q •�+ a i Zrz �' rCa C [x w — C a �. O ❑ m y y s =� Q, a 1r .� a •}>cu 0 E4—, 4 C'A ro S.C. - U V .O = 4+ '6 O U ro LJ? a 4� cuC r' C a v7 rC� C .'G� v T •.•„ N CO Cry a i P vyLi •� .b a U m y ^❑' C v 'a (G ia-+ q CEJ p C y .a j l 'C v y m G rl C Ti d L Qi G� y (� C❑ ca L-, a N S.. co - M y 0 o cay Lq ro '3 C L L 9 6Y y L G U 'p SO S-, fq [u6 QL1 41 v ro �4-J� m 4-1 cn cl cC m a L a L a L Q Qi L � L O a O U U U C C C tE [CS SE V) tC V] ro n. t4 (n rr O Z (n m ro ro 41 w a L Qi L Q L Q C ' n } L ❑ C C o a ❑ U U U Q Q Q a a a c cz ro ro _ro Ln S6 cC (4 a cCcC (p cn V) CA a V1 L L C N � C Q O O C 's. M u > o C C ' u �' " bn � .0 -E a C i a b _ v a otn a 4QJ cC a C �— •� oro���o U o o 'an L 0 cn L y V7 LA z � U ro a 0 z a ❑ � a VI G y O� U a C O V SLC Vn i V) O Ln N SJ y U a^�o =— E-+ y as o � cu a ++ �' U 0 z rd cu ro U J= ro a n N N SD ul c v � rn D q d ?7 rn n ro rD p o p ° fl m CL CD v n� rn� y� m A � G v_ < Fn" m n i ro UQ r ° a n � q � � n v Q. .�. 7 ¢ o T C7 a rD - �' D rc a z v `G' [h• Q, C �• q -1 rD `S3 :3'L "�¢ 6' � w � 'T CDD N ro A (DrD rD rt 0 D w y CD R, Cron IM, -AS CD G r r w a m u4 O X W— uh7 m ro n. {° w a R =r (° Q O M rD Zn ro ro a n rD ro o� a D ❑y n w v' n C 7 ort n �, n �? rt rs O C `< b r0•t CL marq R. rD L'5 eAp ro ca 'D '1% ¢, rD rD 6 W w c m ro O �• wt Q. y (DFLs ¢- CL o m eb o n C ro eR�D t4 pD 10 E3 W q o CD 'Y O' �' '�^•I 4. Cyr a. O w= d 'c7 9�i� a"'i 2 = O r7p 4G rD rwr 6' rD rrtD 67 Crt ron _n S�TJ CD L77 D O' ^ 'fl v' m Q ayo ro ro P C 4 ro y CD o p rt o o ai o c' a s%e in.Q. A" n n' a Q. O ""s 7 y n 0. � CD Un 6� 9rti rD En rb CD ¢ O O � � '�'_r�7 [fin C `� r•r rD n. In 0 ro a CD CD w 'z Qeb .� ay ro" o to aroi n y rt o r. w -s a O w:� w C7 a rA w 44 nrro rro a o r* ro n n L-1ort p O A+ a '�•r Ty � 'a p a rD 'D y r -r rD O y < R "t '� k a• O O C q rD rD rt O ro 'D 7 rC•t w rn ro @ O ",�. n 'C ro O `t '� .yr 4 R -1 � Cyt ryp Vi r~p bOG y k" m r,_w•t D w -^ r9• r0D O GR -J C �, "r] ¢- y ii 't ,T w cA rD 0 ,rt a < O � ❑ � ro < rt n. a- A. � 4 O n m � w rw•r ro 7 O a r -r R. m q G C R m • `C rD m n f^ ro -`°s arta < ^' rw-r `{ w (t) a M 'Gs < m m ro. [D 7 rD ^s� K r�•r rD n m 2) rD ro y y C 4aa a' rt y n° ° m s mCL n rt �" ro Q ro 6] ra W. Su O ro A R ra C r* ro C� rp Ln Ln TS N rb w rC m "rot a CLO d O I� rt rD 'rot m O rt ar C 00 D h0 tra rb a a' o �. p vi y w v .'Srt' rrD m ro ;," = M on o m a _a n D r6 o[n6 m 4C CD cn < CL. w wT F O ro y rD CD N n m ^ m R ai ro ro rD rD w 23r0�t rD h �, rD r7wt vii m C T @ '••, 400 G' n" �' CD R �. a. �- A'Sm5 TUC cl Sm G rD. in �• rL y y � rt o rA -t a y rt w '+, ,—, w C� a rn w -1 4a 't a tn 4. P: cn r n A •-3 77 0 y .¢ R O p„ O w .'S ro 'l3 O7 m 0 m e D ro a ro '•t roy O rD rD - w m n w o ro en C ro 4q 4G rC uroi 607 4Q 2 O �? m rD '� O 'ZD T q x? �o , a cD m a rD v n° a Opo m Ys [n O O m V7 '-I m m rb rD'� rD [.: .; rD -I = '-1 ro y - nc T1 n" C< m m w ro r r O — w ,b rL y a(D cs Q. ro rD a rD nCL n O ro rD V O 7 rw-t y ro O <CL nO O y r%. D vOn 0r4 o n - - ,r_'• co f6 C' . a -n '°0 -""l= L�- eDD to 'G a, 0 0 '00 rIQ ro < = ChD r -r q q pro ~ o m .rts y T Q' o' `^'- gyros rho �^- o cn A� •,.rD ro y O �• O rt '..7 "7 C 4 A .. d m rD n ':.? t3 f+ 4q R -n O O �; O m ra G n R v O L y 'd sn r •C Q. rp r�D o. ni " rD m rD �" P' n co n CCD ? ps a n -i• �; a T `� 2Ri• S 4q CDC R w y CRD D 06CD E5 S?" t6 (D CL Q. a t3 o Q" - m a CJ o uM `'' CL a w IDC m ro 0 m a a3 o n s CD x CCD n o rt rD `C3 CLO 7 ~` ¢. 67 'LS r6 ;� C D C C rt � y A ro rt ro rtR 0 w 7 Al CD D ws Q M q Q m 6A.1 ro y ro= 67 x. Z O fD O 0 ry rw-r Q. O C rw•t C A• r�D CRD 7 v 7 ra < a C C CL w tAA rD a. - A.?. d �• m r�D O m m ro m C' y o< A -'O m Q. rt rD C O d ..,, 0D 0 w O. a CL r7 -t t1. rD 6i m n. rD 't7 "3' rD O 6i 0 p rtrb W O n 44 -S w O ro 6a (DUG n N :? D rr ro .S O" r^p 'b y m CD y 't C C W CD <. R .g .t 0�C R x' h rD n 'b y CDD rt rD'•t rD ro rD rD 'Q rJ'r �' 0 0 .r A a y w m 0 "�' ro O S3• .t rt 'Y », rD D nD O V 'a'n a V R 9�d D < rt r^t' � C rM rD ,� rt '� C w ro CD -1 CA x ^i co rb O 4�q m ro m Q G o rpt O S 67 O ro y_ r` �-3 UQ' rroD 't C- 6 lnD L�.1 7 '"a ' Y y ems,' '-•! �, G [DCD r .4 C '= L rt ro y y m �t o o ro 6s y p m p w OL p CD D n rD y -t r•t r? n " n m ''� rt• -r � --1 `C y rD. @' ba ', Q ry �: O y `C m rD Cl U7• CCD p. p; w Co rr "{ ro y p w ¢7 w` 0 ".1' 'C :9 S]. w Q rq [n L. ro rD rD il, = - = [T7 .7 C. m r�•t CDG W ryD ~ h �. '3' w 4 a' �' CLG CD— ro CD CD rD ^ ,* eaCD n. m ai 4�a y Q n m Z M a y a o y ro m o m? � r"a c o m c" 0 0 a o �. 'C frtD ro rw•r C m _o• n7' r<D s rho n C Co 1t � a� -s 7ft W EL eD rt '� o 'p rT w m m UQ w fl y w !h6 CL y' CN rD ? 7 fl d CDD (DD OT a C �. C 6� CRD C KQ �_ I `� ❑ Op O C• �T 0=r Id G m Q F, rw-t .a rL T ID rD to � rv-'r -rot 0 O n'B n. " 0 4q y SU m rY w LT7 O w pj ^• y w p� O (rD y 7z a =s D n O 'G 9l .rov, `Y y' O N Q. rD Irn, C rt -s� r•r a''-7 `< `C3 D., t6 w rD R, � e'D G. .'� c� '.1 � R m ro' � '„ a R � w m rn .7�1 r0 -r CDS •w -t rya q" ro r;' rt �+ T y p CCD (b y O O p. m CDbe y v, ro O q• 't R Q. W' �• ChD R D et, 67 'G n7 �. W O O btt rD .7 w O .t O R7 'b ~ rp rD -n CL y rD h i y SC y m a o i �_ p a w m z o y a rD w= V, ns rhUn• ry-t ~ O ^ rw•t ro y " a•+i rL m rD Ln IDD ra O R rr O y z P C 't ro m rp ,y ,Y y O 4 40 w S "' fa- O rr 6i y 7i w ro t )i rrb .h -r C Q. o Q. rnto -t W w ro w w" rw•' A7 m W m w V 4q ry ~ p y 4) y m w o O 4 'o a m 0 w C a rt CD CD -5 w rna a a m a n m a, ro c y Y V L ro L a Q U a �M ro a C 4 u '6 as C tC 611 a a1 C U ro L a 4Y C Y C K 0. > 'B R CK ❑ '^ a a y .� v m XO ❑ F �_ ❑ V ro '❑ ro y L ❑ ro � `. V h LnCO ❑ O C O w �_ vi O O a U •e yCO m ra to I L y (,+ a C Le, M LA > aY y a7 U O v7 G V ti C v, to a T3 C Q Z a L I-. a V iti 'r '� .v' 6LL = � y C ro C 1 rC y c% chi 2 c ¢ (A V+ ¢ m R] Lm O V) C y roU y u F^ y m ro G CLJ ❑ � � L- w V ti f�9 v y L C r a ._' 4O L. y C LV+ C a� A. m ❑ a 'O y y U y U V C CVG c o a Cro a ... o y ❑ � }' � � •� i� Cb � w � 2r �a v a} d ca � L � a Q. y V) ycu ❑ _ Y roN C6 L L a ca ❑ 0 7 y ❑ ❑ ; C G •C ctl O vi y Q+ i y d p> U ar w Q 0 3 0 Ln CU a L ° U XCL w y"6 l i 'O 2.) C Q. Y f4 a L M Ln Y l t Y V° � -a a a, ° o° > m _E r U Ltj > v, p S cC p L r, Y � Lcl tC L � _^ C, d y E Q. y ^ a 0 a 0� �' v y A. tC a y :J C n + y roU y u F^ y m ro CCO L Q L. G O 2❑ 0 aJ4 td L- w 0 G y M a u 3C Q A. m ❑ a 'O y y U y U V C CVG c o a Cro a ... U i-: y ro .� ❑ O C d V a u cCa .' a} d ca � L � a Q. y V) ycu ❑ _ Y roN C6 L L SY O C4 C ro r6 y y V a�1 a U C L G � U a U {Q a (4 4 a, Cl m ti F-' 0 0 rD ro3 T c w o 'A V C n A ff Q rt R rt rn CL y b n n -rs -s n aQ m a nj am y n rn G. a n d 'i ro o cn ra o 0 0 0 n CD n° o o 3 Qr o w n -9 o rD U N M Cb ro ❑ o Q, < rD rp rD y < G O rD 7 " (� y v G a aro n a rt r6 rD O3 o w ro CD a N p 7 o m ❑ o m S C fl -1 � F � � m rL� Q � � rt CL -O* ° Q O � `° y M � `°i OQ rt tqrQ W 4�1 G v ¢' rD Q7 pn'j y ° N C Cs'r, '� < �' � N C � OQ ro rD '"'� � f � � O w � �- � `� rPQD n �. R G N C rD C Om fl a n k O O rs rD Al 7 N [D O L Q rrF C n U7 ''7 n. Q K ra n CL (D QQ `C '.rt.- rC rD rL Q C p Al (QD Q' 6 r0 -r 'B G• rt, m i3 'a CA O rr a n O O O w .Oi m ra y Q rQ Z. pn w '�* m G w (a. a� vya r a a c m cn ro a s ? a' ti a o c m o. o w A �' y o n M. o•, (° G. ((D r=' `�°— r6 Ort ' n. mi w .�P o q k V C a a tea'.. ro (D (D VA n ,rt.. d -I � rOn da o v 6i A? ps rD rD O p, Q trop �� a �p. Cp CD (D Q Ia. CL o o o m rD -R.i -h O O -3 C ro 0a Q CCD a Lei O I a rD ro rt m iD r -TD ren ❑� a Q cn n r* r* y rn n rn a. > -r 4a m y a •a n •a vi(D O.0 rD p rp ;* ro O O rD p 0 DO CD 'CS rp W LA rt 23 fl. w o rt m o CDD A nNof°u.@ 9 a.T o a °° a rD <• � .41 o'm o CL m rD wa (D -wrater* (c�n�•�z xM0. rv'D N UQ 'C 0 _�. rC-r S O 0 w o N O' a ?�.m O a O C a� X G ra (rta (D o a y ? r' n rnacz o CL. n rt Q V m + -CD u,o a N C .S n C' C U•t � O w Co Q O OQ C O C' rr r6 W r6 rVrr 7 d CD a!"5, „ r+ ° y rt y rp n 'P m tA W N M N o a -'C O o� O a n '* ro O m n o M ray a b 'r3 n 0 " rn rp " � R. n. -I ; G 63 w W O O x rL CD'4 o C -, A EA w G Q �. ra w rr- w - n N o Q O R. rD C O 7 = 'X @ ttA ro ° G ° m G7 n n rh rrl) G n to tv = 'I C O rt h v N r+ -s Ci 9 [-Dt w n w ct O= y 'u O rD G. V)(wD rrnr Ln O j _ - n O rD CD n m mI CD a C rD G, C w m A -+ rr a. ¢ rt uQ CEn � o ¢, O y rrtr rD lV C ID M rL rh rD 'Q rL N < `D � l�'D C (D +C O e, ft C-1 C O rD a' R O 0. CD aQ > "s y O .y rL fl. R -1 C m m cm w ra CD -1'+ CCD CD (rtD ro F' N Fr O ° m Q O O 7 'CID of n'rD o ro R. as in. o o ' 3 OC _Q N Z. O VCD r6 LA (rt6 v a C rD 0 � r. rt CDrD 11) ro o CD C) o 0 n Q ° %i 3 M rrr6 Q1i m rt pr (D ? t3 O Q n CD (D @ ra rD .s s a o �. Ln O �aQX o� V3 rt r rl)d O Ln a .art. 4 oQ Q CD < C (gyp (D ro rL rn O (D N 47 tA f6 -.r 7 rn n .t rD ro rr p Q o CL CD do -Osrc ra O rS < CD (D Q DZ rD n N d X O ro > a S CL rD s = o 0 O i6 7 [ on D 0 0 m a rD N O C n rD m m CL n n O C A PZJ a fl- m D � •� Ce] C M y R R C/1 � C � Cro7 CD '9 b m 0 a rD CL 0 O a 67 m o CL �* ro rD C rt rD C ro ° rb rt m � rt i✓ ( mD I � M ra n m m A a i a v r� w r-) •c 0 0 S, w c 3 3 m C ra E E n `a Q u M 5 C6 a) Q W v <a s. m Q V a a ❑ • a m Ca _, as n °� ti V) Cn ar C y E — CZ u � C, r 3 �-0 EI cv°o� CJ p C .a •�' o a c .E a)vUi s ami �, �, :Ei y C i C6 '� j LG lu C C o C O CA ° +a+ ^[3 .a o ° y ice, P. A GO C z. C C O y as L }' a b tic 4) W Lu l.!] o ❑ t--� b RUO N ¢ U M C7 o p.. >� o [6 Q -6 U U U CV Ucc N L, C V Q C W LnL C C v O b t+i v C 73 d .D Q 'a y u ❑ ami 4J Va Q.' w 'u 0.R- L aJ i ra y O na LA p m Cd L 7 UCd ro 3 Q a v Nu.S.U. b rte. L. 4 a) Q C. C � •� � C7 � � ��, Y y U Q r r -I O° i O C vUi U b ts, _ ^ r m y m �, C, p v y° ami CaQ a.� cLa Os v � 3 d o vcu ro o M v � L �' CA au x C � i E y5u w C ¢ o n co ❑ n >, ° -6 a: ❑ s � m -a -d v Q' ° vy.. tri � a, 'Q 4Li .0 m y L L � 01 cu oC V p C ra 3 d ra;u Q? a L rz GJ Ui V 'y1 '� LJ NL •� C✓ V1 a 'O y m Ln 'a y m D ami s- C °•' CvC w a) Ln w ro v y a o s 0 y d 'U ° a R r 4' a s co Ln cCG vcaip❑ m C w y m aj Q5 ate. b a' o .� cdCa .� n v y i cu y •} v ani w o as �v O 4 k ai rs y p v -a .� �a cn v y ra s y m -- _ is V3 Q`' p C 3 C cyC v�Ui .G ° 4�i +�.-+ CO tU" +4 B a m G v v Co ctin o o ani � a air ++ v C w aj a) C v ip C rG '�+.�C sU, s v y C4 C 'C ° b cr: ryC 4i .a �?, W ° is Q� O C p u C 'a6 •� 'y b L •'6 rn O t 'G ipr, cu Q w ° t6 CU v, :V a ?r ^ G '+—� C a.... 6' ¢ 4> . P. 4r I- N .6 as U C aJ O C° C 4°ft G OL u riC as ° W v .6 L C G ro -6 ° 3 .L a ca o a _� 'a �, b a a > .o 3 ai V -6 4-, au C a _o c u'?=? °' E "In a.+ L cc y OD .n0 +.+ p C y ,a U aJ L Ql �' 7 C L i SC C L V: �' p d '� C �' b0 lh I� +�+ G J C_ E C L b G i L d,, O iG O _Q O i as t]. C C 'b V ar '� U .0 a .... Q O GA U CG '� G% '� L N .4. �L+ L w G O .V ^ai u CL •J U m C;, .u' (n as y y 'C3 w C G1 w O CO R. 3 b Q y .: ',y-�C 'a'-' '6 "' C •tC N " U p " ,c C °L 7U. l}'] ,�., Q a' Q W U v 7 t6 C "b' y • ' a.:� tG a' ar U ,� +� O b0 a) O i4 C, r -I M y =' ❑ �. L -6 -6 .� C a �v a s ¢ v L a a� L' v 3. v t3 L a, a u a - T w v y +� e_u O 'Ci L TS "d al '6 U 4 Sti as U �' L. s- y L cr .$� 'a+ [J L G O _° C M y +•' C U .� 0 66. 7Y v �' q Qi Q L1. as U ^" b +� °^ v 4i y z +� 6' w O aJ tC �, U as x - L +, . V �' �, ° b C (Q \ N n4'O bn C6 d rC aJ 'Q 'J v 'a v � 3 �' 'L7 +'�-' N O L i 'B v G4i a� G' Cd O abi v O s`�, Ln L .y co -U •� 3 C ti C L d 7J to 1J Q, .� C a1 U V aJ i ti U V u IE ° n0 ° p p F =6m C. sv cA y Q, C .� �r �°i i [.L7 >✓ vUi +�.+ i� c/7 i 'C C. W F •0 O ° ¢ H Q Ln'� Uf C C C u O � CL V)Lro a � ro w C _U C dr C d C ti o c � cu a cn tjjcu ai y b a Q F i v a Q w � Z N w t= 19 � Q r W N O rp NZ NZ H � R � A r* q w r v Qj w C r2) C7 9 S n O. .w, O. < A7 m rt n ro cD r) Lo H m m CC ¢• -moi (CD (D 4 CD �• A❑i O O tCA N ; -cj z y rw-r PD T '�n 0 m S C a y O 6 CD fl t ai V C C Q u C C w m rt rL rtCA n rn m rnr 2 n y e r�D r2 rD<' rt �, n rL y CD ❑ w a yIDCD ,< e'p nai a� '0O n rt m n v Q n 0 �D C C o a n d y C CL y y .-r r•r rt m _y ..1 G 2 .S O LA w n 7 o C 9= r�D � eroe:zr"r G ,may d. m any ns ar r�r m N 8 _ y CD rD M fly O- ' ;CD rp iL a7 C ❑ N Q m fn rt In fD m m b Q y ((nCD C 7 a� ❑. k SI)D Q. Qa p y o �< o a o c' a�= �? N rt a„ r rD o. m o o a n S T a y m CD m LA Md m O m Sfl.rt rt R cD 7 G 7 O m O p s =W .�' � „n,� � rD rD Ln m rb m O 7 fH cn w a_ n as •aa � �+ a * � w -4 n"- mR a .n= 0 .� LFI m cD co n N rA o a � n o a ccrr .ni n n MCD o >< o. s m y A = a m lb rt n�=. n m It rw. rD , (t) S �' aQ a Z C• in C UQ O C C w [CD II• L6 [n C w C !<<b d `'< rT m a• ~ rt C 67 a CD CD CD 0 rD O. rD �^ C Oq O N CD LA 7qami O C m rL rt }C O 4 a-- S tD m (D m m dcn y y CD m r m y e w �o a7 m m 0 � ❑ � tin - {p A ¢ CL `° o -1 R ww A 0 r* S CL ro V,rD S R y O w C C C rn rD q n m g n upi ryr r zC �' o ❑ a o orq ro P- w o o -s OC C 4:3 aq 7- 0' m (1 N a) fp N As ❑ c� 0 ❑' rr m n 1 Cn rL0 — y CL m y w Qq as ❑ n ao n as W m CD m °' m a m 20 eb vi 7 7 ft 'C 47 R rrtn O 0. G [TD 0 C n n cs rt O m p=* fD o n m y v y an o my rt m CD rt R fl �. c m Ul o' o g= rna a l cu d O r fl rrtD U ,ww cu ED rD Ste➢ cu CD w fD `1 w x CD n fl G ~r A Oq 'w..'r. n A a O. 'r IV C C C as +, rt, CDD w rD m O r o m= v -�, ns r, c° y Al <_ ❑ m w n n Q1 ii yD Qj 'm•! ryr 4. A rT V!i M m a rt fn S CD m C m reC-1 Q O 9 p ams rt wLA 'VIVI iD C •T y �. M ..S rD rt n y C C C N m tD m o fl' fo Ln O H 4 As C S Q, 7=r �m ?s y ^m•S C C Oyi m H 'R3' ❑ tD O �� teams y o � 06 R m M f`"rD 3 N O CL ",•, C o ❑ VI CD CD rD Ln V w c C) .y. rt b rD ❑* 7 m +� rD m a P- a W n K 4 0 7 n a c 3 m City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary 1.6 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 1-2 provides a summary of mitigation measures proposed in Chapter 4 to reduce identified impacts. These measures are in addition to applicable federal, state, and local regulations and commitments that are described in Chapter 3. Unless otherwise stated, the mitigation measures apply to all studied alternatives. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Envirormental Impact Statement 1-33 1 C 59110 U d 3 N f6 41 2 '-p m bb W G N _a H 4 a C U "G � N p i 75 C p i y G CL C P 0 � y o V� •,c a � o m a) .. a) a ,6 p : C c a O cu v a G G u ca C > n a A v7 .fl .. fil i Ql] vi V 5u V Q a L 75 c6 •C7 P u L �' Sil CG C P aa r� a O C cb F M] M a v a y Q � n ^ a [G cC � C. m y u bD � to U rG D a SC � p J� U CC V i CU p C O SC4 a' o v 75 a _ Q m a aC. V j V cu A Ca yLj _ y a y ai a J O b F fl.� m a •� 3 o C C C u r4 t/1 a O w a do "G y ca hA^_ O Q C ? U cv Vs ..0 y a C C s d +� a m ^ .^ yro LO L.) .} V" CLI L O x w �+3O-' a 'y9 LSC a� Q V v SV• C ice., O y y G LIP ro x c � � c � � W) o G a a o a T c a m t2 vz a � .� :� O P �' - � -� •"' •+.. � C C y0 .O L � CLo o G a �_ O S-. Q. i a �' J yi O V Ciu] C C — .O, vi '4 [6^�y � v, 7 ca G as Q• d C �❑ � r-_, � .�•• C yG-, u u a O C a C C •--� v y O v_ R' C v a 4 G 6 y w rc d. y m s L '•C9 CL O c U i Gi � N n' z cou 4�i U '•� L V i, ] ?? •cry O y p L U y w a a + ] i-+ ' C •�-• Q. 5 -tea 4.i a .� v a 0 3 p a L rc P " n .� C� v y v v'y❑ aG ia. o m y o o Ti V a �^tl ' ^ ra n a) A m oC G zt �_ y a CU 7 L o S/] 'c bm C �a c v a L G O �= z° .o o ai ` L a ti m a y v— a o Qo iC as G d ti tX 'C.0 ❑. O ai M N O n cQ Ln L C 3 N LQ. y ""� O 'G 'G a CL ,, o o a, O C7 r' a, V d, O '.0 y � b C cu_� ^ s � � 4i .� i a '.4 cur � �^, � DaiO ,^�� -G g ] C '— G o m = j C sC o G o 3 o a' u v o CL •� P y n P a v_ ce Py, A S-. b cn V u 6 O C :ri '�t'i P. 7 O a '3 r� bk � V =? V P. Q. N L GII `� �"' C 'di .. 3 d7 a.. V �... i Lu r L L �..+ V .C. c v V 71 P t'Si cu t u " a ]' ;:, a� O^ L rs - a P G 'L "„ �_ 'J C V cu a ca a� u, — a a V C Q, a C i, a E = i O a� C rC rCS cn a aCi tC .L .y V, 4. = y9CL [ri cC V ay.1 C G C a to V i a yl `� L ,OaA (u6 � P p V3 u W C � y0 C = C DV C a C G. V y 4D 11 +-+ b '�^ a P-. O c'+ d � O � [4 CV Vi O v C Q bA ] C C �-^ "l C C a E ] a a a a J -- m Q a) tLr,= L o Q L Q U d Q C4 0 L a O St V C cu Cl. tz ft cis CLJ�.a O v m U Q O +, O C,7 C;r L C �_71 O �' P _� P C p C rn C V p y¢ i 6 u aJ !'• ~' CC �^ '_' N ?j V a .Q +-+ G O a) _;.� y y fl. L J q .L om/`, n a x y C 2 C .S Q m � O i G � ;7 �, � � a 3 'U � - � � � L '•v .� � u � n V � E C � u P C V.7 T3 a' � � � ,� �, � aCd O u , fA ca i+ a bA a a i .o a t0 C a to O r3 Q U u •a 'O z O O L P C O y N r `n N G' '� - cv N a7 o in U [/� p b Ci. O �' �"' O y `, +' i, '�, fC to '+�a ^C G!_ �_ d' vi Q 0. ±? 'C cai y 07 aJ V ✓, C u C ] f C a) C O C Q u N C �- V 'C CLE G C3 aY •O ], 7]J P. O C �• C .J yU •w .. 0. L.; W -� f� J }:.. TJ s �— p u� " o a� C a� aj c. a bo aLa-+ a C a a 0. E- • • d a. V p F- y P �- • • • • • H • • �. :d a 03 d x tic y Z :.0 v, C G n G v F- 7 u a v F- EmL- a c } O EC w E a v a u V) va o cs] d a w z a 1-4 cn O W Q W' Cw -- 11 rr n= w = r G Q. Q b �+ G y n .. w Jar, - w a rt 't7 • C • a [�7 rt C a r�D� O ^ � �_ ren O D` Q TCDD n OO It A rp rn `.r G S m CD CD TQ C, rD D to .., 4 vCi rC+ ry-r O. '* (bD p `� a p rD v' rrt6 rSr rC G 'n '� ry a m ^ rt CD W tp m C 'G OU ry-r r (..-1 ,� �. CJ' 'CS 'D C7' '.�. S _ m w n A m rCr m ren �? " 7 �. 6" rD �. ry-r rn C- ° n r. A �, A - O 's ",3 ^I y .s G w O m O r. ct R ID A ^' W '� rt C n - R G O `C� A 0. ''* r, n CC.J rr r -r ;rt C 'O ..b A S A ry p n aq O y rt n rt n .y y b 0 O O rD C a w Cz. p rrr ,�� ,S.r COi b W �• O Q. O y p- C O n C- R '� CDa rt 7rt' O `s rn G w '�' A� 3 ID cn m r. C v, v"< C d C (n m .D.,, Z p'Cj c d rt rt. rt O •p _n X m D d• m '�' m �'' n ^L .^C•7 C `� O D- Vi rrn n ` ,n.� [V O a .rt. -Ctrs c O (D < d rz A w ,* `s cn `_ m d ° d O ❑ < rn A a v, m 2 O G n< C A 2) p O A rnt y. vA 7 C 7 fD C m p v vA rr eGr M R C rr O• rn n(D W C C rr C `C a� to '*- rC on �- '�M D ro �" y r+ 1. rD 0'Q rt rt`n-r ..g A S QC O 0a !TD C OR FL O m CL .nrt. ° rD C' T.' C SSD W (A'f 1 n m a. A C 's rC-r d m yU�D aQ A. S w C y G w .3 rr A G n ry6 < "� d ^s v' r n c: '�_ (D 0'Q 7 S ro C rD O C rp D= 'Q Q Q ry m C rr 7 C C O. Q _� m p C m rt A S p rnr b✓ cCD 7 (rn rrr O D O✓ C a m 'a Q C m A 'C b m. tlC"a - R. ¢- ,� a. a A Q crq _ 7 m G ❑• A c a _ rwr p, �. C 'B m. C trO O ro 7 wAi m OCi 7 ro O C CD '= n' �_ c b Q �, R ata' �.- .D ..S `C rD < CD * A G F "� fr C tD C C C 04 D m M G �* m D A� va G n- rt o C C ° '�- O O rD 'fl b y Q ° M M. p M Q. m C 7r �• w G rD rDA n0 'JrQ C ((D �. G rt 'm °.my °���"• �r~rTT�o' �_ `�c-n*�2ym"°mroc o'n �a((D = A C" m C G3 H R 'S rr `S C trn ,y 'rt'1 SU w rSJ O rD "GT C' w b .py (D w ° '3 L n m C O• ° d �' rD K a A Q- (p Q G G Q p m "'S m w '� O w py A rt rCr ro m n rt A W _ " P. S C n C C ,_ r -r CD n aj u 6 O A r* .1 G S rye n C (D D C ?!� OT G C A rC 41 '+ "..s' A A rD A `� C r n '4qq D rrt y o 'Q G O (dC `n @ Q CD 0_ Q w w h Q y c C r 7= }' c CD 'a ?° c " C m b n ¢� c c m m � a rL w c n a c dna p m to C A -r d r b rT A rt -: rr rt O S �• C - O -, CL C� rD 7 ' -t ro ij w. c C R CD c A rC-r C O S m y C a CD �' 000 (D y C rD ttCD s G' y a A ^ G O S° rD m a y O. .t �. CDC' cD A C i3rD Q M `C rp y n rt 7 r�-r C 2 C `C3 d y rGr rn .'Sy pr"j `•C m0,:, `C to C ''' r -r ^Cs m C Arr C 'z O n O w C O D A° O vo D ro rw-r C -r D -c [C rp C 'As A OmQ G rn b rt rD m m❑ O 70 rC C C� C 'O m rC+ rD rw„ r-; n. O b �`' 4• �7' A r1 rC-r rt a. d'� �' ,D.r �' rD 20 A . c ba as v v o Q w 7 o o (D c 'o m aaj Q6a� rD o' A c o w 2° 7 n d c_ �. C ?D o w W Q. w m rCA R rC-r O 'a p ('nCr m n r ❑ C `s n n 6 m rD M �. =" a ° w C w =_ A �. A H C C' rD d C ° . i p O `G D m CL. '�Cr ❑. ar b „S • 6 •� o .�„ rD �. �. p n 7 C p .sa ^-i m Al (^so in A A C K� 2, � R rdr b C rD 7Q r r C G rr 9 [6 rn C A '* Uq d C ri A �{ b C C Q S (6 C C. G 4i [D CL .b O rr b 3 Q- tA rD Q rn-r. O �. � OyU f C C VSs 6. D 's 0 y n CD O A O A ro c (D a o a > c c c❑ p. m o fro n o o �a 7 R r C e -r fn `3 G A A 01 m C '.'7 to S ..1 w� O ..._ n rnr, m Z C m rt S n C• -rtt ,�, rt. R G y C `� b G< w rD s y 'p m S ¢, ro ., ¢ o. Drt rn ro C n C cn C' a. n G w y C rr R c? 'S IV rnr A m 7 e -r 'd =sm ^* �? �' rD S m C rA ° 0 y n O C w D :s m A rr C ° D ❑ O mw -r :S m ^ A. S]• ,� A `yn rD c m EL rD rD p N rr ro oq o CL m rn m a s g o a o pr c o rDLn < c ro p b w CD M :3a VI bw `Dnvv nr°' � O n o C m 7 4b m n. .., m m too c a. mCD Cr, y CD C < C 'm S A O 'tz rr rD -1 A m O w 3 = C_ m (D ;f°c�'c m A a �+ o cn w m < rD i {rtrp N d A , rD In_ CD 1-t ccCD R-CD �. S Q _S C M Ob CD M �. CL m n rp r„r m ° x m , 7, m CD �* mo r D' ° V, MLrl WS mrD ID -1 rt - r`tD m o (4 '�• rD ro CD -q -rf m C ttn rD sna C r"t G C A r° n n o � fD V n C IDD (rn A CD O a A � O m r- C r'r w r .p Ol sr - m r N W. U 0. a Q d.7 a C LU Lq d, L u aJ y In c. c ^^ v, vi x c o o Q bA c L ct ✓; C i a-, i s.. ,.Sa U .0 a Q a �• W U G C ,� C� .. Qo' O U O U "Q -C +�-' C Z m aj 0.y O s, a y + 4j G O w y cn ami y rs L c �❑ U 'y O C ,cn y, .� 7 a m m y p a = U :n y u C p O Q, n p C u '� y u n w .� X y y 71- a"vi a V) j° c ar w a - a a ucu a u W c �. '_' C❑ a❑ UV) __ C y a Gai '� Z C cn CA y y :'� ro J" y 7:� p C6 O 'LS 7� y TU O j y ".� C° y C y C C La-, cu .- y '� rarrtrt C C v a G W U L N .� U D\ yo y V � G a r..+ CG +3 �' �• L. 'yC � � ur y aci a odC o a> J ❑7 °' a' a .� r6 n 0. o C bn Q LI} cC 0. (U 'Q y > CO y •° "'� fi sem, al :/] al i V i Q) a `'^ CUO i Jaya .0 L j LO .y a aA y i, rG 0. GL. au as C,O O C aCi C •O v ri bD `C% .0 z. ,� 00.,0 .= c x R u" u 4 C c 9, ° '� c� C ti C C ate-+ G 4 O C L +�.' CJ a: a v' ' D D L` S. 4- N O C a to Q A ''� a ate+ Ln a5 _rz C W '_' '+ "-' <n ❑ a �� Lz_� a, o 0 v E c w ❑ Li. 3 '' J' a G ac's � o � y ° � oa, � y V, a ❑ p •� Q f 3 v a, o a t c fl c -r m cc y g U ❑w In vi c c t Q; L. 0 a r?l L .G '--• C6 ai Ln LOjL Q 1—: C. V1 W. Z"0 ZD .0 Q,' m J 9 a U O Q G a UU a c. -a c b a ro =' vIj a .r c a, = a Ccl$ nj "ri r L'i CU , x -te ', Ci : J 7 a C Z ya G L U R o axi °A a) C 11 C ++ Crl Ocu CO a v C J > V '+j73 7 O C C as W f4 '..0 L N 'U 'L GYS C O x COLID w C aY y G rs f. ° rS a O� D C n a)a 3 O C C m y n O c o c° a. c ° b .� o c y °�' .a ❑ R w y a a 6 ti c vci GIzo c c as 's QJ O 'U7 C y C L ai x a 2 'fl u O , E ✓i U al 'y, Q� C a O C U a i. taa b W •. ° t4 ar p W vai • p ay :n }, �. cCG y 3 c U r- � ♦' "Q L � G 4 J- G z. •" a LyL1 ^s , -r,- CT; o S C O L y �, .� u, w C O i~ .?? 'a a 7 y R .� as pp a c a .0 s U :J C U a .i 7 ::3 N i y _ r a �, Q o 7 cu c r 3 •� W ^ 3 -a i U L i L+ R% C 3 O V7 G Q1�tz �-' ; 71 X41 L N % a o a a >, •B C fE G y N y .� lIf O aJ Q C V CIn N +.. aLs W .r �^. 's. W u o a ai as O a.r '4 Z Fr 0.y , M �'" C �n m cx nl U y Q c U C C C E to C C C -0� 0. G C Q 'O ^ CL. C aQj c a� L; G Q N U u CD W 'O c.: y M O? y y W G cC rLC D C i r 7 a' L C M L cid y a L- z Q ate-+ LTj O .-'.S .'� .O Ci, -ID u 41 0. c. g • • � C 'CS G v. SC • • a) a O ro O w CC O 'Q Li CO °i ° o 3 •� °_' C a tn d c ac i ° v o ce) 0 v- rtn G C u a C1 G o y a m a y; a u Q Z a a w o m c c ti a U c u r o y ri ,�, CZcm al a o a saj Q Cd Ra y v -p -C OG. Q� 7 cQa � L u S a LL B, Q. E'II ts..A .0 v iC4 C �n m y to a v � C yD ON W u .O y y C A 3 L y L 3 a C Q o o y " dA bA ° Q z 'c � ac, � c `� r c c � n b � � •� e a u a �, rC c a c tiz' p c a V O ya O L.. y C O, v' -c x a Q �' �c c v r o c i a p a p CL ° _ a a o v c L H o +� r y. aj w a) O 0. G U ,SQA - y Gf, M .. cJ LA C] s n Ct;X_ ai a_ a C d + R +V G�fi Vi a C. y rfi O cn y a5 4 '•-' v f', bA ,:, _0. d O , O i ;n aY 7 a' O OD '4 ., Cz] C a p W <U c �•- aLi W y CL a cuC -'n :.0 v ca a a s a;7zs <U baa Q o y Q c c c ti _ aro J O N `' ri ,n }' �` GOJ O acu sem, :n O C d4 aJ �' a3 'N a +_, y a .Q C O Cl. O "ro i ^C a tG 40 .--� y-, m41 N U ?� O� G L V] u Y Qr/�j 4"i a a QL.1 G ° SC Li y y 9� �, •,an � a p C p C V U p ',ua G O y [-. y C ty. -bDILJ C .� a O U L J Zq1 y C$ CLJ a s c n o ? E d o 3 a a? 7 w y ay LE: C v, O 9 Q) a� C= G O rn 3 Ca O cC C, 'u LC s., '� p Ln V tLa 71- o U° C C a y y K O O .� a + L +' a 7 •a �' bio'yA 71-u J .o CL .`n rz a v 3 •� W 3" o v o o c ¢ ° c y ay' 41 •" v c f j w , Ln y at i u CA C CU V R L' � C C v r O t.: C C GJ C O V7 ? tLr, C •«^ tl1 U mas a W 4,> 7, C G y `� o C.' O m Q6 u O U fi a ay C. ra a N „) aJ C W C y is a! �:, �' + C 60 �" U •' R " O i+ C C,J a> 0 y 'C a� ;/j ra JJ U U U V C 4.A C C± m Q L p M UJ y i O sa_. a! '� ice. =a p o L w d w d ro L W f is 3 E °3 • • n V • • • • • • F- b E� d a Q 3 rm 'e7 �, -j • S¢r(o n � n FD G m O n n z fr d rrDD `G CL o sa n � nH cn rG m M Ln CL y. fD G n c CL O (D rD CL m m rGr O ro rnD ¢ O ¢ T to m. 7 7 � G 'c7 O Al 4L R L c'sD Ln O s�i rho ^ r¢o rD vi LnrD m 2 m R7 OR rD U y n tl O R Z CRD 67 rip rb D 'O fii � rp .. .y �• rD cmn � M ¢ JQ ¢ UP oa rn o 0 C7 C O n 1 y OW m G O UQ 5- n rL m y m w x R R7 tA rt o n � p fn' O R7 m rr a o � 0 0 C n w ,4 aj - w 9 rn w m ,�- C7 'O r7 �' n 'G L4 G n CA `-t CL n CD — A. O. O O W ti a O ct� L'I G o �. n O ¢ v: 7 C rnr �' r, CD m rr G R G n� j" uGa — Oa -0 4 � O O y 0 o rrr n o O rr ' p• p O n � aq � '^-'�. CCD m Ln EGD Q O 'm's O d 'ms � c co `CS � ¢ y � C. n a �' � (D .'3 Ci w -y- rn 47 �, a r") rD 7q rt G G ¢ ,O O r+ r•' r -r cn m 7 n CD m �-, rD m m¢ O p rr - m wW C 'G w O- M C �_ 7� O O 7 N .S m r-' m CD O N m pQ G 07 Uq O rC [@ nr• SG n `C rrDO w G m CD G m O rD Al P m 9 m G, CD CL �.O� O ¢ 7 NP rr f° N r rD C n -S w W a 0 ro? r G �. m a G ro M 7 t5 •° m o n� ¢V) �+ ' y O a C Cn n fD m m tirn a G C 7 y G Or G k 9 _ v rp ro C ^s w rnr —'� CT)w g o rT �_ �. n m "p `n- rOr CL w m a OG a w r0•r ¢ «D, W n z¢¢ cn mrD a w a y d o y ^o o n o (p `. y n "O [n a 't7 C: ¢' ^? p m r -r m 0 N Nm a H O ¢ y G m rD m 0 O O rD A Q.. C. R 7 Iz Ln — n a:r¢o UG M n G s rnr m CA y' 0 rD n 0' m rr O ,CL aCD a y b� [C m N rr a O a; LA N v CD 21 CD ani n n � a tp r"^r `G'' m �- n m ^ C. w 1 p CD � CO "�' '�' r•r ¢. C r -r N n p, ¢ 2 `s ¢ a r•r eD rc rJ 7 CD r`Yn G Gmn � CD Q h ro ro o nCDi rT6 R m wii o n a a rp 's rho -y . CD -"n °— a• 0 n '�- c O G (b rOr, fl. 'a rOr 00 r b n w m ov 7 T m r' ¢ fl m fD o z a. G' n a W �' 7 a, m 67 ¢ rp m Q rD G 0 CD " N 67 �. M y o o m a aro W 'b c y t3. n o IA -` ° O m m ry7q .o y r .�,j to G ... C to '� 7r C. — y rD m m n r* O cn On Z O D .Q N CC rn 'C d 6 to m 0 CD O Cp 3]. b A¢ ... y �- '-' C G O Cn R1 'a '• ^ ¢ 'G W 'C'f C py ° ¢ ^G 47G Q sn I "s o � r.0 r�r C m a rr m C O ni m o. Vn m m ,-, r'Or C y zi R O CA � � m o tl W m O o m tCD c; CL ¢ O G Q. Grt ¢ O p m C CSD CD ri M O 'e7 �, -j • S¢r(o n � n FD G m O n n z fr d rrDD `G CL o sa n � nH cn rG m M Ln CL y. fD G n c CL O (D rD CL m m rGr O ro rnD ¢ O ¢ T to m. 7 7 � G 'c7 O Al 4L R L c'sD Ln O s�i rho ^ r¢o rD vi LnrD m 2 m R7 OR rD U y n tl O R Z CRD 67 rip rb D 'O fii � rp .. .y �• rD cmn � M ¢ JQ ¢ UP oa rn o 0 C7 C O n 1 y OW m G O UQ 5- n rL m y m w x R R7 tA rt o n � p fn' O R7 m rr a o � 0 0 E E C m U 00 y G y r � o .. O t Q Q; 45 4 O y U C v7 `7 .Fj � .0 ❑ N v y a y C 3 y L c o L u a L O rC w a.a C75�Y G G •cr+ GV y 0. '� O C a ro n i p iC V U L> U U 3 !b n 'G [V N ri U i cn C •� aai y .� O �" ... �, ay O .� ca Ln 'G i � � �p'''y cu '?? u u O O p c/] aj c4 7 JS d r Q V3 n G Q 61fu 4 S "a y � G � � 0. O C O �_ �❑ C O � u 0 U� G ° 47 V L a L.41 U ro a, ro v Q C a M O CO p 0 y y W y s.. C "G •� G G C d i b y -u .O LO rl to 7 c p^ v i ao a y i U G rl in C w Q .� GO G aCj U � .� wcu — v A> CJ 4 41 u u G G O. a' .G o wV1 •G mQ Jy+ �+ y 6 y 2 G .r. W L5 71- G r,3 y m rG L '� '� cya O ro u n y 'U O ,��-.. vui p C 7 v L r� L i%" Q1 N 0. ❑�--! 61 Y N G _� r. Y 3 O U��"i ." v G 9 O a 40 D 3 ro ❑ G �; � o� 4. � 4� � tn kr .3 N O S [] ra � vCi rC O •Stl p' s. 0. •� � G .= v G � rC cC a yCTI v; O Lo y � N YC y U O •� T CoCD V +� p tL6 y > Q, O 7, � Q � .--. U v7 a i a •y, 'JJ V9 4! G r � O 'C '.0 O v, ❑ G � G ro y y y ii u r ❑ U 'n om qj O G U � Q E- .� • • • • � 0. CC Y V Z C1 Li. L y �. Y y co L W w O V1 v JVI� m u La Li y Y a +� �"' - ro p a in y r"aCz n p m V) G rx CS c > a Ga a 'Z4 J.J .y '^� GQ Y [A L ro❑ m 7J O 'CJ y Ln G •y 7 G H C6 C CS Q a�'.r C L C y ,0 m. @ :5 C-. a Y N Y p vi p Z t� r6 L L u py a y v ro �y L4 CS O O L O y O C C) rG v u G m w `Y° G ro u G O m hp u cu ai 41 Is r-° 3 O'+^ Q. LO' y U G y CU Ll y _ O i L❑, O V 'G Y � V .y rV6 F-' V �. Yn O L' C U r U 7 'G ro u W ry O L cn � G a Q y o .> L v ro .� 0. N f Q, V vy7 L y i.W di Y UJ ] tri Y CU a O ` Crk G V, r v Q e�-. G Q ,O0., baD p•, ^ n O ❑ Gfi .imp. r�6 y CLJC v C A :i C Y o :h r r y S% v� t7. O Y C L C 'a '� y y Ccz Ca � ',:, 4 O D n o J a �. 4 r- L aror v. '� CLamV. 'p: CU U N L CL L .� y r+ ❑ L J 2 f ro •:1 y y Sl d L, �" Vl y C cm rx u ❑ C r = pq .+ .a .❑ v Q. y Y a rtl O O° C C G E- 5 .r p .L V � J w � m u 6 C O u Y a O [s u + M Ln= ° r, C v@ CO - m ro y m U '° ¢ 'C v Q o 7 rC `� Ca 4a 0. V) vi u y ro 9J V) y y r y C U 7: .�'' C E: N u O y C s. J L co y A w OU N ¢' i LG r U ai i V) 'y� ,p+ y •q 'b 'CS y vni EL G .g .A ra 'r. C """-' 3 O y p v, .,'� y -0 4) tOr. tCS ,> .m aCi - }' .� C) C as v sn E-^ -C ro G r6 C C 0 G G.� y. C ^tl G CA .G 'C c�tl ami cCn i �' i O ru3 G L C .� o O zx 3 'y. cv. L !� 'G 1J �+ ,yi, y O j 'O 7J Y L n y G" O C U aj r U y C �+ L U tOC G y' U C {4 V _ fC iR L 0 C9 fG tC i L'fl O_ . G '� G' •� r� U y H O U O tiG q ic4 fn CU C y a tta n .' a as E 3 Y V U .� tq GN N t. Yv, C v O H L 0. L rr, v'n U jay QJ L, 4-1 � i Cl C) .� U �' Q1di dA f4 O 'y ,ZU O G V G Q .�= G cn y Ucz L aJ Q' CU cn W Cj O C' cv u p s,.. [G IR O E L_ a Z Q1 S1. p, ^ 'cu m ❑ y U G G � ai fl,M m v c., ° G rC 'c Vi n. ❑ y +-' �- v "C d' G c C�fi ro � a W CE CV i CN Y Ll. y ,Vi CV Cn „y }} +.+ v, O V C N V,C G N O C V Y v, . N v �j a�'� �; g, w O k4 ❑ tn tC L O '6 u ai Qyi 5❑. Q7J rye G aroi � ` C o O '❑ zi Cy 4Ci p y Cqi .,y., L �' 'B O 'qj G .B '^ ate+ ti C ai C C O tyii C ro V, to C Q d C C Q C .N O O y o G E CLL. a � u vC k o C U u a SO O C CU i yrli "' � O❑ �1 4i L � E- `.L G cu C y � - � v F' - LM � V} i 3 • • • • Z � CC �. 3 sr, CG � ..° � Y � E c _r p bo 7 C w u C o a w V � O v d Q w rA � cq T vz ,'C � D n a 3 3 (D Q n .A .P w na x a EA' It 0 V7 n � y y. CL M • • • • 9S o I w Z� G cr D Vn -Cs r ccS^ no m m o �C rt Q `i' o = d CD 0 b, n r? — T rp f° a aro cn rD C� = C ^ " n a o v m C G °' y M O G = n °' -`°s CCD C p (D W rD _ '� n ❑ D' C n W ., rp �' CD V7 D w "" :A ,� D• 'S3 ro O ^, rD p- •y,, -r O t9 C_. y " vf*, C � n m T7 `r ro C rD � � ff4� fo � O � � � � � C 'C w a LS. D rD n C D s ro C CD -t rD C CD ' ryY R r74 S17 0 �• .,. (D '3 rY c O fl. rD a ro r•'T '.� .ri D,� '.^' rt y D C .�+ O rD Crl p ii 27 Oi 7 rt O 5 ` D D CS rT rD OG ,Y y W N O - 7d 4� f9 y n rti W rt . oo G As '� rt ry-'. rt fn• rD o o ro G ora' o W rD cL cnn rD as N a' rD w O n Q. R n `C n �. y O rD p W rV,-r - - n -1 rD ro OR rt � a' .y to r CS � rt rD , �a ❑ rr ryr, n y n rt v fl. W 1y o m C O y Gr rD r% ,� a 9> S n m rRD O rD G G' rD .Z D .r Q' ,� ^ rrD•r 'd El w w N ... m oEl p 23i R rr a y= o => R n a z 3 o c c �4rt1 UQ r6 to `�'. C r C' 0 CD `C G y rY O C' CD ryr y. O O. G. Ot U rD w rCD rn• d" -1 .n -r QG rCr '.7- r•r R m C Gz n y et b b3 CA '6 C rt. W V, D z ❑. Jcy arti rD O w r¢D .. C rD m r�D o " m ti x cn ro r. C� 0. D A w a o ry < O `C til m ... rt m ^+, .'.i iD rt y. y' y 'b M. `•r V Oy q F a7 t]. CO rS, FVi.. _ `C y G p `� sy m rD rn R (D r0 21 r7r r�•r rp O 'a ry-' "^ r•r d v5" ?D O rJ4 Co tRb e••F n rn W o v C ra D D c ? ro rD 6 D ..� ro3 CD ry N 0 �• ^cs- �_ 2 ryn o �. � = o m^ = -� rt G_'b CL) �' 21 9' wR v0, m a- vii a o f6 CrD co m fTs a °' roo T Asr ¢ a o p 7 -v o c ro 0 C' ro i+ rD .-r rT R. N p a' S' ?� Q rr iC .} D n- ' rt C O •+ Ort fD ? ' a R, M n p y '•C c rD p rD y M C, rr ,3 �'. rp n ra rn D rr rD .= C D n :n rp- ri Q y T n `=C rx7 v n r�-r D ,� C p. �. ,rts :.*. ,9 O. v fl' ert"9• 0. C n7 „�,� n• , an rD rD cam . -- C- r C A] r C ryD n. ro, C R m r- 'D a .fl R p vo G /4 n V) M = �" rt G rD v' C rD O a- N n) r' �' -% - O C a. `y' G R. rnD C r6 O rb M R rpt v d 74 ,rD r^.* r* G 'Oi r~A �,syr tD rr9•t ry5 IV .i O n '6 A7 M C y D rC ni '� N rD — y CL rD < A; D p O �{ K n ..r n �' rr'D 0'4 o o• rt '� 'G F tb�s p n iD T@ ur rD n H ^RO cn fl. �. 6 a G C C prDy �. [I] h c Pt N r, ,••' D W C L, Or �, a rb p fl.. `C rD C n rD �' D y �. 2 v R ;�• rt Q. .-s Q. O D Q a 'C R rip yy rp tn CL CD � 4C W a- � 7 v iF C. A7 m n _ n -s o rD < o °° uq roLA G G rD v: m. ^ o' y Art D �. O rD - O UQ y °' „�2 a �' 67 A> ❑ p O a p y :° Y r r n C rD Q°• rU O n, m ro C �• p CD I'Do 'b p vc .� a v C n CD ..7 O 'D D m G r0.p n o rt y w �W m n yr w°' rD'b s m rt.v o r0.D ao r" rp fl., o- C c =. rCt O �2 ry0 r9 K tD ~ a7 rt G CCD "x0 "G M. fL O S1 OR wC7 r,P n y �" a n Al W O D �_ rt n• O C p u O - 7 rD , a- rD O -� C rt C rr n A7 6 I'D C) `9 'O "Jrr 'JrQ `✓1' O rb e i• �. 'C D- r➢ G- rt rp C rD G CDO r�o D rnn[cD a y_ [ ❑ ro rt Y R ,� `D -' x n rn nVrD Z ___ D Cc n n M R Fl rT y n ''* S vi �. CD rD A7 C .'r In CL 0� C > = n 07 --m-� � U, p C < p n'� ^*. ',s' a 'Q ryo C n = �- O'Q n: O c O ~ A. = 'G A7 -• p ¢ rD n@ rt C S 'li 0.7 ry' N 9 S , tD .ps- rD 7 .ras- •� �*. D D� rt rn N O S O A7 M rA O^ O y -t � v yrD rt O O rD _s, vpi �. `� D n Z m'p' Jnr ,9 [i7 C --11 C y n n G O sn C= C c 7q p 00 O .� Cr+ ¢ y rn S O 0.0 6 n C A Q f6 'Ocr t'C m w M 2 r'3 �" N V: II. � W V] rte-' _. �" y R' R ro m — �+ rD `� ro. _rD o 0. e -t d rt O C qq W 'i D C- r•r R n. m rD CL} rJq _ tD p UQ y rT C A7 n '3 ryr n rD C7 C rt D rnr r rD CL rG n'D C n C Q' Ai C 7' r^p O ::F'' '9 n rD UQ < 0.S 0a y PD rp O -t .-r; C rnD r° .. C D W A7 A> Q. `*• n v n Q A- p' rw^•r- s.7 CD A7 y C- rD �. p N O 7 CCD cu W On n C m C r/+ n p D w M eGt W Q rD CL y m = c^ 'YCA ry "d C rD o W rD n m n C~ n � y rD tD AD 2 D rT n O. O A7 'O vi a R p y ^ , O G p D ID CD -y.• .rt. n ra '3• n ,rt rp-r CD r�-r 67 y rD fl- Q.. = ro , N C. w O n7 w p C t3 p rD p fl Y R a N D pr C n O r*CD pq 0y r�D O r�D C n' D M n -C, r<9 0�. n R O Art? rm > y Or u rD rD D rt C 7 G 0 Qi - 2 Mr'D rD a n rnr p y y' n y O G CL d C G O R ❑. rrt9 {C R O net rp a n rt C 2 a L?- 5: ro Gr n¢ n p y n o D C rD m :3- w 6Y E. C C cr G pyi rn C o m -n O rD K C Q 'e3 f -D a' fG p 3 O CD E:L 3 O ^. d QDQ y C 0 4 M CL rt a O n 6 D rnr O Q n n f•) R rD O r9 O C A7 OQ rD W rD C M7 Q. O. r(D-r rD rp v CD "d < 6 .7 2 fly C 7 rr CD y 6 p 9 p rte' rD rfl y rCD 16 C9rCy �. OR y O co�+ G y A- vni n 'a A_ < M r+ -S R n A] c OrL O O' rr rt 6. •" to ti ^ fD v A7 'a N CD r!i rt rD '� rnp O Z M n rpvii 'O Oq a 7 .g rr rD n CD V' n N N C n C. rrtp C T o (D ^ [D _ ^ y 'Y ry-' D D rr a. C Gr ,��. C' n co yrD - a y 74 rcnD 'yr c a 0- W. O D O rD r<D wry+ R y o Im 'Q c '-' '-' 'I ^ O �, SSD pTCq o = n - rrD rD G y aQ rL rn D o 2 G-44 v rn cn y '6 '� 6i 7 rD rD -1y rn-r rD' d -+, D rn y A7•c C m rr p M ro `C tb r, _ Co rb ,n -r _ L; O rDW w A7 Cl A 0 rD O O tD rb O D C n rt C) a m. rD rD Qv- �. rD V) CD no O CD cr G Q Al R o C t7 �. " ntm C o w rfD rnr rOr o b ETQ cA n a 3 3 (D Q n E N .4 m CL u u m cu d :nn C O U 7 ID C rs C2. y G v t� G c4 D C. F -t .3 a C 1-7 71- :3 C Cz] a •e°ro yC CW C V C 0bjD O C C a � � •B Ga p W y G aJ 7� f6 ri ?� L > y ` CO +' `n c C ytz C M L C a 3 0 o G G >� N G 75_ v c a fl > L aWi y C D➢� U > .r L f6 L V)a ai C 'C •U ' R vCu y y� or x CLi iL y Y F" y •� V y Lc a � C > L > d V) = L 4. y CL i L W +� W y al 'D 75 Y DL aS � L c ,- bh c -0 7o y c�i � U_ c'S CC L: U_ Q) � VI m 5 > 226 ¢ o x C •g y Gf7 m p "D ca O •u az C V W to ra C r - > i O > Y L y D E m V C CZ aWi euo s LM Q '77 -a b0 N C cc; i7 OW. '� C V �"' C 4-1 L" C W W u � Jr-• "C' L N C L4 6B CL W '� o ^� z O a cu p ¢7 > O Cx7 C Q a>i > o U o m > y _ WLr: L Gi. y .vy > C '� w a 'ia L' •� O � � .V � U y r C a 0. 'l, X7.7 'tS 0. d r, y a, a CU p v; i !n G , - C al ❑ O v a 5 > O C y *' y L-0 y° o G W 'G bq •— a � v � i y L cVi7 z y0 M � y y -_ � o� Cqj C o W as is Lq p � L VL y V L CS] CL; vn r'v C AG C co y G? W C v W V, AG V C _ > ❑ a U = D Q W y � � Y > [6 N o z o "� m Y CL. W c V5 C > a N L O W > .mLi _ cz U SC Y i ' W U W L+ ry ;y Y L W G S. r !]G V O J aJ V, y i as i a'' 3 C cu G 6 U O 0. G� W �u V U Y .0 y {Wjl Q S/7 oD c cu N G C [Cc jj) L C � i G 0 .N -i W .0 " 44 -Y -O d C G W D G C M G U i[ > t D Q CC U L W M R CL }G p• Y W tx Y p• y W > N � Q @ C O G O W V -C y v; i Q. O ro G V Ll v c L C U _ � 'Y o A 3 0 G +>+ a7 G � L s y y Y is ?j C O W M O W C iC y O C y y �+ ;9 > C Q C C 0. •� O O C V c" L vi 4) y� C _ ❑ N U p y � •` O G O S4 L � L ?} a5 7 W [4 cn G V7} >"u C v) G] C 4 O W ¢ y1 L V7 'p ?� L Ct1 7� � C' C vim^, G rtl O L C O � •+, C y M. vW y z C U {Q G W r W k6 � G =° O G V L Y > Ci J SC > Lp s o Q 3 c-- 45- 0. � c U U U O O m -^ e> > < A b y �rb Z D O yd a D n I M01� y ti cD n m a y rD n rn m y b 3 rn 7 CS. rD m 3 CD 6 T rD G q cm � c ° p w 9Q ca � n v o Q Da w H C d a N" • • • • * Q v a ° m m a• m M l _ q fD p a d rD n m o CD :3 Q ^r r•r a r m Oq"n y 'ri rD `C n � O W -s `� R �, Cr: �. a' ::3 n R a p rD n 2n CD n O g w n m m O_ n n" FD rn n ov 2 c 3. '� _� 't5 �• C N l n W ^. O. La 7 q n Q- ^'. :. b• �_ n C ;.,D, O D a n0 Sa. R CD O � O� rip rrtD = C `Y [A < O W C ❑ rmp m M Z C r'rDD q 'R' }S- n 7�- (DA rD �. f6 o m aLn AS tL 4l X q ro rt C 67 Q. in m f'S C [� rty n n m t7 ?. o w w ch a rD w m❑ w n z V) oa i -3 n tn CL CL -»CL �. n '� �j m =�' m R It m q :? -O•n rp O a n qap in r•r a G rD r�r n C c ro En ro < cn ro Z g. a y— a � N v' rD rD b n r 9 O n t'D 'q cn fD cu r'* �r ''�. E ^ rt rn ° w m° cn' q y° rt CD fDG = O DCD ❑ ¢ �� G 'LA'S y Gn rD sOi, O o. - 'X" O A. w. R 'G ro ¢. "O n rr. M rD o ° o R .. rRD =- < v. o a a fb 7D w 'O X CD ^n_' W O p; rD ro _n rD O y D O' ro `tS •'C] � p CL .Q 'C ^ w GAS Q n `� _' v, 'a ft Jnr a m rD z `O ["7n CZD qt Cron n n t/1 q. OD > of O .r rt rt rqr (n9 w w T rD rD q Cro n C. 7 O R a C O = rt ro rn •o rt M r• L� 'T3 fn rt ^ -i a m r -h O q ❑. P C �m7 q � F- ^n -s m C M r�D -,. rqr 0 Q ro rD • ,� vii cC rr ro ,C7 q n •� v rG•r w G '� G1 . R CDO '_* � ^ Dm m MW O rDrDCM O r� a rti m CL M o" r°,' tm ti o C D ro C D O ``� rD a ' 'C'7 O ❑. rD rt �. .fl to G m p M 9a rrb 7aC ?� •n per- mC q M m c. -ti q 'r `� O � y C Q- ' ui .,, V. w ? P n x .Gy rD S C r9 n' n. M m = of o C A> O ti O rD 7 A- O •• v, n fA rD CD R rD a ro o w rb ° •a y x aroi oc ° r ?. ?' n M CL G °• Z y v: A7 rt r O rD r�r m C O w q r'TD O of `C '6 ["7 q C rr vrti O Q. y w ° @ c ara G a' rrDD rr) a '"*. C b R :0m 0� ..1 ',Q'. n •A rar O `� rD to 'C7 q ^t t --'n 0.7 rD r•r w -y rTD rT ; -oma' a �-� 7 s �Q Ln n� "CSEn -- a rD to rn ti V� rD q m ro � 0 n � rD C4 G C n O v cn n ro CD C C m CD r7r m {n N m Qi y y 'Q cr ro 6 "S � y .r1• .� a •C n rD M m T x � a a lu ze% U n m o ro ro _m a n nm a m a y a ro o- m ID CA •a v G r K rt fDrt r m=7 -n W O ti r co •A O U U U O O m -^ c m < A b y can _ O I M01� y ti cD n r y rD n rn m y ryr rn 7 CS. rD CD 6 T rD G q cm mxs ° p w 9Q ca � n v m Q Da w H C a N" n O rt n n rt m rD m rt ° m m a• m q rn ^r r•r a r ,nT.. Oq"n y q v CDa) � q 'Y n w rD 1m rip rrtD = C `Y fD < O W C ❑ rmp m C. AS tL 4l X q ro rt C 67 c En -, m o rD n z V) oa i -3 n o CL �j m It O aj mO O CD y— a a � ro rD b rn m r2D m p ^ rt rn ° w DCD ❑ ¢ �� G O = CD FL 2 � m � o rD a m = ro rn •o w ¢ o ° - ❑. ¢ 0 m M mtn . Ln '0 O 0 rt C/1 O vi rn m -i m m n rn 7 CD :3. rD P, C p o L, O m o N y cLi du c � C c m n C .a ❑ i v i V) un G Vy i-iC J7 U V) VI :h L U V) _ 2:1 21 CL p w � 0. L CL OD f9 f4 O czrzl ou `n G as G tz _ ❑ rc d d ❑ y r L Q bA � V] � "G w V) p C cu aJ y CL O CL ❑ O c c c G CL O O m C y 4 v V) nQ A - C cn71 O O a) S], : C cu i a� O ar vi w y aj L C L L cu v y m ❑ C y c a� ai O C y C C } •� vs c� O n C y Vn ,? C O? a) y �, r-' J 'vj u L vs Z3 O H .L-zn EL N zu � DD Ln x a IU W z° c.❑j c¢ E t° � = ar C a y i C tic C O❑ V < .2 Q GC i7 ['Jj ' O N r} (U _� 'C6 C h�9 '� �y d ti C 'O y '6 Y aJ �:+ > Ln cn r [G ✓, V v C '"' C u C �_ ,,� d O rtl sn t C .A Ll b.0 '� ❑ y 7, O O CL '�'' .D .� �>, ."" "7 Din �, r7 O C CIS C ' rG C> £ c '6 .❑ v u w cm U U y v VI to cu {'3 L] C 'fi r ''a L � y .L � � u � O � 'y.„' � �, � ❑ 0. �' � as �, p c� �' ❑ .. cG a .� ar rCC a� ❑ as O C G " V) u r N C C 4^. C V 7 CA > y d C i, No a-+ 0 O 'i p" V] } L aS P (.� y0•, % O. 71 '� 4J y0,, X aJ C ❑ � y C5 �' _N •� -i ❑ a1 a -- i/1 r--+ V] } Vj CM y `� _U _ (Q ?? U C �, L ❑ �' V tii > V�.�... 1-. [6 ^C W V M m .n V1L '� '•' r Cp y 7 ".0 r M aJ •+4 C (f .� } VI U C7 aJ ❑ Y fi. F. ❑ L U U L i.` ._ SQ 'C' m C y V) U CC cu a m y 4. C L G C C '6 C 7J •� �•.f G) >+ �.+ Y m '^,yj C [L G V L¢ N +; ,c� o :•J o C �" va '❑ C G ✓% O :v '.0 G 0 a in m >, •Z .y s a M ri i a v a ,, +� a y u 7 •� a a1 r O aJ � W)W '❑ m W 3 c n ❑ y SC-, cu } ❑ Vy `' '✓ �--C 'cu •.C. V v, +-' w "C' Vi as y C r L w C O y C C m mti0 L C o C. 4' V) arCc y Chi °'• 4, [ j a} V aJ 'U iU aniis m C o o 0 se " v �' j oca d i ay, c .� > n o' c nn u a, a w w w ami O sn rCa A 0.6 cn ami C C v y GL L n3 Ln ❑i Ln V •� ¢ O. S4 X C C y cCi N U y U rs m V) y i. ¢, O C QD >, a, ❑ {� U a! L L" ao Gq =r V O % +�' x y O m a s y .? v c an m a, cn o X =. a Cl vyi a o a.l u a> V ' L C y ai C i ur O a� c Q ai CL) ,,,_, u d •C y c m 0. ;� L E cC a, O R> C y C en ar t0 rUG v u@ O r 4 v y y i y 3 O m ' a is ❑ 'O "y c Q L V; U.S o o CU _. ,� u_bz r .- ~' `� bA •� =,o ❑ ❑L yGL4 '��'��-' = M v V L a .^ = Lv, T v WC +O byA 0.Oa t6 i' > 'J a SC y bn ..,y ❑ •�O 4J ¢,G u^� O rOCi Lnc._ i O L C cu P. Q? CO O �U a U [G M M to C. y y , + '.S ', y '"' ❑0 O � m.❑ 0 y vi V3 y Ld aJ O y -u h,J, ¢' y >LO g. ❑ v CL C f�C p .y ❑. y > cz 3 a 3 .❑ ra y G n o >: v; v£i vt •� fC6 y O 'n as O Qi :n �_ .� C •y C6 ❑, C) O l]G rC U y �- 7] i O ,� rC Ql + O y>'i O .� y RS J ['7. L fG U u❑ - Sa .� '❑ y .O 7 _� ❑ C IOZCL "W C s i. aJ � a3 V Zr ? U L' y r' U d' rC y E n al C C y Q� aj } C cUC ,m �, yp O K b L v y y v y :� Q �W .O 'C ~C 43 C to Y i a� u ❑ ❑ Q O O p, i aa, +-+ U OB .� w O v. y O ri i 'i+ �' .N M, C U _� U C O L L C Q C p CL cn C C n r4 d16 n V 'C cC v7 0 y L} u u cy . C a C C 7 CO aha 4 U 'ice ❑ .i. O 47 C O p V d a, r' .� y ❑ '-' G O 5-' y °n p- _�' >, w CE 7G H 0 o v c o' +' 3 0 o° c� y ay ro C O "G C i ¢Ci v O 'n v U N C b!7 } W a� O a� ^• .�' .� L 'z• .'� oaD D y ❑ L C i y 0. .rr. b,r O iy, _� as i 4 i n ca C O � c�.i 4'i CA L '-�' .> d ❑ j-=� m .n C > � to . C +� U C � O c `� a' �^ C � •} � =, `a •> ''Z-' V5 .'w E :� 'B P. � .0 •> ..O til 0y v -= a `� �' a E ^. cu y ay �C y y �, tC as v, U a, y L - CU >❑ y 'CS O :J X65 U G 7 'G al U c cr: [� C. f� a cn L r� a, =� a a :n F- o F- M n. S.C. F- 0, F- s c° F- n .T.' x C ° .= a '� m c E _m a c >- O 'y c 3 c w E a O � U N v Q a Q w Z v c o vii D V, z V m D D a z n 1 O m 3 rA � c c � 3 rG `C n •� m rnr• N m (D rD W 0 rD rS (D Oa ` .'"T- n o L' p a O Ate. '� In -3 "1 1 O w Q O y S C !CD ti O STS Ln N a ID ^� n 9 V) �. 5 c' O' O ryr Q < CD S G D o rr C Q. Ll E^.. p C R V] C � 4 'T� � `� ro � C 'S 'z S �7 'roi ': ? � � n'6 'r � � X n 'T y � _n � _ � � m -0 r cr e9 1T VS -rti n G TS �° '-' ro aCo O v: Uq `C C `C tic V, [� (D o u5 ,'� ,Y °' Q' ... G rD (CD a (p rD fU ,�. [L (D � rp .z S lD v y .n 4 ,_,� W 0 rt w rP 0 �. p4 �: _� y � � m S ° rr * o c rD o a o e n -aa p -] o o ¢CL rD x -� ° cn D o o U ro rD C `C . C O rD (D O ❑. 03 O S rr ffQ G S O 7 CD 3 ro '+ or CD =rS G [o rt cro tc rOr rD @ Ort C. "� p O C w y rD :n (A of O O p n O `C [O'7 m �� `C '= C .O rD O rD ro m Ln m S C Q. wr~D o rt ro 'O w r' C O M d rrCr N (D y r' p� V7 v "I req D ou �.' ry 7 n G n _ (D n* 4Q p rr r. rD r, Z rD rD -s ¢- 'T (D O y `C S rt rt rt rD CD � A C7 C a• rnr• Da. (D D rwY O_ rn 4 rD rD rT '� C OCt (C a tn Rr Q i •�+ (D ti S tL rL y 7C w rr tD O y O 'Jo 0 Q � C rA7•* (D rte-' N ° rD CrtC S ro y � � C S C; rr rh -n ^'t a ro ro 'a ro (DD ¢, CS~i _Y o ro C ro ?� wo.. v� `Y �< VQ ,-3 M rC N ID �, O ^s tSo S a is CL CD < 'D rD `Y p w ¢.CA Q y O. 'Tof 9 (�/1 °� sn rc 0 � `� � � ¢- � n '� y V) w ro a rD r+ w W w S S .� ,�.s = -i `C rD @ ',� C 'i C ^ O M ffQ O < Q. G. rD D:• 'Q N ry � 67 a "= V! rD 'C3 y rP 'S `Y r. , C 2 rD C va n � jn y, ¢, r.> .n '27 p q y 4. O OdarD 4 z (D G 1-n LA y ~ 'G .:1 ^ni m w N `C cD _x epi. _ G N a ° (RD W CA m � C ro � +� '� ro A G � �' rt v � rD r�5 'Ci � O `7 =• b y '6 2 d � Ui r �. y 7 T3 rD C. rw-r n z rD n, y' n '. = R "�p,7 r6 tD r`DD -1 '6 b rClr rn '�7 a (6 7 aQ (rtD b g y' o g w° o w o o°'q aro `° (A n m S R orq @ G. rt O O !A C S rr rr C rrD rV•r = j' r0 Cn " rD rD2 O L] AO aS S rD CT rD (D '^ m tro m r4D y C p C ro o , m o o y w cn m m a rrlLroo y(D U m n a m E o C G 4q v n. rD — to -V G y. C p- 7S rS� C 'r O O '6 v� -G+• CD ro 0 Z-0 '� V1 rSp -1 {�D C' a s `< ro rt .C -r a7_ 0 C 6 p Ml:L CD 0, rt 0 y O a --'o ¢ rD W CD n° ,..� 0 �• rt a CD LA _ n a' in O t�7 = a m .0 �• ro �• C `C `C �s m rJc, ,Y L� ., ,* .� a w a. o' rroD �' c S m m '� as o 7 S A- aG ID R rr ° G C :n ^s S 'c3 a" o ,Y rt °rho y ¢ O M .0 n C CL Q, rnr• 'a �" N ro n '4 (D CL S n O-' r:L (CD ro N °S C �'. n `C � C C ri rD Q;' rD O tJ ro (D rDrD L)CD S C �. n p P. c< AS, >cyn a w rC.1. 7 on llc� M UQ M rt rj v~roi. L' � n -s rD v S W -1 ro 'Y d S G rD r* O S 6a w a C M. rc w w -s n S Q- �r ,rof. y O~ d .yy ° fn N G- ro N m p ro r�-r r}o �- Q- N ((2) �" M rt O rron L c O m w a n a rCr ro m n n a cCo 4 x cr i m O' .a m w rD ,� '1 rD r, ro -+s 9'q .O (D C 40 U, C, '1 [� Q y 7 ro .fl (DD Q. G {SD 'a ry N 'O rr. O ,r ." : ?L Cn G n. rt ro Q ro y y a ;P v', O S -, < b w C C t7 rL S y C a. r�-r rt L> ro 0- '_` r�D �' ,O M '' m 'G rrtr `° '� rD n y rr y O r+ T rD o g m r' V rD Ll m .::r, '1 0 =r a ro T ^T- a= rt ^Gt O^ et G (n �s C p S I.a E M 'Y cl. to rD '6 7 C O yn n UG OG G. rG rD `� W rD ro v, rr Q. 4 a. "3 (D ("D n. a O �, -, LA_ O C rr G rt= r5 rt m R r n -C.c 'a CD 'n_ ^z' v: `< ,Y a �' y N N rt ,.,r n• °° rD W a Dy] r%' `a O ro H @ (D O• r; rD 5 o w d r'Yp rD 4q R S o C =' Y C CD O� S S rn n y o�0 rt w 70a m O y n a 7 mO. ro0 ¢. j 7' rD rD (nD m ey-r LA 0 � � � v rD w 97 O =� = [C 7Q =y ❑ q y 67 to Q L� rr �' 'b ro w TJ F5R '�' e_-. G x �+ ro (-DUD .�. n G O o' rG y w - _ a a U, Q° � C CSD w t° G" N V. V r- ?. O Vl ro � eb Cr'i eeD CD 0 p MG ti. y P rD 9 rG UG m A C ID C y w y n ra n C W a CL � :E MO ul; _o O•' G ro p G m v❑ y o w� n, `*. ❑ �n c rt c �� w ro�_ = rD y rwn V : rr (D ❑. C (D .� .7 '� (D y "i '.� rD i7 rt `/i w I'Da n� mfD m r, n rD y r- CL ., fly c➢ 'S �. 67 N y 'b y M v CD M (D r9 QO C G 61 N O rD w RrL N " (CD (DrD C 'Y n o rD a - o Q* i n: ' m a- - �y w n o _a. ° a ro m w ro w rD mx(DCD"0 aq .0 -. o CAtD t rD C 1 ni z a rD � yeD ss�, w(AaC (D p rD C rD Q^y m 'a (D G CL rD w C tnD ro m rD ro CL =S' (SD L1 U rt , rD rD 0.7 e4 � O. VL fD rterb* a O ro 'a ro a s ur 7 � 's 'fl n rr Q rD rDO (D N n C!5 0 w o (D S ft Q (D w y m ro m rnD aia m >CD �' w p rT FD tl. rip wro .� CSD F [D (D rD �'- ° m < p '� Ort rnD N w R. p rp rr w Q rD 0 0 x7 m V7 C C n -0 :3 C rD n O "3 m n 0 c v 0 r U 0. U G a u �s u '7 C C � Q 6 i Si O -r C) a C Y ynf a -o o u _ °� � r" a a ° Q a 6 y a o M :1 'b CL •-•• U zz) s-' r.3 i� C C y "d t n d , u it a a u 0. d y _ y �— � _ C C+' d y 0 0 o L 3 u y cci v 3 cv a t).0 L '' O y Fj Y + y M t7 Q i y m a CU o u o N V r -I City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary 1.7 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Table 1-3 describes whether there are any residual impacts after application of mitigation measures, and whether these are significant, unavoidable, and adverse. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1 47 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Table 1-3. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Chapter 1. Summary Resource Impacts 4.1 Earth There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. 4.2 Air Quality No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described above are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. 4.3 Water None of the alternatives would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water Resources resources, because the redevelopment would likely result in an improvement of runoff and recharge water quality. In addition, the net change in effective impervious area can be adequately mitigated through the self -mitigating features of the action alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described under Section 4.3.2. 4.4 Plants and No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur for plants and animals under Animals any alternative. 4.S Energy Additional energy would be consumed and would contribute to increases in demand associated with the growth and development of the region. As described in the Utilities Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that existing and planned infrastructure of affected energy utilities could accommodate growth. Energy conservation features would be incorporated into building design as required by the current City building codes. For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, HUD encourages public housing authorities such as RHA to use Energy Star, renewable energy, and green construction practices in public housing. As such, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on energy use are anticipated. 4.6 Noise No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational traffic noise impacts are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted above. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT "substantial increase" impact threshold. Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed normally unacceptable under the HUD noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the adjacent street (NE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated in this subarea, if the noise control measures noted above are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria. 4.7 Environmental No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are identified at the programmatic level Health throughout the Planned Study Area or for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for any of the studied alternatives. Contaminated sites would be avoided during project design when possible; implementing the mitigation approaches described above would minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. 4.8 Land Use Although intensification of land uses in the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would occur and density would increase, this change would be consistent with applicable plans, zoning, and land use character. Plan consistency can be addressed by Comprehensive Plan amendments using the City's legislative process. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1-48 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary Resource Impacts 4.9 No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated under Socioeconomics Alternative 2 and 3. Both of these alternatives would encourage new development in the both the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea that would result in beneficial changes to the socioeconomic conditions. Under Alternative 1, the study area would not benefit from the changes identified for the action alternatives. Instead, the study area would redevelop more slowly and, in turn, economic conditions would improve more slowly. Connectivity would not he improved along NF Sunset Boulevard, and the Sunset Terrace tenants would remain in the existing structures that would continue to degrade. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would result in short-term impacts; however, these impacts would be mitigated. The creation of new jobs and spending in the subarea during construction of new developments would result in short-term benefits. 4.10 Housing Housing in the Planned Action Study Area would likely redevelop to some degree to take advantage of adopted plans and zoning. However, the alternatives would allow for the construction of new dwelling units to replace those that are eliminated. Lower- cost housing could be replaced with more costly housing. Implementation of City regulatory incentives and use of federal, state, and local housing funds and programs could reduce potential affordability impacts. Through its regular Comprehensive Plan review cycles, the City could monitor housing trends in the neighborhood and adapt measures to promote affordability. During construction and in the short-term, residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, relocation assistance mitigation measures for RHA units would mitigate impacts. 4.11 There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to Environmental environmental justice. The action alternatives would result in primarily beneficial Justice impacts associated with new dwelling units, new civic facilities and parks, improvements in nonmotorized transportation, and new employment opportunities in the surrounding area. During construction and in the short-term residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, construction mitigation and relocation assistance mitigation measures (for the RHA units) would minimize impacts. 4.12 Aesthetics With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. 4.13 Historic and The impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with any Cultural Resources alterative could be significant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth in Section 4.13.2 would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could be taken. 4.14 The alternatives are expected to contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic volumes Transportation 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 LCIS standards. Sunset Area Community planned Action 1-49 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 1. Summary Resource Impacts 4.15 Parks and Under studied alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Recreation Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there would be an increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. With the application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. 4.16 Public Demand for public services will continue to increase in conjunction with population Services growth. With advanced planning and implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to police, fire/emergency medical, education, health care, social services, solid waste, or library services are anticipated. 4.17 Utilities All studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and telecommunication services. Increased growth in the Planned Action Study Area has the potential to exacerbate existing water and wastewater system deficiencies. However, with application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1 5D December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593,10 Chapter 2 Proposal and Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and determine what future land use redevelopment is desirable and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made to create a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses, and property owners. This chapter describes the proposal and alternatives that are analyzed in this EIS. 2.2 Proponent The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, the redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. 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 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 [RCM 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 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement _1 1CF 593.10 City Limits ��I ewER-urn NE'21 Planned Action Study Area 5WST � - Subarea f.R.€ h' 21 F v5 w Central North Mgt� .' z South IiIiM NEtl•9,7HrSST� Sunset Mixed Use - ti Potential Sunset �` ' +-• +. x. �,;: *SNE 18THr5T Terrace Redevelopment n+ Y NEr17TH o soo 1.01)0 r� NEp15'TH'ST I� iL - Feet ���� �� -LU Z t, NE g15TH PL �n f 1. y' 6:i—�� x z L u] ,� © ra ! O ! NOOTH 5T ww-. LM'" NE 14TH 5T W tiNE 13TH:PLt ,,, ^ yup X7.0411 N -`` � . 4r i � i {uE LV 13TH ST N f `L�=`�-ri -91 _ 1 U � rr tw?'H-, `� :. — I11Er12FHIST+OMM*° . Uj `. wj l +i Lw O_•�` �� (`;/€ NE +TSL,,. Z+r40te r.d►r� LU z ��{c r Q1 J�yNEw11T1�fk5T� tp• � f , to J +++ to t r~, s■ It '.!-W QNE 1OT+H--RL y W j+ V AVwr LL, , rte N 0)- NEUOTH PLrr �, �rr.t 2 .itNE�1H� 0TST p n ?xli� s k i g. 1 ti�.�r�rtil��'kl �'r.•N5G -�i�r 1 Y-yjF.... 4,' .; ► l�j ;❑ "�z r "' yl Z a" .NE•10THST 1'.r`rxNE 9TH PL r' t �jw t Z W {� w > w �� WiYi� A�E1Gdr1� l".t' •�► ��.fi.� if r Jr u Q QL NEj9THSTvp. 1 11 �!I �r NE,9TH ST- Lj. r a o c� _.�iT o,�+ !} yir �f$`'`''�I �( ",; a * !� „` :.�.. i 3 i Z. yam- , �L<t �� .J�'�.: ����I '#- i • SU+L 77f' w amu+'• rNE'8TH ;PL A'I►t�� t w w uj It3�� M l' in+ irt'Zr7li� w w r yl(` '/ $ • t J. j n(l7 r�-7��lVE8T{ir .'3r rTr i r �jRe G , . i�,.G�I W. j101 + ,-! 8TH;5T- �rhA► " jsr; ❑ ,.� °� ;,�xvN�`.# At ir7wE'�'�L NF 4W41 r%.�,6rhPL„;r.r4/4 yN;lA NEi7r7Ht5T� i f4. "irUE &ry. �` "'' �ClR� x Soul ce Crty of R�rton, king Counts. Eti '=� { , \ : , �'� tr" r t'yy�i ► - r: in F ti Fhb i,;� - ,r'" r .r}": n1T _ ..*�� �► _ "J r+ +� i �` NE�7TH PL 1CF Figure Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planred Action Draft €CEPA/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 to the west. The Sunset Area Community neighborhood is part of northeast Renton and is also known as or referred to as the Highlands area (Figure 2-1). The Planned Action Study Area has been broken down into subareas to allow the EIS discussion to distinguish the site-specific redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace property from the broader programmatic actions occurring throughout the Planned Action Study Area. The five subareas are shown on Figure 2-1 and described below. • Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea includes the Sunset Terrace public housing site and adjacent vacant or non -RHA owned 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 to 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 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 and residential land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and proposes to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about S dwellings)'; AHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. 1 Only proposed under Alternative 3, described in Section 2.7. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 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. The redevelopment would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units, some of which would occur on site and some of which would occur elsewhere in the Planned Action 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.2Public 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 recreation facilities; and neighborhood community facilities that may offer education, library, or social services. While some improvements have been anticipated in City plans, some improvements have not been incorporated in City plans (e.g., drainage master plan). To recognize proposed capital improvements, the City will make associated Comprehensive Plan amendments such as to the Capital Facilities and Transportation elements as part of the Planned Action process. 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 on 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 the 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 which requires some type of public sector subsidy. Rents are typically set lower than market rate, units typically serve 30% to 60% AMI and eligibility includes income restrictions. Market denotes housing developed completely with private sector funds, with no restrictions on pricing or income eligibility. The study area equals approximately 269 gross acres and the net parcel acres equal approximately 213. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 4 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, and 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 also 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 sub -regional 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." Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-5 ICF 593.10 City Limits NE 21ST 5T Q Planned Action Study Area NE 21ST ST Future Laid Use �, �c�S NE 215T ST Commercial Corridor NE 20TH ST Commercial Neighborhood 1 Center Village # g Residential Low Density NE 19TH ST � LU z Residential Medium Density NE 18TH ST Residential Multifamily fi Residential Single Family Z� NE 17TH PL _X N N�16�N ��Id NE 17TH 57 A�� •� NE 15TN'ST C 500 1.006 Uj W 7 . NE 15TH PL Feet to NE 14TH ST �-, z NE 147H5'uz, NE 13TH PL t:.., W_ ,;� „ p N3�H : �■ �� ' o w NE 13TH ST z a .■ .NEE 2TFIFST �•,• a �N 7 ? g a W R a � LU �PPFtKp NE 11TH PL W w�� h NE 11TH ST o w W NE 10TH PL z 0 NE 10TH PL FL .a2 NE IOTH ST z z ¢� W O Uj h NE 9TH PL W u z Z w W NE 10TH ST °C ¢ > r � a `,ilk x NE 9TH ST NE 9TH S7 W 3 4 C z z w W W z NE STH PL ¢ LL z �+ Uj O z NE 8TN ST NE 8TH ST q Q w NE o E Z NE 6ry pL NFA = N ❑ NE 7TH S7 } MF 6Ftf cIR Ty r- m 0 o m Source: City of Renton; King County S rn NE 7TH PL xm�Figure 2-2 ICFExisting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations ir.a n�, Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS ck•�n�ioN 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 5oa 1 Feet LU z W L6 Q W � N� PFlR� OR z W w n cc m NE 21ST ST NE 21ST ST NE 20TH ST� NE 19TH ST 4 NE 18TH ST • v Apo-yo � a z a _a W x z z , x ...NE 15TH ST WoUj:. 7VNE 15TH PL Iz o w NE 14TH ST NE 12TH ST z NE 10TH PL .j w 2 NE 10TH ST ,a ,o �4 z ti ❑ 0-1 Z NE 9TH PL z h NE 9TH ST NE 11TH ST LU z NE 8TH PL UJ > z W z rug aril Sr LU a 0 NF 6rN FL PL LW zLW NF.� NE 6rH CIO Source, City of Renton; King County ICF INTFRAIATIONAI w ua z z w Lz 4 V ❑ a 0 ClQ z zV W w LL W z W a z 4 l7 z Fr Ir x z Q NE 21ST ST NE 17TH PL NE 17TH ST W Z LU W 0 or z 0 2 W z W a ❑ 0-1 NE 11TH PL z J NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL W z LU a FL LW zLW 0 LU z LU a NE 10TH ST Q O 0 0 NE 9TH ST o g z z J NE STH ST I NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL Figure 2-3 Existing Zoning Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft 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, low -intensity commercial areas located within neighborhoods primarily for the convenience of residents who live nearby. Uses should be those that provide goods and services. In addition, a limited amount of residential opportunities should be provided. Implementing zoning is varied under the umbrella of the CV land use designation, including CV, Residential Multifamily CRM -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: 20 du/ac. Maximum density: 80 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density • Maximum Height: 50 f-, 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 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 8 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 Draft EIS are described below. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2410 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-9 ICF 593.10 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 arc 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 use,; 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 IV du/acre = dwelling units per acre 2.5.2 Planning and Community Involvement Neighborhood planning in the Sunset Area Community has been extensive and has involved many community members. Recent efforts that contributed to the proposal and alternatives studied in this Draft EIS are described below. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2410 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-9 ICF 593.10 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 11 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 11 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 I1 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 2010x.) Figure 2-4 presents the elements of the CIS study that have been incorporated into the alternatives studied in this Draft EIS. The top priority in the CIS was to support redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. To conceptually plan the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, RHA selected a development consultant, Shelter Resources, Inc. (SRI), in 2007, and SRI retained an architect to help plan the property. Conceptual redevelopment designs were first prepared in December 2007 by Bumgardner Architects, and have been the subject of RHA board meetings, throughout 2008 to the present, and of RHA resident meetings on June 19, 2009, and July 12, 2010. A public participation plan was developed in August 2010 during initiation of the EIS process, and is intended to guide public outreach efforts for this environmental review process, using proven techniques from past City and RHA outreach efforts. As part of the EIS process, the proposed Draft EIS alternatives including conceptual plans for Sunset Terrace, NE Sunset Boulevard, and other features were presented to the public at a scoping meeting held on September 1, 2010. This scoping meeting was advertised via distribution of 3,700 postcards, posters, and notices to RHA residents, and publication in the newspaper. Meeting materials were made available in English and Spanish, and Spanish translators were available at the public meeting. Approximately 17 members of the public participated in the scoping meeting. The results of the scoping meeting are included in Appendix A. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-10 December 2aa0 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 S11 Vd3S/Vd3N 1412J0 uO4:)V POuueld Al!unwwo:) e@jV jasunS salsoldind Suido:)S jol wejSei(] jilomaweii pooqjoq1481aN eajV jasunS t, -Z wngij (600e)e,')JVXpn1SSj.)jisunS NnH.L1W Alju4ziiiiuri;juddodAISsudpUL'OAIPL�JOA;alJ�'AL�piLdx opueuiv4aH sa!j!Ippd ljpd pue UO!1var)" a7win jailas 6 4 IL 4 �1_01 r I. + Big `!ll1l!I AAas aAIIAWdns p -b juawj�­ S—LI!aJ PaMIII91LII Jo} lmmjoddl, - L'W U01 44 0 U01 T, 's luawala„sag wawa se Iluo, jakQmwiojs I?jn;pj qjlmsobPsluq delj)sapad PuP aNiq Ajunpda3Iupqu] - —If 7 7 fill, ho 5apjnj�oddc;uawdoja�ap�� pups�jj�dojd I'lli.-ijI ” *' *%w' .4 4 aijq;id ui.smjvd j3;emumj,jo walsA3 papauuc3jajui je @,.nqw;s!C] - j 1 44 44, A Ilk v_pV - 7 4 mon se am;xulwqu i„ joleffilwicis piniplu loj sailiurlioddo jollw J UOIJU,310(] JalemwAOIS -ez rlA Ir tn! -a ■ _j L 1 NI A cull ,/in pjv av!q Aviolid qpm api­­ wq4, Apuutu I ampnispiju I, jalplIll 1pinipu ioj sailiunlioddo jofeuj un s n X 100.� 4 5walsAS pnIPINI / 5UOIPaUUOD Uaz)A9 'Z M In I v . .. non IS Z-_ RN m - - 4 -,.- ;i 10.■ PIP UPI _4I IF In IIII 40 04 snq PW P !Pla, 11 5qa'?eL Ilk 4W iudutb.S i-3 Ir UO PIWJ4JIsap 9a10a-­ UIVIA­Pad ­111.1111IJ 1 1; , ka. L—p—I PaI­jd ul 5iopud um ,'a1 iv _ A 1 :w OIL V11 PUe IeLL6IS'6UI4L46II ;uow�Aud I ai �Dd 5 411m ul JIJJ PH 1`2 u DQ3asJG1 ul - Al, �AL I - — Ale-316jofew augapla; uoilinqpI. ml L a) 'AJ�j jasunS j3 suapjelb aw�ja 72-4 Ir Ej NA M'UHPdPLEUdXdl;U�JL'fpL'�dOl��3L I New LI -P— PIUV saJLJ Ajjj�s q4w aduDspiel po3jpL4u3 - V �a Atiun�wv) josuri,i; u4 4PN%a;P6 ujojsaM - AL apIsIllp jAll SjUaWaA0jdujr PAIq 10SLinS '9 Ap 404 p IIIH 116�IIOH IolapSAjPjua,.Aj3p��ejqbH,p)�p II;HH- ln, ?d ul�,& --me I 161 (suloquDol IeIjuz))Od) SUIDPRID AAj1!unww'oD -I; WO L 4\7 a.6mj a44 u4 Ik — -T PUP a�LIUUJoII]Od ail,dslcj low I I e. I ajqi%,�Id m. in I ■II�r A ,Pzp RL IF All 'aM P7PId pue 6ulrayleG aims alenlPe DjjUPUajJ2qDUP,.jlJPj1CAUjI 0 r V7 rqp (ulopiI lepulawj) a3Lj);)_Lj@sunS jeAmilcIn i s.110.1imv.jr� )ejja lUdWdo10AaP a41RAijd of aAi)ua3uI - I . f * suatmap * �. Jasun :v ljawdOjaAap Ie1!ae3puabuiuuelduq;jojuo!12ibalu!bi!obLo. I o5 aAlsuaqajdwn3 pl�j­ipoa Aiepunog eGAV ApnjS paslad-d S13 LIOIPV P,)Uueld �lf sailLllue; Al U 1 ru W QJ P U P 5 J Q I p a J U D I naafi IF) L 14! 1 a I v) F L L_z, " ::,0111111111116 CIN3911 im (suO'1ePuaLUWOD08 SID 60OZ 5upejodioDul) V, 1 010 F& L a .1;WIN OL Lill 0 !i mill 41: ml 11 k FIR mom -M A :k,7■ 114 _1 Rj� . A "kill, 4*4 ""1 Sir 046 wk i IF 'RW' 00 A A I -r owl L _4 41, Mr ' -0 "A !_v lip M. 101I qw am A -a sT -W, bm 41! 91q_L_ to in III Al A- r 'Ilk, 41 d on I Wrely % 1-M it. v r :!k L! 4 P, y� L Ip sin 91 .1 4]t_ -T— Ir -,L III wj� IL IL _p I_, - - — - --------- 7 -7 - Ila j F Vp t it �4 j Aj IL &-!Oil No L n: 4Ill all; 101 4f Ali 1w,;Ill I I of Fri A I M IL —V 'I Its sMI 4jfm Vll r )s1.21 In mw -I W dill P*u I r w all -ft ELI FA SAL mv 211 apimmi laoow: fj %L A L _11111151111l I -j.— c ww"I A x mn wl IRI '.A.fitV.I. _7 -lor mom i■ SIM Ps =4�I III - . Im Ol f PC bw wall In na j1L _A lei I .49 all, Ak, nft 40P P16 Ill -K,- W' City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alterratives 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 2010x): ...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 became self-sufficient. RHA directly manages 870 dwellings. Section 8 vouchers allocated to RHA allow the lease of an additional 315 dwellings. Section S 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 1.00 dwelling units on approximately 7.30 acres. Occupants live in the housing for an average of 5 years. (Gropper pers. comm.). The 100 dwellings units range in size as follows: s 20 one -bedroom units, • 36 two-bedroom units, • 36 three-hedroom 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. 2.5.4 Environmental Analysis and Review—SEPA and NEPA 2.5.4.1 Joint NEPA/SEPA Process This Draft EIS is a joint NEPA/SEPA document, intended to satisfy requirements of both federal and state environmental statutes. Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 United States Code [USC] 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9 of that act (42 USC 1437g), the City is the responsible entity for compliance with NEPA (42 USC 4321) in accordance with 24 CFR 58.1 and 58.4. Compliance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is being coordinated with Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 13 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives NEPA review. Pursuant to SEPA and implementing rules (RCW 43.21c; Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 197-11), the City is the lead agency for the proposal. Preparation of this Draft EIS is the responsibility of the City. The City has directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken and has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate methodologies. In addition, the City has coordinated with RHA on preparation of the Draft EIS. The environmental elements analyzed in this Draft EIS were determined through a joint NEPA/SEPA scoping process that extended from August 13 to October 18, 2010. A Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the EIS scope was published on August 13, 2010, notifying the public of the joint NEPA/SEPA EIS. This notice established a written comment period through September 13, 2010. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held at the Highlands Neighborhood Center on September 1, 2010, where oral and written comments were solicited. Consistent with HUD NEPA rules, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft EIS for the Sunset Area Community was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2010, establishing a 30 -day written comment period regarding the scope and contents of the Draft EIS; this federal comment period closed on October 18, 2010. 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 Draft EIS, this document is being circulated to agencies, organizations, and individuals for a 45 -day public comment period. A public meeting on the Draft EIS will also be held. At the conclusion of that period, the City will prepare the Final EIS. The Final EIS will incorporate refinements to the proposal that occur 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 14 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement icF 593.10 City cf Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.5,4.2 Previous Environmental Documents and Independent Environmental Review Prior environmental review was conducted for the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments, including the following documents: • Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, Harrington Square, September 2, 2003; and Determination of Non -Significance, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments for Highlands Area, November 6, 2006. When appropriate, prior environmental documents were considered in the preparation of this Draft Els. At the time of this Draft EIS, RHA is considering the addition of a community and laundry building on its Hillcrest Terrace site. As an independent action, it is undergoing its own NEPA environmental review process. Where information is applicable, it is noted in this Draft EIS. 2.6 Purpose and Need for Proposal This section describes why the proposed land use, housing, and infrastructure changes on the Sunset Terrace redevelopment site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area are being pursued, and the goals and objectives that will assist decision makers and the public in determining a preferred alternative. The Sunset Area Community developed in earnest in the early 1941 when the U.S. War Department and RHA built worker housing for manufacturing plants to support World War H. 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 redevelopment could he 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-15 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 2.6.1 Study Area Conditions and Trends In 1942, during World War 1I, 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, afire 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, this area contains approximately 1,289 dwellings with an estimated population of 2,978 persons.§ Based on transportation model land use estimates, current jobs are estimated at approximately 1,306. More information about socioeconomic trends is found in Section 3.9 of this 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 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Year Built 1930- 1940 ® 1941-1950 1951-1960 [� 1961-1970 M 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 M After 2000 N A 0 500 1,000 eet NE 13TH PL w z LU a H a Ui N�pPa pR s a z w w d a m a NE 1pTH PL 2 a NE SpTH ST m 2 NE 9TH PL J y NE 9TH ST w z LU NE 8TH PL z Aft sTk Sr 4 a Aft srk a, r NE 6TH CrR Source: City of Renton; King County 3 NE 21ST ST NE 21ST ST L z K NfcSOO- a � t1*_ SZ z G M % z 0 m Z M NE 21ST ST 17TH PL NE 17TH ST W 0 x z 0 J NE 11TH PL NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL Lu z w a a a w z 0 w a NE 10TH ST w 0 z 0 NE 9TH ST 2 NE STH ST I NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL Mxww� ICF Figure t Z_ Age of Structuress INTFRWIONA, Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft 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), • 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 9 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 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 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. Of these, 41% (114) were children with an average age of 10 years. The average Sunset Terrace Family income was $19,516. The ethnicity was divided evenly among White, Black, and Asian. (Renton Housing Authority 2010c; Gropper pers. comm.) To address the substandard size and quality of the units and to offer more housing choices, RHA intends to create a new mixed-use, mixed -income community, with a 1 -to -1 replacement of existing public housing units and additional new affordable and market -rate housing units. Most replacement units would occur in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, and others would occur on other RHA -owned properties in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, RHA has purchased property in the vicinity of Sunset Terrace to address affordable family and seniors housing with support services. Family housing is expected to accommodate households that require larger units and that benefit from proximity to education and social services. Senior citizens make up about 16% of the Planned Action Study Area population. With the aging of the baby hoomer generation, RHA and the City foresee a need for additional senior housing with associated elder health services. 2.6.3 Proposal Goals and Objectives 2.6.3.1 Planned Action Study Area Transformation of private and public properties in the Planned Action Study Area (see Figures 2-1 and 2-4) is expected to meet the Sunset Area Community vision, as expressed in the Highlands Phase II Task Force Recommendations (City of Renton 200$x) 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. • The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and conduct business. • The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes. 5 For the purposes of this EIS, senior housing refers to housing that is occupied by persons 62 or older or that houses at least one person 55 or older in at least 80% of the units and adheres to a policy that demonstrates intent to house persons who are 55 or older. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-19 1CF 593-10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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, parrs and recreation, and other infrastructure improvements, and analyze impacts of anticipated private development in addition to Sunset Terrace. 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 Highlands Area Citizen's Zoning Tusk Force (City of Renton 2006), o Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase 11 Task Force (City of Renton 2008a), o Highlands Action Pian (City of Renton 2009c), a Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (City of Renton 2009b), o Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (City of Renton 2009d), o Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan (estimated completion date September 2011), o Utility system plans, and o Library replacement (in process). 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 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. 6 A "Great Street" has numerous characteristics, including: accommodating multiple motorized and nonmotorized modes, exhibiting quality urban design and architecture, offering a variety of interesting activities and uses, promoting environmental sustainability, and incorporating design elements that facilitate maintenance. The CIS suggests that the NE Sunset Boulevard "[i]mprovements would create a gateway and sense of place for the area, as well as enhanced pedestrian safety through traffic calming using improved crossings and landscaped medians." 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 2-20 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement icF 553.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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. 0 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 alternatives, and identifies key land use and infrastructure elements of each. 2.7.1 Description of Proposal Alternatives The proposal includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization. The objective of the proposal is to promote the redevelopment of public housing, implement infrastructure improvements throughout the Planned Action Study Area, and facilitate planning and environmental review for the Planned Action study area. The proposal is reviewed in terms of three alternatives. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-21 iCF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and 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 he 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. 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 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-22 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593. 10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives The current Highlands Library would be relocated from the Central Subarea to another location in the Planned Action Study Area; since a new site has not been selected, the Draft EIS assumes a new community services building in the study area of sufficient size to house a library or other social services. Parks and recreation services would largely continue as they exist today. 2.7.1.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 provides for a moderate level of mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Planned Action Study Area, while continuing the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Infrastructure and public services would be improved in a targeted manner in the Planned Action Study Area. Stand-alone residential uses and local -serving commercial development would continue but would be interspersed with mixed-use development at identified nodes throughout the Planned Action Study Area such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and portions of NE Sunset Boulevard. Densities of new development would occur at moderate urban levels that are pedestrian- and transit -oriented. The environmental review process for development would be streamlined under a Planned Action Ordinance. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community according to a master plan on properties it currently owns; the redevelopment would allow for new public, affordable and market - rate housing accommodating a mixed -income community. All 100 existing public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio; some would occur on the current Sunset Terrace public housing property and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; a duplex would be replaced with affordable townhouse units. An estimated 310 new dwellings would be developed in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with more moderate -density flats and townhomes at a combined density of 40 units per acre, approximately. New public amenities would include civic and community facilities, which may include a single -use library building with a plaza and/or a community services center/office building, as well as ground -floor retail as required by zoning, and a proposed 0.$9 -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, new transit shelters and street furniture, pedestrian- and street -level lighting, a bike lane/multi- purpose trail in one direction, consolidated driveways, and a center median with left -turn vehicle storage. No on -street business parking would be available (consistent with current conditions). Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced through coordination between the Renton School District and the City such as through a joint -use agreement. Possible locations for enhancement include a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and North Highlands Park and repurposed public properties or acquired private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 23 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement iCF 593.10 City of Renton 2.7.1.3 Alternative 3 Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 storage, and u -turns. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting would promote walkability. Added bike lanes would promote non -motorized transportation. Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Options for green infrastructure are addressed in Section 2.7.2.4. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. For example, the family village concept would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K-12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint -use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. When Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 24 1 C 59310 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could he repurposed for parks and recreation. 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 following the tables. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-25 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action Land Use Form and Location Stand-alone cornu is F. clustered complexes Primarily residentia€. urban tale, stacked fiat and/or townhouses with structured parking. Horizontal Mixed use Vertical Mixed Use Urban intensity Focused Around Rey Nodes, e.g-Sunset Terrace, Instilutin ns Urban Intensity Focused Along C—irlo,. Sunset Rou levo rd I able .i Alternative Housing Multiplex Redevelopment Vacant Infill Development Hcmeownership Opportunities Rental Opportunities Market Rate Affordable Mixed Income Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Family Village Redevelopment Sunset Area Planned Action EES evelopment Matrix—Nelghborhood Land Use Alternative Development Matrix Land Use Form and Locedon Hauling Employment Irinsbvdum IntenwrnLtctloil/ WalkabilRy Public Facilities, Services & Development Pattern Supports Employment Infrastructure Interconnection/ Walkabllity ootnpfefces Civic Uses - e.g. Community Center, Senior Still Retail Rederlielopment Small Retail Redevelopment Center, and/or Library on sirrgle purpose sites No improvement Crvic Uses -e g. Gxnmunity Center, Senior Pedeslria n -oriented dove lepn,ent. minimize Retail Lot Consul ldation Center, and/or Library integrated ince setbacks, promote public realrn, str w'tu red complexes mixedusedevclopment parking shopping Center Redevelopment _ New parkland to zuppott increased Transit -oriented development. density center, and/or Library integrated Into residential capacity Parks & Recreations, Integrated with lvlasrer supports, transit integrated Local serving retail &services Punned Develupment parking _ Regional serving retail & services Parks R Recreation: Optimize C,ty/School Shopping Lenter Redeveionment New parkland to wpport increased Facilities Parks & Recreal Integration with residential capacity. Su ports, transit Integrated Regional Drainage Facilities Rental opportunities Lora) serving retail & services _ Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Ricci r Terr eco, InsURltions Development, Green Streets Planned Development Education - Spectrum of Ages Integrated Social services Urban lntenstty Focused Around Key Market Rate Regional serving retail & services ALTERNATIVE 2: ?Ad -Range kltensity knpmwinvents Ptablk Faidlill Services & Derebptnitrt Pat6larn SuPParts Land Use Form and Locedon Hauling Employment Irinsbvdum IntenwrnLtctloil/ WalkabilRy Stared,alone commercial: clushered u. 4 - tivlc Uses - e$. Community Center, Senior ootnpfefces Muhfpke>tRedevelopment Still Retail Rederlielopment Center. arlOcrUbrafyoneingiapurpose Noimprovement sites L Prlmarllyr ldeMlal: urban vol stacked complexes Ckgk Uses -- e.g. Cornmunitg Center, Senior Pedestrian -oriented development:minimize flat and/or wwnhouses with structured Vacant Infill Development Retail Lot Consolidation center, and/or Library integrated Into setbacks, promote public realm, structaird Parking. z rmaed use ilevelcpment parking Hu, icm,tal Mixed useHomeownershiR opportunities Shopping Lenter Redeveionment New parkland to wpport increased Transtt-orlented development: density residential capacity. Su ports, transit Integrated Vertical Mixed Use Rental opportunities Lora) serving retail & services Parks & Recreation: Integrated with Master Ricci r Terr eco, InsURltions Planned Development Urban lntenstty Focused Around Key Market Rate Regional serving retail & services Parks&Raaeatfon:optimlre City/School Nodes, e.. Sunset Terrace, Institutions Affordable Facilities Urba n l niensity Focused Along Corridor. Irani &Recreation: Integration with sunset Boulevard sunketTeftoe!!!41- ional Drainage Facli ies Mixed Income Use Pattern Supports Low Impact LEGEND Shading corresponds with alternative Feature of Alternalive 1 Festa re of Alternative 2 Feature of Ahemative 3 Development, Deve ment, Green Streets - Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Education - Spectrum of Ages Family Village Redevelupfnent lMegrated Social Services u. 4 Stand alone m 1 dusterec' L Small Retail Redevelopment Noimprovement complexes y ,t,C 7 n .r � S ,•asyT':, Primar'ly res Bern lab rn tan scale, stacked ctured flat anti/o, townhouses with stru7-7 = ,r -. - parking z - tIll�ldtw VT�PI�'IIAIIIIl'';Call- v.; - 1AtR'IY¢Y17NfItttltLlM ,.eBI:AXeI'OpRardtllfRlea. r tOirlg&llHYliDes J rbam I t nsitvF d Around Key MaIdettal .� g�, - Ricci r Terr eco, InsURltions urb-Vit i fqf Fgdped Aloft corl safrsdraolFk3vrd F 14raitlsa_Pa'{�rR6uppotti�tpw MRpiQ. sunketTeftoe!!!41- _ Farcy ll geamdeval®gmmc it ad.Soldal*EVI— - LEGEND Shading corresponds with alternative Feature of Alternalive 1 Festa re of Alternative 2 Feature of Ahemative 3 as follows Sunset Area Planned Action EIS Table 2-3. Alternative Development Matrix—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Alternative development Matrix ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action Street Network, Housing Development Urban Form Sunset Terrace Amenities Pedestrian Realm Non -Residential Development I nfiIIon vacant RHA properties No improvementNo improve meal No improvement one IN- -- .—__.._ - .. ._ Improved Intersection snJ -ios. ng at SJnset .. _..— 1:1 Puhlic Housi ri? replacement (100 units) Fo[us der`5'y aion g Sunset Blvd New open space, e.g. active, garden, other Blva acd Harriogtc r� Ncignhorheod Seta it New ai1forda1,1e -d marker rare units l?BfL forces density at Sun -1 Rlvd/Harringron No improvement intersection and crossing at 5unset New sty nd a1r i, Highland, Lihrary at Sunset 3501 Near rainwater oak In tersecUon amt north on Harrlrrglorr _ Curren cerrnrcliurr; 6iuswalr along Harrnrglmr terrace New affordable and market rate tinns 1450 Use townhomes to transition to residential l hird Place Plaza with civic or communtty New hillside path or Sur se: Blvd east of New Mixed Use Highlands Library at 5un5et 5501 neighborhood building Harrngto, lerrace []asperse townhomesand apartments Third Place incorporated into new retail Neighborhood residential infill Close portion of Harrwglon as green Office Terrace New affn rdahle and rear kel rate unit, 5.450- street%open space Third Place Plaza with civic or community New hillside path on Sunset Blvd east of Tra-p. Hub Improved bus stops, carsharing, Build 5unset Terrace site 1 toning cap achy ity Services C-1- Flible Communer ex and trike Stora e Harrington Terr act Cam nity Lenter pisper se tuvmhames and apartments Third Place incorporated into new retail ALTERNATIVE 2: Md-Rarl Intensity Jimpro"ments Street Network, Housing Development Urban Form Sunset Terrace Amenities Pedestrian Realm Non -Residential Development Infill on vacant RHA properties Ne kupruv uu,.,t Ne it iprovernent No improvement intersection and crossing at 5unset Nene T- Nelghbodwod Retail 1:1 Public Housing replacement 1100 units} Focus density alongImproved Sunset Blvd New open space, e.g. active, garden, ocher 'iibgi' .. Anproiiiel�3ttgaceil>ekigmnErrfns4 ... . Blvd and Harrin n New affordable and market rate units (150- Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ HarringtonNew New affordable and market rate units { 15D- stand alone Highlands Library at Sunset 3501 intersection and north on Harrin on New rainwater park Green correction/ 6ioswale along Harrington Terrace New affn rdahle and rear kel rate unit, 5.450- Use townhomes To transition to residential Third Place Plaza with civic or community New hillside path on Sunset Blvd east of New Mia f. Vse H iehland, Lihrary at Su nset 550) neighborhood build i Harrington Terr act Neighburhund residential infill pisper se tuvmhames and apartments Third Place incorporated into new retail Close portiar. o! Harrington a,Cr,,n Office 3hIrlPlwe gooepeRfop mf!{erlNtel M Lrtlan olfira sheet/open space __ _ Fle>tible Community Services Center __ Transpo Hub: improved bus stops, carsharing, Build Sunset I errace site to zoning capacity and bike storage and bite story e Ccmn iiy ecnter LEGEND Shading corresponds with alternative Feature of Alternative 1 Feature of Alternative ! Feature of Alternative? a, follnws- { IIr6aNlFarxp � � � - y ► No improvement No improvement No improvement None . �1 �it��4@9tralbl- .:. fnazatle�gr+larll5trrwt9hd 'iibgi' .. Anproiiiel�3ttgaceil>ekigmnErrfns4 ... . >9srtl ttnd New affordable and market rate units { 15D- r-ocus density at Sunset Blvd" Harrington New stand alone Highlands Library at Sunwt 350) intcrseetlonand north on Harrington New rainwater park Green connection/ h:osxale all Harrington Terrace Ow JIRD sitill riie[*ftl4W Use tow nhomes to t r a n s i I ior, to residential Third Place Plaza with civic or commu nity W. hillside path on 5unset 31vd east of NeiarAlptltEE4,10tq t4uiry4Suns b - teighhorhnoc E11=ng H—inernn Twill vfk�tbvdtom��lnQg '. ,ISiEpBriilpYrrrAlDTitBCiiid;pefioerth. 3hIrlPlwe gooepeRfop mf!{erlNtel M Lrtlan olfira /1z11d$slgi�tldpsRtftpi7(r�ly Flexible Cemmurity Serves Center Transpo club: improved bus stops, carsharing. and bike storage LEGEND Shading corresponds with alternative Feature of Alternative 1 Feature of Alternative ! Feature of Alternative? a, follnws- Sunset Area Planned Action EIS Table 2-4. Alternative Development Matrix—ISE Sunset Boulevard Alternative Development Matrix ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action Traffic Capacity and Community Based Design Access Management Operations Improvements Pedestrian Walkability AmenRjes Sikes Transit Enhancements Measures No improvements No improvements Pedestrian supportive signals No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements hew ct'elters Consolidate driveways Upt"true traffic signal timing Preserve exisYme street trees Bike route signage {countdown heads and audible signals} Plant new street trees in landscape Narrow inside lanes, widen outside Optimize traffic signal timing Leh turn storage lengthened to meet Improve 1 side sheet sidewalk Special design of transit zones Curbed median to —trio lefr nun, design year LOS ons cnnnerrilrote rsertions strip along corridor lane to accommodate hikes i lh. noghuw the ,c ,idur ncluding from driveways Use special for crosswalks Left turn storage lengthened to meet _paving, shelters, street fu rnrture. _ Special concrete bus pad in roadway Directional left turn Traffic signal inter—enecrinn and Pedestrian refuges in median Narrow lanes, stripe a bike lane coordination Narrow lanes and reduce crossing paving IreyuAes WSDOT approval) pockets mid -block at transit stops Newlocal transit service connecting Widen to add Business Access/Transit from drhreWays Provide rr,uhi use trail all the Lane distances Use special paving within intersections mrndor. across SR900 to Community Provide LJ turn accommodations _ _ Pedestrian refuges fn median Use special far crosswalks Narrow lanes, stripe a bike lane CenterJLibrary Hillside walk paved path and planting Way finding and signage Incorporate Art paving _ (requires WSDOT approval at transit stops pockets n,id-block Multiuse trail along project corridor Nan nw la nes a rid reduce crossing Provide multi -use trell along the Realign skewed intersections and Lane distances Use special Paving within intersections reduce crosswalk distances Comfortable separation of pedestrians Garden /Art Trellis Benches, trash and recycling Provide ILtwnar;rumrnudatinns Cenler I, ibrary frnrnvehlrle traffic,{landscape buffer} receptacles Way finding and signage Widen sidewalks to meet Complete Multiuse trail along project rorridor Incotporata Art 5Ueets minimums (8 ft sidewalks and 8 Improve corridor roadway lighting Realign skewed intersections and - ft landscape strips) Special pedestr ion scale lighting reducecrosswalkdistances Garden J Art-FreAis Comfortable separation of pedestrians Surveillance cameras for increased from velljcie trail (landscape buffer) receptacles , security and/or emergency response. Widen sidewalks to meet Complete ALTERNATIVE 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Traffic Capacity and CtNnrnunity Based Des8n Access Manasantent Operations Irrlproren:ents Pedestrian Wa&abli ty Arttenitliet 8111M Transit #nhancsments Measures No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements Optimize traffic signal timing Pedestrian supportive signals preserve ercistfng street trees Bike route signage New sheiterm CansolWate driveways (countdown heads and audible signals) Left turn storage lengthened to meet Improved side street sidewalk Plant new street trees in la ndscape Narrow inside lanes, widen outside Special design of transit zones Curbed median to restrict left turns design year LOS connections to intersedlanstr s -pa long mrridor lane [o accommodate bikes throughout the corridor Indudktg from drhreWays paving,sheken, street fumiturp. Traffic signal Interconnection and Pedestrian refuges fn median Use special far crosswalks Narrow lanes, stripe a bike lane Special concrete bus pad in roadway nirectional leh-nun coordination paving _ (requires WSDOT approval at transit stops pockets n,id-block Widen to add Business Access/Transit Nan nw la nes a rid reduce crossing Provide multi -use trell along the New le— tra nsit ser vice connecting Lane distances Use special Paving within intersections carridor. errnss 5R900 10 community Provide ILtwnar;rumrnudatinns Cenler I, ibrary Hillside walk paved path and planting Way finding and signage Multiuse trail along project rorridor Incotporata Art Realign skewed intersections and - reducecrosswalkdistances Garden J Art-FreAis Comfortable separation of pedestrians Benches, trash and TeQycling from velljcie trail (landscape buffer) receptacles , Widen sidewalks to meet Complete Streets minimums 18 ft sidewalks and 9 Improve corridor roadway lighting it andxape strips) Special pedestrian scale lighting Surveillance cameras for increased security and/or emergency —P..". LEGEND Shading correspands with Feature of Alternative 1 Feature of Alternative 2 feature of Alternative 3 alternative as follows: Table 2-5 Alternative Development Matrix—Stormwater Management Sunset Area Planned Action EIS Alternative Development Matrix ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action ].., WRiO07, Meet Code Requ rernents On site Parml-Based Stormwater Parcel -Based Starmwater Sunset Terrace Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Water Quallty Treatment Water Quality Treatment Open Space/Sub•regionaI Requirements Techniques in ROW Flow Control BMPs in ROW BMPs in ROW Facilities Meet Code Requirements on-site Meet Code Requirements Omsne No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements inrenl'iv-- Green Stormwater Dc'xns pool L'isconnecticn Hebwld Curb &Gutter Permeable Pavement Sidewalks Melia Filter 4'aults - Ra'nwater Parks (c.g. rain gardens) InFasrr uctrue Retrorits Permeable. Pavement Water Quality xDallMHlof1 - Rek*" Require Green Stormwater Req❑ hr Green Stur mwa te, tileaif IiiIirrium Wsiaswilui Bioretenrion Swale/Pia ntcrs w§h NIOw �IdOa1f67rrRM7tQrfrEaUlRnt --Naw riilnlrraUar PartM slrtlfl't: Infrastructure where infiltration is Infrastructure wiere lnfilLation Is Rainga rdens for Residential Unis Cruh Openliags 610rMent:on 5tvale5 Bioretention planters F;eg:o,a' Detention Ponds heasible Curb Openings '- Rahiw�Nr Require Creep 51ormwater Fequ re Green Stormwater Infrastruclure including non. Infrastructure including non- Perrneable 5idewalks Rwld"Hebwld Storm Drain Pipes Brorete mion Planters with Detention Rain Gardens In medians Vndrr gn,und Detentlnn infiltw,n • prarti�es Permeable Pavement Water Duality Allow Fee In -lieu of Providing On-tr Allow bee in -lien of Providing OrsiteCisterns �— Detention Permeable Pav ment Water Quality 5poasfield/Playfield Detention Detention lister ns fur Rrsidemlal I!nity (detention during wet season only) Rain Gardensm medians Trearn,e it !detention during wet season only] Develop narrow street standardslp Allivtrrmwater treatment New Rainwater Park at Sunset Develop narrow street standards to Allow parte stormwak,, tr ea line ret New Rainwater Park at Sunset Green Parking Loi Standards Green Roofs Terrace reduce impervious coverage _ within HUW Terrace reduce imperviouscoverage Rainwate r Ha rvesti ng for n rigation Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Harrington Street Green Connection Har ringtnn Street Green Connection Use Use Rainwater Harvesting Rainwater Harvesting _ ALTERNATIVE 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements ].., WRiO07, Meet Code Requ rernents On site Parml-Based Stormwater Sunset Terrace Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Incentiviae Green Stormwater Water Quallty Treatment Open 5pace/Sub-i egional Requirements Techniques in ROW Flow Control BMPs in ROW BMPs in ROW FatiNties Meet [ode Requirements Qn-site Mees Code Requirements Onsite No improvements No improvements No improvements No improvements $ncentivixe Green Stormwater Dnwnspnut Disconnection Rebulld('urh&Gutter Pitmeabla Parremarrt Sidewalks Med is Filter Vaults Rainwater Parks le.g. rain gardensl Infrastructure Retrofits Permeable. Pavement Water Quality xDallMHlof1 - Rek*" Require Green Stormwater T,rAtnterr ttllteatlatadrlltfRlttxat rrawal p9fk/1 tileaif IiiIirrium Wsiaswilui Grelm Roofs NIOw �IdOa1f67rrRM7tQrfrEaUlRnt --Naw riilnlrraUar PartM slrtlfl't: Infrastructure where infiltration is Fraingardens for Residential Units Mwetention Swale/Planters with Bloretention Swaks Bloretentim planters Regional Detentlnn Ponds Feasible Curb Openings '- Rahiw�Nr Require Creep 51ormwater Infrastruclure including non. Permeable Sidewalks Build/Rebuild Sturm Drain Pipes Bioietent;oo Plani— with Detention Rain Gardens In medians Underground Detention infiltrating practices Permeable Pavement Water Duality Sportsfield/Hayfield Detention Allow bee in -lien of Providing OrsiteCisterns �— Detention for Residential Units Rain Gardens in medians Treatment (detention during wet season only) Develop narrow street standardslp Allivtrrmwater treatment New Rainwater Park at Sunset Green Parking Lot S[a ndards G,- Roofs within ROW Terrace reduce imperviouscoverage Rainwate r Ha rvesti ng for n rigation Harrington Street Green Connection Use Rainwater Harvesting _ .. ].., WRiO07, Meet Code Requ rernents On site Meet fade Requ'remems On site No i } mvements No impmvemeats Nn imp. naements No improvements Incentiviae Green Stormwater Downspout Disconnection - Rebuild Curb & Gutter 7 -- Media Filler vaults Infrastructure Retrofits r 71, 7171 RainAa rdc ns for ftosidentia) Units Itblt� s F' yb1t-.: Ptl6at�M err y �R RfL�111� r1�tpoli �',- $hAiAYatrRll R6a1�a/61iFlpal�hM .. Underground Delenliurr jtM7AriE ipl ;pf}tFalylf (1p-�Ipa Permeable. Pavement Water Quality xDallMHlof1 - Rek*" oudis" In a nawalup nanvaa streetStalldardStP T,rAtnterr ttllteatlatadrlltfRlttxat rrawal p9fk/1 tileaif IiiIirrium Wsiaswilui Grelm Roofs NIOw �IdOa1f67rrRM7tQrfrEaUlRnt --Naw riilnlrraUar PartM slrtlfl't: aedlaceI m wfttllq rRow iemm +7a�thi�h+ei 5te�et �enCkm�lon Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Use '- Rahiw�Nr LEGEND Shading corresponds w':h !Feature of Alternative : Feature of Alternative 2 Feature of Alternative 3 a3ie native as fohows ! 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 Appendix B. Generally, the analysis considers acreage that is vacant or that may redevelop clue 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. o 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 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 in the middle. The Sunset Mixed Use Subarea would include the most residential and employment growth under all three alternatives. Sunset Area Community Planned Action2 30 December 2010 Draft 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 Subarea Dwelling Units/Jobs Alternative 1 Alternative 21 Alternative 3 Potential Sunset Terrace Dwelling units 168-1751 310 479 Redevelopment Jobs 493 164 182 Sunset Mixed Use Dwelling units 1,109 1,052 1,509 Jobs 410-652 1,728 2,875 Central, North and South Dwelling units 206 296 518 Jobs 152-213 273 273 Total Study Area Net Growth Dwelling units3 1,483-1,190 1,658 2,506 Population" 3,430-3,442 3,830 5,789 Employment SF 251,700 844,351 1,310,113 Jobs6 611-9147 2,165 3,330 The Draft EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1. and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. z The lower range represents proposed concepts on RHA's two vacant sites based on funding applications currently in process. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. I The estimate is based on a 90%/101/lo liousing/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 2.3 1, 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 'Lone assumptions. 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 2-31 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Figure 2-6. Additional Growth by Alternative -2030 3 500 - - 3,000 - 2,500 --- - - 2,000 -- 1,500 1.,000 500 - 0 Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 ■ DVOelling units ■ Jobs =igure 2-7. Additional Dwellings under Each Alternative by Subarea -2030 2500 2000 1500 .. ...... .._ 1000 - -- 500 - --- Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 3 ■ Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ■Sunset Mixed -Use Subarea ■ Central, North and Sou di Subareas Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2 32 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Figure 2-8. Additional Permanent Jobs under Each Alternative by Subarea -2030 3500 – - 3000 2500 _. ... 2000 1500 - 1000 X4101 0 . .. Alternative 3 Altcrnative 2 Alternative 3 w Potential Sunset Terrace ftedeveloprnent 5uli ■Sunset Mixed -Use Subarea P, Central. North and Soudl 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. Table 2-7. Existing and Total Growth -2030 Alternative Planned Action Study Area Total Population 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 1 8,768 1 3,796 1 4,636 t Dwellings are based on King County Assessor 2010 data. Population estimated using a household size of 2.31, an average of census tracts 252 and 254. Jobs are based on transportation model estimates For 2006. 2.7.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, Alternative 1 would allow infill growth on vacant land, whereas Alternatives 2 and 3 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. 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-33 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 • J i� 0 LRHXs Edmonds -Glenwood site ❑ ; RHA's Piha site x= ' 4 j l RHXs Sunset Terrace N A 5 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' N Figure 2-9 MI T H U N Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Alternative 2 Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS E �L I• 4.,CIn AI %K� N - ,� r 11 ... '� k•4 }, a 1. �f v� iYM y ` uY1 � 1 -�- r N ` a � • - r J � S - i m C •. C "i c mL a � a � Fr t a ° Y � Q_G LK C 6 t. E �L I• 4.,CIn AI %K� N - ,� r 11 ... '� k•4 }, a 1. �f v� iYM y ` uY1 � 1 -�- r N ` a � • - r J � S - i m C Pye N� 11 3N aAV spuowp3 - v a Ln �P iL 00 y _ 's 8 "i c mL a � j a ° Y � Q_G r CL m �� — A a �, s � il� �i�3 gls � g•x --i -rte � I- .. Pye N� 11 3N aAV spuowp3 - v a Ln �P iL 00 E T a � d � u n 1 y _ 's 8 "i c mL a � w � � Y � Q_G E T a � d � u n 1 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 RNA'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 offsite 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. Alternative 3 would maximize the number of residential dwellings and apartment -style units along the western boundary where topography allows more views, townhomes in the central area close to the open space, mixed-use retail and housing at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE and civic uses, which could include a community center, senior center, and/or library (total space 42,000 square feet), west of Harrington Avenue NE. An open space of about 0.25 acre would be located in an open space provided in the Harrington Avenue NE right-of- way (if vacated) at Sunset Lane NE. Most of the 100 public housing units would be replaced within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and some would be replaced elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area, though the ratio has not been determined at this time. 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-37 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives The number of acres redeveloped would differ among alternatives as would the density," • 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. Whereas Alternative 1 would provide for affordable housing only, Alternatives 2 and 3 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. 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). 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. 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, RHA has committed to replacement housing at a 1:1 ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement housing could occur on site and/or off site, as described above. Under any alternative, approval of necessary permits identified in the Fact Sheet (located behind the cover letter) for this Draft EIS and the availability of public financing will determine the tinning 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. Redevelopment of the subarea under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be phased, with vacant sites developing first followed by redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. e 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 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 38 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposak and Alternatives 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 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. S. Offer spaces in the new developments on the vacant RHA -owned sites and/or at Sunset Terrace, as applicable, to relocated tenants: post -construction. 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 is included in Figure 2-11 and represents a location west of Harrington Boulevard NE in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea vicinity. In addition to changes along NE Sunset Boulevard, Alternative 3 would alter circulation patterns by closing Harrington Avenue NE for one block in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Additionally, both Alternatives 2 and 3 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 2-12 and 2-13. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2-39 1CF 593,10 w�� h .f,19 I Section A, Alternative 1: No Action � � �liaWen An l�rll�. 1..u.nhy wall i rik IrUai Will ... rU­ \7r<han 1-,fS 1�¢�xl lana Il1Yr ' i 1�¢�wmE 1Gl' xt>N 2 Section A• Alternative 2: Minimize ROW Impacts Figure 2-11 CH2MHILL HE Sunset Boulevard—Alternative Cross Sections west of Harrington Avenue NE 4011. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS 3N 3nd,30�JNOW _ .� __ , .: A, � 1 r 3N 3AV 3MMA - ,♦ ` ti1-"_ ,a _ e II(e ld.._.�tukat. '� .��.: • � r � �\ ♦�\` 5 + _ L �f � F �..,r.. . � � !': f s� r .. ��r � f, ; p.' ♦ -� at. .+� •+�•t - ra tl I '. r *. ♦mak.` ` I ,...,,.y. ' �N 3AV Q(! V 1 fi •. ( •�. _`- ,•f+`'� s' �6',a _. r _$.TL. W. +" dlL it:l �c \�•,`.. I t {.+' �i I '.I . re ... f r"fir iI ZI _r 7fe 1 • .. 1 r.- y f_ ,.'. IIF � W . 3AV CJIN max.*- . -�.�'� �> � -� � ♦ ♦ r �.'Llwj .: 3N 32 GNVIX81>1 Ar ` 4r '� : � � - -� 1 � { L •-=_rw.x�<' : i � 1 Y i e �F I Fi �,'f. 6' � `� `:: �� `i �.i� �i �� •, � 3N 3 Nos44 _. j( -�'� ��a, __ � � .. _�� . �_ ', � I •• i , • 4. •� „�+,i. f �,f 'war! ♦ A`. '� Cl � ... .. r • II 't �r 1 4IN .. 3N 3AV N , ,+� _...,.,'- SP #1t- +� d1 I I r ,'e { ' .3N 31 wl Ij 3N 3AV SONONCA ' -- 3N 3AV GNOVV(13 +�yj['.'� � �{�>r � f ti �� _ �irr �f r t � .•�1 Er r>.41�, - 41 7t -itw If J 9 jjAMU", C) C y c 4044 .' i 1� .ly �I „ •rr , t�ll- AAL 1 W L JZ O �, C U L Q aJ '¢ 1 + a) a I � 16 ru c 3 � TO E C Q] OC � u Tru Lu Q z a� in 1 •. ` 3N 11L JP IL 9AV 30MOw �3N 3nd ❑CADAANNA749, rs k4 '�!F" g ���\\ I ti• r Y �! ]'r _ f' �► }, f a r , -. ly44 hL , � ,l• 45 4 4{t41, `v` .. ` _ ; I _ •-i° ; v L �II _ }r+ti }i �' llm�l fl� t4 t� ) • .• f. vo d4 .. �..r r.; d aNVIA7 11N -1 Awl tt -tel :\-;� 3N 3 ❑Nb'IAMA - r r k* - ApIWO Zv _ r 3N end NQS 3r ':.* . `•'' 4 f `'.,` Ad Ir ✓; tit . .. 411 �4. . 1 T 3N 3nb NO1Jl�fb 44 i -+t - - -tea• 1. 11 LU IL low IF `•4 tF 4` Msi-,... ,1 t _ it ��+ r r �r f%� J/ �;.! . ` 'r I fir rr� ap , 4q. JW 3N AAV SGNOWO3 -- o .I -- 3N 3]Av ONOWC13 lit a 1 1e T 4 'Miry' 411 N In tw U 14 in D c U 14L U � I'' - �� • "4f `, yl �. �`` ;»jam ;'•ti* '',�1 d 77 fV I A `_ , r � � � t. 155 1 ,i• '� • �.� a � � - it City of Renton 2.7.2.4 Stormwater Management Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 assumes no change to public stormwater systems in the Planned Action Study Area. Private development would be required to meet City standards for stormwater management including RMC 4-6-030 addressing the Surface Water Utility. Technical requirements for the design of drainage facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009), adopted by the City with amendments (City of Renton 2010c). Alternatives 2 and 3 both include a stormwater strategy that integrates the following palette of options distributed throughout the parcels, rights-of-way, and rainwater parks in public open spaces, all of which would support, sustain, and promote the redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. • Private property options include rain gardens, porous pavement, downspout disconnection, and cisterns. • Green connections include roadside rain gardens, porous pavement, hioretention 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 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 thestormwater 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 45 cF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 2-14). In addition, opportunities are identified in this Draft EIS analysis regarding joint -use agreements between the City and Renton School District, repurposing of public properties, or acquisition of private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher (see Section 4.15). Alternative 3. Parks and recreation opportunities include a linear park in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea within the Harrington Avenue NE right-of-way (if vacated) as well as a community center, a joint parks and recreation/education/housing concept at the "family village" (as envisioned and described in the Sunset Area CIS; See Figure 2-13), and green connections that connect a "necklace" of "pocket" parks (see Figure 2-14). 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). Sections 3.15 and 4.15 of this 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. 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. 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 Distr,ictSix 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-46 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Parcels Green Connections — Sidewalks • Pedestrian Connection Opportunity Public and Open Spaces School Renton Housing Authority City of Renton N A 0 500 1.000 eel • NE 10TH ST m NE 9TH PL z y NE•9TH•ST NE STH pL I ffffff .j NE 24TH ST RD PL a NE 23RD ST p 0 x I NE 22ND ST W ti LL Ey/ NE 21ST ST Nf-i9TH-ST 2 NEL18TH ST P 3 mf� 3 y� W INE 6TH CT LUQ D a z Q Source, City of Renton 3 i'NN- 'CF INTERNATIONAL NE 24TH CT Y ,Vv Y M JMKNEJ2.15T ST rn NE 22ND PL NE 22ND ST NE 21ST ST _MMMMM Uj NE 19TH ST z LLAa NFyA< o W W Z 4, z '^ E Z LU w Q W W Q cc p DQ W IY�A1,2 a � • Y NE 12TH ST pz NE 11TH PLUj z M W �O Jt'LUo a ? a} o NE 10TH CT • X_z NE 10TH LN LU NE 10TH ST a C NE 9TH ST Q z W i' SNE NQS �7 NE 8TH ST La Q ■ W W a Q z z Z NE 7TH ST W O • t,0 Q r,T rS,T 4 W O �{ NE 61 Fp ME 7TH P! z °y " a w z z W m H = z m 7 NE 6TH PL � Q W• z NE 6TH ST— G [ NE STH -PL— z Y f NE`5THiP 6 Y z SNE 57Fi 5T NE STH CT �)W Q{ ` W W a Q I �1NE 4TFi CT Mw� a l z N�3Ra 5T � 0 Figure 2-14 Public and Open Spaces Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 2. Proposal and Alternatives 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 2-15 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 he 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 2-16 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. 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. • Alternative 1 would include a 12,500 -square -foot or larger space for senior health services including elder day health in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea on RHA's eastern vacant property and 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of space that could house a library or social services located on a single -purpose site likely in an area well served by circulation and transit, such as in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea. i Alternative 2 would locate community service space in stand-alone and mixed-use structures, totaling about 3$,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. 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 48 ICF 593.10 x . 1 ■ . y i ■ A -IIILv i�a.w.■#a : M e + {'Cvr 5 j 1' LL ! rti '[{R•,s 7 7 ■eiR #� *� rt ■ 7 r•. LL 7 w+ il- 4+.r.r.r, + ;ra R a■ ItJ-- .. a • rT k■wr ra,■,. i r • it7r■#'7• af h �# R..M .r�r'+.r■rwr a' aAf a: J ir1 i t I'� r 4PI i+ 'y 1 L + i L ■w r #,a•r�r■-AiF 1 U. ... } 16 .,r..r..+ta :.���r3 ri s.r-. „ ;�■■IM1 }4*# r '�. L�r.�r .■M ■. a•Y rar,+:y• �. ■ r �.~ �•�.l� 1It *0 - ri 1 r IL •` S f ` it i : " r'r ..►�r�r■ j a+ 1. "' �I Haney Creek 4,t 1 } IFa i }rya, i s r[ a' ■ rliri:ri isr ■ i s .r �• 1* [L [�+. i j i 1 ',! � Mwr.-� .Green6e@, y r A 'G �. a ■ • + ■ a f 1 rrr■ r fA 1 I r ' .. « r wr. ■ i • 4 Y . titi ., �7+r r. r.a...4 ■ I'.ti\- ♦I +r i� 1. 1 I�, ■-� �1 N is yl i i 1 �. is 'w 1 ..■. i1 1 -Ir ` a■. M+ !i +a, i i J. a . � ■a• , 1. 1 � i. :. # rtr..+•!� ` � �.;'NpiQe}t� l �! 7r'9 1 ! r ■ + !it !.. ! ■ r.. ` ■...Ir\i ti..Mi a en 1 ' . r r raw! 1'r__ �. ■ 14R: 4 , r ooll _ IN 1. . L , . ; ■ : + F '!" . i s : ' , p1�i1i�I 171HouserTeaate . ■ ; `l { �pP_rk w1L1 '[' •i11i,i■ ■' N�/ :r FA •ryIL tit,1'r,ii i'11C _ ,,�#••��.:� •• 1 r ;. t'ti ,t 1 � � ■f► �L. � :• t :� 1 �` ► •; 4 t t, : Mdlnlght ri 1 iL 1 i 1 I N. r ■�. f■-• u{. .L ■. i ■ i r i ay �iddleShcdal t ■ [ ■ 1r �r,r ■ �r ■ rr ■�a w�.. JL r •.� t IBl11q' 9�I FI , ■`■: .;ItiFwa. r 1 Y i t •� ■ Li 1■ ■"'tj, r i r •R .a.r■ : r + w _ . -IX 2th4r L- �..lA •...- • L #' i /w IM ■ r i; f �;'■� '• .E ICY T I'S +•.R ■ .� . lie -# 1 !a ria- r ► x - i ■ '= � � -� �1 � "�' 1 + i -T e Y 1 t+ ■A1•r"0000 ** v j F. i 01 ` l P - } r�+r err rra• r Rr■■ r .. 1 • ! ,�, rt :. Z 1, 1 f ■.,■�.,+„f y+f. . tY E31rN , ,-•t l� .� ir.r A'- M ■.._ +v ■..+ 1i .w t'[ 1, fr■► i� 1 ♦ 1 T e _.■,.trr .titir'r`■ d IgL�1di�-1 ��1�� 1 !. . ♦. yvs.. . i' ■�1 I ' �. JIi -Iyer.* ♦..�rrwW;�...i y -= - 1 11'•7.b,r.�J!p r':f lips.. ! !! SC �■" 4! i.. -# i defl4jne .. ■ a Nei }1 ,: St.ti.1.�■1, , r' o• ., E _♦.. ■ L .Ar..w. rr�t ! r{ �✓ .. l.r a -� ApariRleni 1.r,,.,ww.y ..,. +r1r+,-■■ I No fRHA)###TI i 12Z Jill ....f1EbthSt a�}t .•.'� $' ■ w: r .� , HhJhlands 1x' 11+ A'. r rl = 1 i w • , �: ■ y� , ��rf [■..w,ti�^- rrt.`a': Park ;I �r� F `''.' tk ; R.� aa■. 11i1',-r;+.M: IyI ■r[ �. y. 1 r w. —I a., 7•' _+ylr* a t'.{� �. 4th f✓ r `}1 '+R +I • ■ r*'A 1 1 t A+■�.. iy .. HiAl A'. 'Y-�1 t k:. "'d -♦ ■ yrs + ; i - ` ■ !. yt • �:a�-....■ 1 r. I � - ■ Y mat: �' ■ r+�' j !. ■. 'y► a± r r+wnr ?trt i i a f f r ak ♦as#■ 7 .*: iyr ■r■ M ; r •s rt* t.'�ai; �:`:l r•7', .., 0, .■mow .�ta •■ a1.ai.i,L.r1i''i I+r■ .4, ♦"ate«rr i 1 '}. " .r "w♦r i- i :i ,{ L 1 .7 ■•...-4..#.r "'.a, 'rSl Si. ' Y t.l.. li * .raw •yr a' .,r ♦+ ♦ y* � ■ . a 1 / r w 1}.► . i + a � w r 1 " �� 'Y • 1 '+ ! ! a.-at1.-�.y .��.-r■ l..r -� CP t 1rr 1 r �"'►r■ •�.rN * * �t ♦ }� i 1 '1 r.rw„rj ,.ra,ar< ■. r. ,r:: rr■ * ar hr+'' �� �'��, ��i'yl ; FI s: ■ ' 1. ��� T r.� 'y+6. 4 "ati y i' r.) • j ++. r IN ■ �. fs. *rLkr 7 ! a 1 �. ■' } •: s ■ Rr.• ■ ll1II U • ra'. } M n s R• t r f•r + whr: 1+ '6, 3 r r nical �■ . i'■ w= z r A w rr. rt .1� {a:.�i of a r+ 1 ..' k9 - �I Publicly owned land Inky o1 Renton, Renton Housing Authority, Renton School District, US/federal Gm%and ROW] 0 600 12X .1890 ' 4vo ieet *� Figure 2-15 MI T H U N Publicly Owned Sites in Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS Community facilites complex: • Early childhood education center • Senior center • Daycare • Community services • Conference rooms • Fitness, arts, etc. • Plaza/ oudoor seating `, l ` Gre Co?iT tion in 16th Striet "R A. W. � ::Senior housing�f••+,�; Community garden. Remote, shared parking lot Cottage/ courtyard green housing Rainwater park/ passive recreation field Children's play area _ i r _ InterirLs-en` pedestrian corridors/ walkways 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 Figure 2-16 MI T H U H Alternative 3—Family Village Concept Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft 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 is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the City would formally designate the Planner! Action consistent with the Planned Action study area in Figure 2-1. The proposal alternatives studied in this Draft EIS implement projects identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Sunset Area CIS. The proposal is located within the Renton Urban Growth Area, and proposal elements are not essential public facilities as defined by RCW 36.70A.200. Although a SEPA threshold determination would not be required for future projects within the Planned Action Study Area that meet specific description and parameters, the City would follow adopted procedures to review proposed projects within the Planned Action Study Area through the land use review process associated with each project to determine its impacts and impose any appropriate development conditions. SEPA rules at WAC 197-11-168 require the ordinance designating the Planned Action to include the following: a description of the type of project action being designated as a Planners 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 he 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 al[ 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 Appendix C. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 2-51 December 2010 Draft 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 Draft EIS describes the individual impacts of conceptual plans in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, as well as civic and infrastructure improvements {e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard improvements], in the context of cumulative growth patterns expected over the next 20 years in the Planned Action Study Area. This growth in the Study Area is examined in the context of the City's adopted plans that included growth allocations citywide. 2.8 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Implementation Deferring implementation of the proposals would allow for residential and commercial development to occur in a more scattered manner in the study area over a longer period of time due to lack of substantive civic and infrastructure benefits. in the absence of a catalyst for redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization, economic development would occur more gradually. Benefits of new housing, employment, and civic uses - such as replacement of antiquated and dilapidated housing, greater cohesion of residents, opportunities for healthy active lifestyles, and greater local employment - at Sunset Terrace and in the Planned Action Study Area would not occur. Stormwater improvements would be made in a piecemeal fashion and would not achieve net improvements in stormwater treatment compared to a master plan approach. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to lack access management and aesthetic appeal. Less mixed use development would provide less reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions at a regional level. Each development would undergo separate environmental review, which would lengthen permit review time. Deferring implementation could result in marginally less traffic and would expose fewer new residents to noise for developments located along the roadway. Sunset Area Community Punned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 52 ICF 593.10 Chapter 3 Affected Environment This chapter presents current environmental conditions and regulatory requirements applicable in the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, addressing the following topics: 3.1 Earth 3.2 Air Quality 3.3 Water Resources 3.4 Plants and Animals 3.5 Energy 3.6 Noise 3.7 Environmental Health 3.8 Land Use 3.9 Socioeconomics 3.10 Housing 3.11 Environmental Justice 3.12 Aesthetics 3.13 Historic/Cultural 3.14 Transportation 3.15 Parks and Recreation 3.16 Public Services 3.17 Utilities Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.1 Earth 3.1.1 Environmental Context Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section discusses the existing conditions related to soils and geology in the Planned Action Study Area. Subsurface materials, seismicity, and geologic hazards are the primary topics. Groundwater also is discussed as it relates to potential construction impacts and the engineering properties of soil; however, infiltration characteristics and aquifer protection issues are discussed in Section 3.3, Water Resources. 3.1.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Subsurface Materials The soils influencing the design and Function of the Planned Action Study Area generally consist of human -placed fill and deposits of the most recent glaciation, the Vashon, which receded approximately 13,500 years ago. The primary soil units present in the Planned Action Study Area are described in the subsections below. Both the geologic units used in the City of Renton (City) GIS database and the more commonly used names (in parentheses) are listed for the geologic units. Figure 3.1-1 shows the surface geology as mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (2011 The 20 borings drilled along NE Sunset Boulevard for the Renton Interceptor design (Golder Associates 1996 and 2003) and the fact that the northern half of the Planned Action Study Area is designated as an Aquifer Protection Zone (City of Renton 2009) suggest that the extent of the Pleistocene continental glacial till is not as extensive as indicated in Figure 3.1-1 and that perhaps more of Planned Action Study Area is underlain by Pleistocene advance glacial outwash. Fill Based on borings along NE Sunset Boulevard (Golder Associates 1996 and 2003), fill ranging from 4 to 7 feet deep, and in limited locations exceeding 10 feet deep, is common along roadways. Roadway and site grading Fill is typically a reworked mix of the parent geologic units in the local area and consists primarily of loose to medium -dense, well to poorly graded sand with silt and varying proportions of gravel. Backfill for utility trenches tends to be more permeable than native soils or surrounding fill and sometimes may be a conduit for water movement. Key characteristics of fill are that the composition and density may not have been well controlled. Pleistocene Continental Glacial Outwash (Vashon Recessional Outwash) Recessional outwash is material that was deposited during the retreat of the glacier and typically consists of loose to medium -dense, well to poorly graded sand with silt and small amounts of gravel. It is moderately permeable. It is not as dense and strong and the glacially overcoIidated till and advance outwash, but is typically suitable for support of lightly loaded footings, such as commonly support residential and light commercial structures. While recessional outwash can settle under added loads, the amount of settlement under modest loads seldom exceeds a few inches and occurs almost instantaneously as the load is applied. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.1 1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICIF 593.14 1CF Figure 3.1-1 Surface Geology I MT r V. 11 AT I n N r.;. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NFPA/SEPA EIS City Limits NE 21ST ST ` j Q Planned Action Study Area NE 215T ST I Soil Type u.r NE 21ST ST E-1 Advance Glacial Outwash z N NE 24TH ST F—] Recessional Glacial Outwash z l Glacial Till g Fill NE 19TH ST Y � � w N NE 18TH ST LU c a , m z NE 17TH PL g o sao 1000 -V NE 17TH ST 1 , Feel __---'---- '� NE 15TH ST Q z �/i W z f` 7 j NE 15TH PL a Lm 0 ^ NE 14TH ST `cc z NE 14TH STi W NE 13TH PL U- ,a N cc NE 13TH 51 w { ' 0 z c NE 12TH ST. — kn ~� / W LU /1 ` LU W PpRK¢ / / O iIFL ; 00 -IJ NE 11TH P1 > 14 o ? z 3, A, ST z •� NE 11TH i Uj h w Lai� NE 10TH PL a k u, z Z 1` A C j Q 7 NE 10TH PL acc 2 NE 10TH ST �^ 0 Y z LLI ; it ± LLS W.0 J NE 9TH PL o w z z w `� z z LU a W NE 10TH ST 2 Q\ (— W a 0 x C 00 z 0 NE 9TH ST NE 9TH STW in � Uj I ? 3 z ~\ 4! UJ z W z z --NE STH PL Q `_ `L U) LU y-� ,QC0 8Tk 5T LU LU , z j 0 NE 8TH ST i x lt4t$�Np� o z z N 6rH !I N� PL N ]THAT = v NE 7TH ST !VE 6Th C!R i p + C m z Source: Interpreted from USDA {2010) Soils Maps and US65 (Mullineaux, 1965} SurficiaPt,'eology Map r \en m I \ x \ g rn i NE 7TH PL 1CF Figure 3.1-1 Surface Geology I MT r V. 11 AT I n N r.;. Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NFPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Vashon recessional outwash can he slightly weather sensitive (i.e., difficult to place in an engineered fill during wet weather because the silt and clay absorb water that hinders compaction), but is relatively well -draining and is well suited for reuse in the Planned Action Study Area. Occasionally, recessional outwash is loose enough to liquefy, or lose strength, during design -level earthquake shaking; however, the material must be saturated to liquefy. Based on the borings along NE Sunset Boulevard (Golder Associates 2003 and 20061, most of the loose Recessional Outwash appears to be unsaturated, so the risk of large scale liquefaction of this material during a seismic event is low. Pleistocene Continental Glacial Till (Vashon Till) Vashon till is typically a very dense, unsorted, unstratified mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited next to or under the glacial ice. It commonly contains occasional cobbles and boulders. Within the Planned Action Study Area, the material appears to be primarily sand with silt and gravel. Because it is very dense and contains a large percentage of granular materials, the till is very strong and is typically an excellent foundation material. Residential, light commercial, and even relatively heavily loaded bridge foundations are usually supported on spread footings in glacially overconsolidated till. Temporary excavations stand at relatively steep slopes. Excess excavation can be recompacted into excellent embankment material; however, the till is typically very weather - sensitive, so earthwork must be done during the dry season if the material is to be reused in embankments that require strength. Vashon till tends to be of low permeability and groundwater perches near the surface of the deposit. Dewatering of temporary excavations below the water table can usually be accomplished with sump pumps. The till can contain lenses of sand, which are more permeable than the overall mass and yield water when intercepted; however, the volume of flow from these lenses is typically small. The moderate fines (i.e., clay and silt) content and high compactness makes the till somewhat more resistant to erosion than cleaner, sandier materials; however, the low permeability means that stormwater tends to run off more than infiltrate, increasing the erosion risk. Once the till erodes, the fine particles tend to stay suspended, increasing the area/time required for runoff treatment to reduce turbidity. Pleistocene Advance Glacial Outwash (Vashon Advance Outwash) Advance outwash is a river deposit laid down in advance of the glacial front and overridden by the glacial ice. Vashon recessional outwash in the Planned Action Study Area is typically stratified, very dense, well to poorly graded sand with minor amounts of silt and gravel. The Vashon advance outwash is typically very strong, well -draining, and suitable for spread footing foundation support of residential and most commercial structures. Although there may be some layers or areas with elevated fines content, the material is generally clean (fines -free) enough that the material can be recompacted with minimal effort. The Vashon advance outwash is relatively permeable, so excavations below the groundwater table will require dewatering with pumping wells or construction techniques that can be done in the wet. Dewatering, if required, could involve substantial flow rates. However, where measurements are available, the water table in the Planted Action Study Area is commonly is excess of 20 feet below Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.1-3 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF S93.1D City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment the ground surface. Most excavations for residential and light commercial construction will not penetrate the groundwater table in Vashon recessional outwash. Seismicity The entire Puget Sound area is considered to be seismically active. Seismicity in this region is caused by the Juan de Fuca plate being thrust beneath the North American plate. This convergence leads to three different source mechanisms for seismic events in the Puget Sound area. Shallow zone earthquakes are random crustal events (Magnitude 6.5 to 7.25) that could occur in the upper 20 miles anywhere in the region. 2. Deep earthquakes are from the intraplate source (up to about Magnitude 7.5 on the Richter scale) occurring 20 to 40 miles in a wide zone beneath Puget Sound. Subduction zone earthquakes are very large in magnitude (Magnitude 8.5+) from the Cascadia source located off the coast of Washington. The Seattle Fault is an example of a shallow, random crustal event. These sources are currently assumed to be capable of causing a magnitude 7.0 to 7.25 event and are estimated to have a recurrence interval of approximately 1,000 to 1,200 years. The southernmost trace of the Seattle Fault zone is approximately 0.75 mile north of the northern edge of the Planned Action Study Area boundary {Johnson et al. 2004). Because of the close distance, this source has a relatively large impact on the intensity of shaking for the long recurrence interval used in the International Building Code (see Regulatory Context) even though the magnitude associated with it is smaller than the other sources. At lower design recurrence intervals, this source has much less impact. The 1949 Olympia earthquake (Magnitude 7.1), the 1965 Sea -Tac earthquake (Magnitude 6.5), and the 2001 Nisqually earthquake (Magnitude 6.8) are recent events associated with the intraplate fault mechanism. This type of earthquake occurs more frequently than the other two sources and has more impact on the hazard -analysis -produced design acceleration for short design life relative to the other two sources. Large (Magnitude 8.5+) Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes are believed to have a recurrence interval of 1,000 years or more (Atwater et al. 1995). Evidence of these large earthquakes, which have not been documented in modern times, consists of buried marshes or forests (sudden subsidence), areas buried by sand layers suggestive of tsunamis, signs of liquefaction, and landsliding. The Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake is thought to be capable of producing ground motions as high as 0.5 gravitational acceleration. The location of the assumed rupture is about 100 kilometers west of the Washington coast; therefore, shaking from this source would be substantially reduced in Renton. Earthquake accelerations codified for design in the Planned Action Study Area have been determined from probabilistic seismic hazard modeling conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2010; International Code Counsel 2009). This type of modeling considers the recurrence interval, magnitude, and distance to the project site for all possible source mechanisms. The seismic recurrence intervals used by the two codes that cover most development in the area are discussed in the Regulatory Context section below. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.1 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards mapped in the Planned Action Study Area include; • steep slope areas, • erosion hazard areas, and • landslide hazard areas. The locations of the mapped hazards are shown in Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3. 3.1.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Chapter 3. Affected Environment Renton Interceptor borings and published geologic mapping suggest that the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is likely to be underlain by relatively thin (perhaps less than 10 or 15 feet total) layers of fill and recessional outwash, underlain by Vashon till. Measurable quantities of groundwater were not encountered in the borings, though it is likely that relatively small volumes are perched on top of the till, especially during the winter and spring. 3.1.2 Regulatory Context 3.1.2.1 Federal The federal government provides seismic information and standards. The International Building Code has adopted the seismic recommendations developed by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2003). The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) uses the 20021 probabilistic seismic hazard maps developed by the U.S. Geological Survey for a seismic event with a recurrence interval of 2,500 years. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO] standards also rely on the 2002 U.S. Geological Survey probabilistic hazard mapping; however, AASHTO (2010) uses a seismic event with a recurrence interval of 1,000 years as the basis of design. 3.1.2.2 State The State of Washington has adopted the 2009 International Building Code (International Code Counsel 2009). This code applies to the design of continuously occupied buildings, so would apply to residences and most commercial buildings. The types of buildings that would be developed in the Planned Action Study Area would be designed for a seismic event with a recurrence interval of 2,500 years. State highway projects in the state typically are designed in accordance with the Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual (2010), which generally adopts AASHTO standards, with certain additional requirements or guidance. 3.1,2.3 Local The City has adopted the International Building Code together with state amendments and City amendments in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-5-050. 1 The U.S. Geological Survey has developed more recent maps than the 2002 versions, but the codes still use the 2002 versions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.1 5 ICF 593.10 Cit Limits ® ��.A.���1■I�E6rVMS", M ► 4 City NE xiST ST Planned Action Stud Area lVEi21ST'ST M 11r11 Y �! 1M tigl Erosion Hazard Areas LY.� ��� ■ �,, Landslide Hazard Areas e-+�® •w� LM NEF19THtST�ti i '?.`'y' s • a 5oa1.000 NEIIBTH ST� ala x • ` Feer � rR psi r7l a�i�� sartQ ;J. -F rwlto,Cl"� ' �gail�ij�! t { Fv4A 0 fNE14TH ST k k: ��� �l� :� NE 14TH T tri it •�' �` �� ��S 1 �� w err13TFITPL t Re y 3 r t,K► 41 _ ,:'�� '.k�=�iw' M t1 ��: S' Aqq 13TH ST .atey7 i��i:l�rr llA[' z� �_ '. '� *, _ L Vii: .�, .:� {a}�1tiIET1H75.T,1'r"�w Su ti 1 �� K wii -s _F L3HriY -11. _ or F.Mwgr �w }" =. • " '�' '. C` of AAM le `''� :=1" • 1 , o' AA'oT k NE 11THjPL"" s� Zip ^w.r� �` ��,. ...:� W4k r ` NE'11TH 5T+` ' w,. ��j y 2� 2 y MU lei C .. 1- 1 I/ �7 i� ' `�►: ' T t: moi " 1 �F +NE 10TH.P,L`: Lu NE;10TH P IpL- ..�. w:•:~� t�- . yS..�;. �'I;�,�rd!-+► �4 At 'a �rRR: k= N��T4THi5T �- �d + r' ''{ �I` ,♦k�f i - *. 107 ;! Q� SNE*10THLST -I +� L' or" ✓� i z w z $ .� ,nNE 9TH PLS k +I liu irlfk]�' f z1 w is 2 . f �i L,-419 ,, I'► rhe tar' .a,'��`�a j a— its &r .s j �*► (.��. e'er � w�.O+�I ;. Q -- E .�-]r ��'- -11Z, �.�' , . Iir� :a`w�r',it �aQ k °a �i.� r'E'wVsL i:'1 ice. hoat.r�'frt"H, ■` i .2'43jf' t z �► iml � lil r !i W .w ll' .+ `I 1� s S i #� i.Er a �NE$TH:PL ■rl�'i7��e 7w,w r�r �;� p1 ice! iuj '.N •&TH Sr ref iwj� t� 1�Q ' �! t- i i r' r ''' 'r ,' � r.tJ.�r NE'STH ST;+ 0� �Xi., N$� A d! 1 ♦r�'�����I����.1 wti..►� if /+ �[TrT IV NAS ��'.�5: _ t = r C t . .1NE�7THISTJ N'4r i�} r'ia�'- „•t �[ �--� ., r m, i. X00:at Z :7f •' se SOU`CE: C�tv of Fenton Yrn nOw i10 ik. -,wr' ri*";a r •� rt.` r• ��- -NE 7;TH PL. .. 'CF Figure Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City Limits Planned Action Study Area Steep Slope Hazard Areas 15-25% i J 25-40% >a0i N k 0 500 1 006 Fect N _. � 1. r. '.• ad 13.4TTH 4dE ST ' Y ti IF 157 7�• %m:. L 4 � . 4 n y LLr i i E'Y Q 4 I r t Z .- , vIT `o N ITh ZO L E,11T L :> w .. LU l �W ��� ry$ca`4 —� J , z NE.,— .- STS o . N��E 1�O,THLU iP.L a 7l cu �" s ti�rcN g., Z, tW NE 10TH-RQ,,t ,> O NE lOTH!5T dn, f T. Z, • a z ,NE 1oTl hST�.Nb9TH PL w 4 ° s*7.4 w �.r ,rifer 10, -a' NEr9TH ST. _ NE 9.1H ST:1 . �, #� ¢ p)< 4 i, 0- r az.yV �1 Z. Z. l '� a�wi�,� '�{- lupi •,y �. �.1V0,'L3 Z': —� ' eNE $TH PL ���{ G •ice, `� �'�' a �Z� y lC3 NE 81,H sad`rp.1 pe z u : �N NE $TH.ST, to " .r.:.t ►N ` ySJe of Q� �" ani Z .rte ty ' F 6rN PLpy /V���- T' yy{{ N#�:r 0 A 1' NET sr .i .eNE is � H �,_ srN.clR,r .. fir~ �: sr ' �- �t y •� -�s Socio, {-i:Y f R._i l.m King Coont - tf i Y Y .• '� � � y _ • ;. NE7,LHPL, 'CF Figure 3.1-3 Steep 51ope Hazard Areas Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment The City has also adopted critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), including regulations that govern development in geologic hazard areas (Subsection J2). The regulations do not preclude development within geologic hazard areas, but do require permitting and special design and review to show that the proposed development: does not increase the threat of the hazard to adjacent properties beyond the predevelopment condition, • does not adversely impact other critical areas, and • can be safely accommodated on the site. The geologic hazards are defined in the code; the maps of the hazard locations provided in Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 can he overridden by site-specific information. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.1-8 CF 593.10 City of Renton 3.2 Air Quality 3.2.1 Environmental Context Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section discusses the existing conditions related to air quality in the Planned Action Study Area. 3.2.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Existing Air Pollution Sources Typical air pollution sources in the Planned Action Study Area include vehicular traffic, commercial and retail businesses, light industry, and residential wood -burning devices. While many types of pollutant sources are present, the single largest contributor to most criteria pollutant emissions is derived from on -road vehicles, which contribute the majority of the carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds [VOCs), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Secondary sources of emissions are derived from commercial and industrial land uses. Additionally, space heating (e.g., gas and diesel heating equipment) and wood -burning appliance emissions contribute to background air quality. Key Criteria Air Pollutants The following paragraphs describe the sources and environmental effect of key criteria pollutants (CO, ozone, and particulate matter) considered in this analysis. CO is a product of incomplete combustion generated by mobile sources, residential wood combustion, and industrial fuel -burning sources. CO is a concern related to on -road mobile sources because it is the pollutant emitted in the greatest quantity for which short-term health standards exist. CO is a pollutant whose impact is usually localized, and CO concentrations typically diminish within a short distance of roads. The highest ambient concentrations of CO usually occur near congested roadways and intersections during wintertime periods of air stagnation. Ozone is a highly reactive form of oxygen created by an atmospheric chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and VOC, both of which are emitted directly from industrial and mobile sources. Ozone problems tend to be regional in nature because the atmospheric chemical reactions that produce ozone occur over a period of time, and because, during the delay between emission and ozone formation, ozone precursors can be transported far from their sources. Transportation sources like automobiles and trucks are some of the sources that produce ozone precursors. Particulate matter is generated by industrial emissions, residential wood combustion, motor vehicle tailpipes, and fugitive dust from roadways and unpaved surfaces. When first regulated, particle pollution was based on "total suspended particulate," which included all size fractions. As sampling technology has improved and the importance of particle size and chemical composition has become clearer, ambient standards have been revised to focus on the size fractions thought to be most dangerous to people. At present, there are standards for particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in size (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5), because these sizes of particulate contribute the most to human health effects, regional haze, and acid deposition. The highest ambient concentrations generally occur near the emissions sources, which in the study area would be motor vehicle tailpipes from State Route (SR) 900 and major Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'� ECF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment roads. PM2.5 has a greater impact than PM10 at locations far from the emitting source, because it remains suspended in the atmosphere longer and travels farther. Air Quality Attainment Status Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) designate regions as being attainment or nonattainment areas for regulated air pollutants. Attainment status indicates that air quality in an area meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and nonattainment status indicates that air quality in an area does not meet those standards. If the measured concentrations in a nonattainment area improve so they are consistently below the NAAQS, Ecology and EPA can reclassify the nonattainment area to a maintenance area. Renton, including the Planned Action Study Area, is currently designated as a maintenance area for CO and an attainment area for all other criteria air pollutants (ozone, PM10, PM2.5, lead, sulfur dioxide [SO2], and NO2). In March 2008, the EPA lowered its 8 -hour ozone standard from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm to better protect public health. In January 2010, EPA proposed a revision to the 2008 ozone standard, and put all area designations to the 2008 standard on hold. Until the revised standard is adopted, the region is still designated an attainment area for ozone. Similarly, in 2010, EPA enacted a new, more stringent 1 -hour average ambient air quality standard for NO2. At this time it is not known which regions in the country will be redesignated based on the new standard. Therefore, as of this time, Renton is still considered an attainment area for NO2. Air Toxics Issues The Planned Action Study Area includes residential and commercial uses that pose no special issues related to air toxics. The study area is not near any major industrial facilities that emit large amounts of toxic air pollutants, nor is it near any major transportation corridors [e.g., rail lines, marine terminals, freeways, or industrial haul truck routes) that are used by unusually high numbers of diesel -powered vehicles. Existing traffic on NE Sunset Boulevard includes only 2% heavy diesel vehicles, which is typical of commercial arterials. Based on these considerations, it is expected that existing and future air quality in the study area would not be affected by unusually high concentrations of toxic air pollutants. According to EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA-2000) database, the existing respiratory cancer risk in the census tracts' that includes the study area is roughly 500 x 10-6 or 500 cancer cases per million population2 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010). That reported respiratory cancer risk is typical of other mixed-use urban areas in King County. Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation Conformity Analysis Under federal and state regulations, Puget Sound Regional Council is required to demonstrate that the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conforms to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) allowable emissions budget. The SIP provides a blueprint of 1 The EPA's NATA database reports broader the census tract level (e.g., 250, 260, 270), rather than the more detailed level (e.g., 252, 253, 254). 2 This has been rounded up to 500 per million. The database report a cancer risk for the 250 census tract grouping of 470 per million. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.2 2 ICF 59110 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment how maintenance and nonattainment areas such as the central Puget Sound region will meet or maintain the NAAQS. The most recent air quality analysis (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010) for the 2010-2013 Regional TIP and the long-range RTP, demonstrates that 2040 Forecasted regional emissions conform to the SIP's allowable emissions budgets. That analysis included the SR 900 roadside safety improvement project in the Planned Action Study Area, 3.2.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The affected environment For air quality in this subarea is the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area. 3.2.2 Regulatory Context 3.2.2.1 Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards EPA establishes NAAQS and specifies future dates for states to develop and implement plans to achieve these standards. The standards are divided into primary and secondary standards; the former are set to protect human health within an adequate margin of safety, and the latter to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life. Table 3.2-1 fists the NAAQS for six criteria pollutants; CO, ozone, PM10, PM2.5, lead, S02, and NOZ. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.2 3 ICF 593-10 City of Renton Table 3.2-1. National and Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards Chapter 3. Affected Environment Pollutant Primary Federal Secondary State Carbon monoxide 8 -how- averaged 9 ppm No standard 9 ppm 1 -hour average 35 ppm No standard 35 ppm Ozone 8 -how- average' 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm Total suspended particles Annual average No standard No standard 60 µg/m3 24-hour average No standard No standard 150 pg/m3 Particulate matter—PM 10 24-hour average 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 150 pg/m3 Particulate matter—PM2.5 Annual average 15 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 24-hour averaged 35 pg/m3 35 pg/m3 35 ltg/m3 Lead Quarterly average 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 Sulfur dioxide Annual average 0.03 ppm No standard 0.02 ppm 24-hour averaged 0.14 ppm No standard 0.10 ppm 3 -hour averagea No standard 0.50 ppm No standard 1 -hour averagee No standard No standard 0.40 ppm Nitrogen dioxide Annual average 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.05 ppm 1 -hour average' 0.100 ppm No standard No standard Source: Chapter 173, Sections 470 to 475 Washington Administrative Code ppm = parts per million, pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Notes: Annual standards are never to be exceeded. Short-term standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year unless noted. Not to be exceeded once per year. " To attain this standard, the 3 -year average of the fourth -highest daily maximum 8 -hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008). Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. ' To attain this standard, the 3 -year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population -oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 pg/m3. e 0.25 ppm are not to be exceeded more than two times in 7 consecutive days. To attain this standard, the 3 -year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1 -hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm. Transportation Conformity Regulations Regionally significant transportation projects (with federal or state funding) proposed for construction within nonattainment areas or maintenance areas are subject to the transportation conformity regulations specified under federal regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Title 40, Parts 51 and 93) and state regulations (Chapters 173-420 of the Washington Administrative Code [WAC]). Regionally significant projects include constructing or widening new roadways and widening signalized intersections. The intent of these regulations is to ensure that transportation Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.2-4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment projects, plans, and programs affecting regional and local air duality will conform to existing plans and time tables for attaining and maintaining federal health -based air quality standards. The permitting agency must demonstrate transportation conformity by the following steps for any proposed future roadway improvement projects. a Confirm that the proposed projects are included in the RTP or TIP. s Confirm that the regional emissions described in the TIP are within the allowable emissions budget specified by Ecology. s Use an EPA -approved air quality dispersion model to conduct a project -level CO hot -spot analysis at the most heavily congested intersections. Inclusion of a project in the regional conformity analysis does not satisfy project -level conformity requirements. Project -level hot -spot analyses must be performed by the project sponsor as part of the project's environmental review process. Currently, no such roadway project is proposed in the Planned Action Study Area; however, if the City used state or federal funds to construct any roadway improvements, then it would be required to include the preceding air quality dernonstrations in Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and/or National Environmental Policy Act CNEPA) documentation. National Environmental Policy Act Requirement for Climate Change Analysis On December 7, 2009, EPA signed the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute findings for greenhouse gases (GHGs) under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Under the Endangerment Finding, EPA determines that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed GHGs—0O2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perFluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Under the Cause or Contribute Finding, EPA determines that the combined emissions of these well -mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution that threatens public health and welfare. These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities; however, they are a prerequisite to finalizing the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles, which EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation jointly proposed on September 15, 2009. On February 19, 2010, the Council on Environmental Quality issued draft NEPA guidance on the consideration of the effects of climate change and GHG emissions. This guidance advises federal agencies to consider opportunities to reduce GHG emissions caused by federal actions, adapt their actions to climate change impacts throughout the NEPA process, and address these issues in their agency NEPA procedures. Where applicable, the scope of the NEPA analysis should cover the GHG emission effects of a proposed action and alternatives and the relationship of climate change effects to a proposed action or alternatives. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.2-5 ICF 59110 City of Renton Chapter 3, Affected Environment 3.2.2.2 State State Ambient Air Quality Standards Ecology establishes state ambient air quality standards for the same six pollutants that are at least as stringent as the national standards, in the case of SO2, state standards are more stringent. Table 3.2-1 lists the state ambient air quality standards for six criteria pollutants. Outdoor Burning Burning yard waste and land -clearing debris is not allowed at any time in the Renton or in King County. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) enforces state outdoor burning regulations required by the Revised Code of Washington 70.94.743. State of Washington Greenhouse Gas Initiatives In response to growing worldwide concerns, Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire issued Executive Order 07-02 in February 2007. The executive order established the following GHG reduction goals (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008). • Reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. • Increase green economy jobs to 25,000, • Reduce expenditures on fuel imported into Washington State by 20% by 2020. In 2008, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2885, an act to create a framework to reduce GHG emissions in Washington State, codified the GHG reduction goals of Executive Order 07-02 and added a fourth requirement to help achieve the GHG reduction targets. • Decrease the annual per capita vehicle miles traveled 18% by 2020, 30% by 2035, and 50% by 2050. 3.2.2.3 Local Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations All construction sites in the Puget Sound region are required to implement rigorous emission controls to minimize fugitive dust and odors during construction, as required by PSCAA Regulation 1, Section 9.15, Fugitive Dust Control Measures. All industrial and commercial air pollutant sources in the Puget Sound region are required to register with PSCAA. Facilities with substantial emissions are required to obtain a Notice of Construction air quality permit before construction is allowed to begin. The application for this permit requires the facility to install best available control technology to reduce emissions, conduct computer modeling to demonstrate that the facility's emissions will not cause ambient concentrations to exceed the NAAQS limits, and minimize the impacts of odors and toxic air pollutants. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 3.2 1CF 59310 City of Renton King County Greenhouse Gas Initiatives Chapter 3. Affected Environment King County developed the 2007 King County Climate Plan [King County 2007], mandating significant reductions in countywide GHG emissions. While neither the state nor county GHG goals have promulgated any current GHG restrictions that would apply to future development in Renton, these goals illustrate the importance of local action to reduce GHG emissions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'� ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.3 Water Resources 3.3.1 Environmental Context Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section addresses the existing conditions in the Planned Action Study Area and its downstream receiving waters as they relate to water resources. 3.3.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Drainage Basins and Land Cover The Planned Action Study Area is currently developed for residential and commercial land uses. In general, the stormwater runoff from the Planned Action Study Area drains to roadside ditches, catch basins, and storm drains. The runoff is collected and conveyed into larger storm drains within the major streets and discharges into local creeks and drainage tributaries. No stream, water body, or water -related critical area is located in or immediately adjacent the Planned Action Study Area, no local flooding has been reported in the Planned Action Study Area; and the Planned Action Study Area is not within a special flood hazard area mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (1985). The Planned Action Study Area, which comprises approximately 269 acres of urban developed area, drains to three tributary creeks: Honey Creek, May Creek (Lower May Creek), and Johns Creek. All three creeks are part of the Greater Lake Washington Watershed (Water Resources Inventory Area [WRIA] 8 in King County). Approximately 3 acres at the northeast corner of the study area drain to Honey Creek, which is a tributary to May Creek. The northwest corner of the study area, which includes 23 acres of primarily single-family residential land use, drains to May Creek. The balance of the study area, approximately 243 acres of mixed single-family residential, multifamily residential, and commercial uses, drains to Johns Creek (Figure 3.3-1). Johns Creek 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 elevation is controlled by Lake Washington, and, therefore, is considered to be a flow -control -exempt water body per the City's Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (City of Renton 2010). The Johns Creek Basin covers approximately 1,236 acres and is located east of the Cedar River, 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. May Creek is 7 miles long and originates in the steep forested slopes of Cougar and Syuak 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), because May Creek is a feeder stream to Lake Washington. Class AA waters can be used for water supply (domestic, industrial, and agricultural), stock watering, fish spawning, wildlife habitat, and recreation (Foster Wheeler Environmental 1995). Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 3.3-1 ICF 593,10 CH2MHILL Figure Drainage Basins 4=W Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter B. Affected Environment Lake Washington, the receiving water body from May Creek and Johns Creek, is the second largest natural lake in Washington. The majority of the immediate watershed is highly developed and urban in nature, with 63% fully developed. 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. Additionally, impervious surfaces are a large source of urban pollution, especially when subjected to vehicular traffic. These pollution -generating impervious surfaces 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 60%. Under current conditions, the majority of this impervious surface is likely directly connected to the creeks downstream and largely pollution -generating with minimal treatment. See Table 3.3-1 below for a summary of these existing conditions. Table 3.3-1. Existing Land Cover Summary 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(4) list). The latest version of the 303(4) 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: a Category 1. This is a water body that meets tested standard for clean waters. a Category 2—water body of concern. This is a water body for which some evidence exists of a water duality problem, but not enough to require initiating a water quality improvement project. a Category 3 --insufficient data. This is a water body that has not been tested. a 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.3 3 ICF 593.10 Total Total Total Total Total Area Impervious Pervious PGIS1 Untreated Effective (acres) Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) PG1S' (acres) Impervious Planned Action Study 255.40 161.17 94.23 93.31 88.56 161.1.7 Area Potential Sunset Teri -ace 13.06 4.73 8.33 1.83 1.83 4.73 Redevelopment Subarea Total 268.46 165.90 102.56 95.19 90.39 165.90 t Pollution -aeneratina ininervious area 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(4) list). The latest version of the 303(4) 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: a Category 1. This is a water body that meets tested standard for clean waters. a Category 2—water body of concern. This is a water body for which some evidence exists of a water duality problem, but not enough to require initiating a water quality improvement project. a Category 3 --insufficient data. This is a water body that has not been tested. a 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.3 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3, Affected Environment o 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. o Category 4c—is impaired by a nonpollutant. 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 suhbasin between 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). Groundwater The Planned Action Study Area is within the City's Aquifer Protection Zone 2. The protection areas are the portions of an aquifer within the zone of capture, and the recharge area for wells owned or operated by the City. Zone 2 is the land area situated between the 365 -day groundwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture wells. This aquifer is the sole drinking water source for the City of Renton. The Planned Action Study Area south of NE Sunset Boulevard lies within the source area of Cedar Valley Sole Source Aquifer (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010), which is also part of the City's Aquifer Protection Zone 2. The limits of the Aquifer Protection Zone and infiltration potential within the study area are presented in Figure 3.3-2. 3.3.1,2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, currently a multifamily residential area, is located within the Johns Creek Basin of the Greater Lake Washington Watershed. Impervious areas consist of local roadways, sidewalks, driveways and roofs. Pervious areas consist primarily of lawns and trees scattered around thinly. Stormwater runoff collects in the catch basins and storm drains, which then convey the runoff to the storm drain system on NE Sunset Boulevard and eventually to Johns Creek and Lake Washington. No streams or water bodies are located in this subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'3 ICF 593.10 !A i s[ i / NE 17.TH ST /NE.15TH"ST✓ �! ! o sao • . r / i''/ Feet Z,E'.r.' • r` + / ' , / /` /',i w79* ''err! �••• '• ` fl+r a. , / '/ ]'.Z'r'.f -`!JNE'14TH ST j/ /'/./I • ' ! NE 14TIi�ST•' /'r// %i / W7. j � / ji NE 13TH PL j ,/J / % % ifOi ` IN NE'12THST. W Ep�R�I�s+.A ! p r i`/r•f "' /` p, r !. i va NE1TH PLf //"•' W r c�, • r'''i`' ;/NE i1tHSi/ % W k ��" YJ r' NE 10TH,PLi,/:' LU W ,! /� � Com: ,• � 1ti i� ; / „/,O // ; / , � � r, �, ", UJI 1i NE 10TH PL NE 10TH ST 0 ? Jul i y` NE 9TH PL ` w t z w w 4; ? W�IVE'T4TH 5T / � W�o a p Q NE 9TH ST R NE 9TH STw 1 O +30 t Z 3' f i z UJ W -t z LU NE 8TH PL a Z )tLU ' W t { i �' NE,BTH sT o a 'i u qN9 l NE 8TH'ST x W ` NE 6T ' a r �t ibly\ { z L 1 PL N x p NE 7TH 5T N� srk M m .} 5 _ K 7- S unce: - Source: City cf Renton; King County MS I 4F, �. 3 �^ NE 7TH PL 'CF Figure 3.3 Infiltration Feasibility iNTEBNATIoNAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City Limits_ NE 21ST Q Planned Action Study Area � NE21ST ST,*', Parcels j � :' r r •i/ NE 21STST Slope Buffer �.'• NE'207H 5T.!�' , �& • a: Slope A• ® Aquifer Protection Zone Sail Group he" l : NE.19TH 'ST" ST Outwash Till aC. :r f ✓ A, �• , / A. r, ` , ` i '`:1+1 / r " / Zi r` NE 17TH:PL ; ' i ' 3 •' % , !A i s[ i / NE 17.TH ST /NE.15TH"ST✓ �! ! o sao • . r / i''/ Feet Z,E'.r.' • r` + / ' , / /` /',i w79* ''err! �••• '• ` fl+r a. , / '/ ]'.Z'r'.f -`!JNE'14TH ST j/ /'/./I • ' ! NE 14TIi�ST•' /'r// %i / W7. j � / ji NE 13TH PL j ,/J / % % ifOi ` IN NE'12THST. W Ep�R�I�s+.A ! p r i`/r•f "' /` p, r !. i va NE1TH PLf //"•' W r c�, • r'''i`' ;/NE i1tHSi/ % W k ��" YJ r' NE 10TH,PLi,/:' LU W ,! /� � Com: ,• � 1ti i� ; / „/,O // ; / , � � r, �, ", UJI 1i NE 10TH PL NE 10TH ST 0 ? Jul i y` NE 9TH PL ` w t z w w 4; ? W�IVE'T4TH 5T / � W�o a p Q NE 9TH ST R NE 9TH STw 1 O +30 t Z 3' f i z UJ W -t z LU NE 8TH PL a Z )tLU ' W t { i �' NE,BTH sT o a 'i u qN9 l NE 8TH'ST x W ` NE 6T ' a r �t ibly\ { z L 1 PL N x p NE 7TH 5T N� srk M m .} 5 _ K 7- S unce: - Source: City cf Renton; King County MS I 4F, �. 3 �^ NE 7TH PL 'CF Figure 3.3 Infiltration Feasibility iNTEBNATIoNAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.3.2 Regulatory Context 3.3.2.1 Federal Federal stormwater regulations in the Clean Water Act are typically promulgated through local stormwater requirements. Federal stormwater-related requirements and approvals for the proposal will need to meet the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which is regulated by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. See also Section 3.4 of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In addition, proposals in designated sole source aquifers are subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which requires that federally funded projects that have the potential to contaminate the aquifer "so as to create a significant hazard to public health" are subject to EPA review and approval (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010b). 3.3.2.2 State 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. These filings typically require projects to provide erosion -control measures consistent with Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). Permanent stormwater features must meet the manual's design standards or be equivalent. 3.3.2.3 Local RMC 4-6-030 and Ordinance No. 5526 address storm drain utilities. Technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009) and the City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2010). RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, addresses the requirements for development within the aquifer protection zone. 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 (e.g., implementation of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manuao or under less stringent editions. 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 (LID) 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 he 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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.3-6 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment exceeds 65% For all zoning classifications; therefore, all potential new or redevelopment projects within the study area under each alternative 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 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 the more stringent Flow Control Duration Standard, which requires matching Forested conditions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.3-7 December 2010 ©raft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.4 Plants and Animals 3.4.1 Environmental Context 3.4.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Chapter 3, Affected Enwronment The analysis area for plants and animals consists of the Planned Action Study Area and the areas downstream that may be affected by stormwater originating within the Planned Action Study Area (Figure 3.4-1). Stormwater originating from most of the Planned Action Study Area enters the City storm sewer system and has no potential to affect plants or animals. Stormwater originating in about 10% of the northernmost portion of the Planned Action Study Area, however, is conveyed to May Creek, or to Honey Creek, a tributary of May Creek. Accordingly, this stormwater could affect aquatic habitat in Honey Creek and in May Creek downstream towards its mouth at Lake Washington. Aquatic habitat in these areas is included in the analysis area for plants and animals. Terrestrial habitat in the analysis area was reviewed by reference to aerial photographs, 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 anti 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 using machinery (e.g., lawnmowers) and chemicals (e.g., fertilizers and pesticides). These areas have very low habitat value for all types of wildlife. ruderal vegetation (e.g., nonnative herbs, Himalayan blackberry [Rubus armeniocus], and young trees) is rare in the Planned Action Study Area, and in consequence, invasive plant species are similarly rare. 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. Such trees have habitat value for common songbirds such as robins (Turdus migratorius) and juncos (Junco hyemalis), as well as crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and flickers (Colaptes auratus), and may also provide habitat for arboreal mammals such as squirrels (chiefly Sciurus carolinensis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), and opossums (Didelphis virginiona). They are unlikely to provide substantial habitat for any sensitive species, but may occasionally be used for perches by birds such as hawks (Accipitridae) or herons (Ardeidae, chiefly Ardea herodios), or for foraging by birds that occupy habitat in the Honey Creek area just to the north. No other natural areas are located near the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.4-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City Limits []Planned Action Study Area C -...I Water Bodies ^^-Streams Parcels Drainage Basins Honey Creek May Creek Johns Creek Salmonid Habitat —Coho —Fall Chinook Winter Steelhead N A 0 500 1,000 GiaTTM Feet CP L 0 Z l� 1� f �sE ell .., 92ND ST S't NE 28TH ST NE 27TH ST- NE TNE 26TH PL NE 24TH ST NE 23RD ST SE 93RD ST z W z NE 25TH 5T. a NE 24TH 5T 0 NE 23RD PL W 5� SE. 95TK WpY NE 21ST ST a p NE 10TH ST LU m a Lu y w W LU z 20TH ST H W a a z o z. CIO W a Q 0 zW C W W z Z W NE srH Z W W � a a en z M W Q N Z z w Q O NE 16TH ST u+ Z ~ 'a 5 a W m IX LU NE 14TH ST z p 0 NE 13TH PL b YpR LU N STH ST a � Y z Qa � _ Q w 4 a a N Ill ST Source: City of Re Mo n; CH210 Hill: Wl i vol 'CF Figure 3.4-1 Aquatic Habitat Ml_NNA'fIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS 5� SE. 95TK WpY r' p NE 10TH ST m a Lu y w W NF 2 Ch z �ryh w a z O. t Q Y ro_ W z z p M. Yn NE srH a en z M Sr a UJ N W6 O NE 12TH ST A O u W A Y a 2� Z NE IiTH PL a NE 6TH CT ? a p o a vol 'CF Figure 3.4-1 Aquatic Habitat Ml_NNA'fIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS 5� SE. 95TK WpY W Ln W Lu NE 17TH ST z - N W NF 1STH N �ryh a z O. t z Y ro_ W z p M. Yn W Z en z M vol 'CF Figure 3.4-1 Aquatic Habitat Ml_NNA'fIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS 5� NE 17TH PL' W NE 17TH ST N W NF 1STH ST LW a z z O UJ N W6 CC z W NE 12TH ST Jp O u W �~ W a ti, h Z NE IiTH PL ? a p o w z Ui Y } a a zW a 9rk p; a W o G NE 9TH ST NEC grH o 3 W Sr U, 0 a z r z NE 8TH ST z O A z NE 7TH ST 2 r m z m rn NE 6TH PL T yp( 6Sti Sr NE 6TH ST se vol 'CF Figure 3.4-1 Aquatic Habitat Ml_NNA'fIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter S. Affected Environment Aquatic habitat in the analysis area was reviewed with reference to aerial photographs, zoning maps, the National Wetlands Inventory maps maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010), "Best Available Science" reviews prepared during the 2003-2004 revision of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, StreamNet (2010) and Salmonscape (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010b) database query results, and the FinolAdopted May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County and City of Renton 2001). No aquatic habitat has been identified within the Planned Action Study Area, but aquatic habitat does occur in the form of streams in Honey Creek and May Creek, which receive stormwater from portions of the Planned Action Study Area. No wetlands are mapped anywhere in the Planned Action Study Area, or in the vicinity of Honey Creek or May Creek downstream of the study area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Honey Creek (also called Honey Dew Creek) originates within the Renton city limits just north-east of the Planned Action Study Area, near the junction of NE Sunset Boulevard and Redmond Place NE. The creek flows west-northwest approximately 1.0 mile to its confluence with May Creek, which then flows another 1.8 miles to its mouth at Lake Washington. The City has classified the upper 0.5 mile of Honey Creek as a Class 3 stream, and the lower 0.5 mile as a Class 2 stream. May Creek is also a Class 2 stream for the first 0.25 mile below the confluence, and below that point is a Class 1 stream. All of these stream classes signify a perennial stream; Class 1 and 2 streams are also salmonid -bearing. 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 (Oncor'hynchus tshawytscho, 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 analysis area, but it is likely that these waters also contain many common aquatic species such as three-spined stickleback (Casterosteus aculeatus), freshwater sculpins (Cottus sp.), nonnative fishes in the sunfish family (Centrarchidae), and long - toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum). Special -Status Species The only special -status species that have been identified in or downstream of the Planned Action Study Area are the salmonids: Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, and steelhead. The Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead are both listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are listed as candidates for protection by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Additionally, their distribution within the analysis area is designated as critical habitat under the ESA. The coho and sockeye salmon have no federal status, but are also listed as candidates for protection by WDFW. No special -status terrestrial species have been identified in or within 0.25 mile of the Planned Action Study Area. 3.4.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Existing conditions in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are substantially the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area. This subarea does include one substantial patch of ruderal vegetation, which covers about 1.8 acres west of Glenwood Avenue NE. Otherwise, terrestrial vegetation cover consists of the same mixture of treeless and treed areas described above, and has the same low habitat value. This subarea drains only to the City's stormwater system; thus, it has no potential to affect aquatic habitat. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.4-3 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Special -Status Species Chapter 3. Affected Environment The special -status species that have been identified in this subarea are the same as those listed above for the Planned Action Study Area. 3.4.2 Regulatory Context A variety of existing regulations are intended to reduce the potential environmental impacts of development and redevelopment projects. Within the Planned Action Study Area, the principal existing regulations that protect plants and animals and their habitat are described below. 3.4.2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act. Federal review applies to any projects funded, authorized, or performed by the United States. Because the proposal would be funded in part by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a detailed review of potential effects on plants and animals protected under the ESA is required, and would be performed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Impacts must be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable and in some cases mitigation may be required. Clean Water Act. Federal stormwater regulations are contained in the Clean Water Act, but are promulgated through local stormwater requirements, described below. See also Section 3.3, Water Resources. 3.4.2.2 State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. If a project's area of disturbance will exceed 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. Projects are required to provide erosion -control measures consistent with these permit requirements. See also Section 3.3, Water Resources. 3.4.2.3 Local Comprehensive Plan. Through land use permits, the City ensures project compliance with environmental policies identified in the comprehensive plan and amendments. Numerous environmental policies were adopted under the last (2009) plan revision (City of Renton 2009). Critical Areas Ordinance. City review applies to projects in an environmentally critical area. These projects must comply with the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Areas specifically protected under this ordinance include wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (including streams and riparian areas). City authorizations commonly include requirements intended to fully disclose impacts in critical areas and to minimize environmental impacts. Stormwater Regulations. Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 and City Ordinance No. 5526 address Storm Drain Utility. Technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are contained in the King County Surface Water Design Manual {King County 2009) and the City amendments thereto. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.4-4 1CF 593.14 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Urban Forest Plan, In 2009, the Renton City Council adopted the Renton Urban and Cornmimity Forestry Redevelopment Plan. Plan implementation over a 10 -year timeline will serve four goals: 1) achieving high performance standards; 2) managing a healthy urban forest and other vegetation; 3) increasing public safety; and 4) adopting supportive legislation. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'� 5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.5 Energy 3.5.1 Environmental Context Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section discusses the existing conditions related to energy in the Planned Action Study Area. 3.5.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Primary energy uses in the Planned Action Study Area include electricity and natural gas used by homes and business buildings in the study area and gasoline and diesel fuel used by vehicles traveling to and from the study area. Puget Sound Energy is the provider of electricity and natural gas in the study area. In general, winter is the peak season for electricity and natural gas usage in the Puget Sound area because of space heating. Energy use is estimated using King County's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet (King County 2007). The worksheet provides regional average energy usage by different types of land uses. Table 3.5-1 summarizes the annual building energy usage based on the average energy usage for similar types of land uses. Table 3.5-1. Estimated Existing Annual Energy Usage from Buildings Annual Energy Total Annual Existing Usage per Unit Energy Usage Land Use Type Land Use Unit (million Btu) (million Btu) Single-family housing 117 Dwelling unit 107.3 12,554 Multifamily housing in 783 Dwelling unit 41.0 32,103 large building Multifamily housing in 389 Dwelling unit 78.1 30,381 small building Education 223.6 Thousand square feet 83.01 18,558 Retail 352.3 Thousand square feet 74.23 26,148 Service 226.3 Thousand square feet 77.08 17,439 Total 137,183 Source: King County 2007 Btu = British thermal unit In addition to building energy usage, the vehicle energy usage is estimated from the population of the Planned Action Study Area, annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, and the fuel economy per vehicle. The average values used to calculate the existing annual energy usage from vehicles are listed below. Population in the Planned Action Study Area: 2,978 Average daily VMT per capita in Puget Sound: 22.9 (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010) Average fuel economy of a light duty vehicle: 21.1 miles per gallon {mpg] (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009) 1 gallon of gasoline: 124,238 British thermal units (Btu) Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/5EPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.5 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment The existing annual energy usage from vehicles to and from the Planned Action Study Area is estimated with the following equation. Annual energy usage from vehicles = 2,978 people x 22.9 VMT/day-capita - 21.1 mpg x 124,238 Btu/gallon x 365 days/year = 146,543 million Btu The total energy usage from both buildings and vehicles in the Planned Action Study Area is estimated to be 283,726 million Btu. 3.5.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea This subarea area currently consists of 100 multifamily units in large buildings and 10 multifamily units in small buildings with a population of 314. With the same energy assumptions described above, total energy usage (buildings and vehicles) for the subarea is estimated to be 20,310 million Btu. 3.5.2 Regulatory Context 3.5.2.1 Federal Public Housing Environmental and Conservation Clearinghouse Utility costs make up approximately 24% of the operating expenditures for Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). Every 5 years, PHAs undergo an energy audit pursuant to 24 CFR 95.302. To help PHAs manage energy costs, HUD's Public Housing Energy Conservation Clearinghouse has published news and resources regarding energy conservation and efficiency in public housing. On October 16, 2009, HUD released a notice, PIH -2009-43, encouraging the use of renewable energy and "green" construction practices in public housing. Through the notice, HUD strongly encourages PHAs to use solar, wind, geothermal/ground coupled heat pumps, and other renewable energy sources, and to use "green" construction and rehabilitation techniques for maintenance, construction, or modernization. On October 12, 2010, HUD released a notice, PIH -2010-41, encouraging ENERGY STAR products as the standard for PHAs. HUD is interested in promoting and expanding the use of energy-efficient equipment, appliances, and standards in public housing to reduce energy consumption and control operating costs. PHAs are encouraged to construct ENERGY -STAR -qualified homes as part of any new construction project, if economically feasible. HUD also provides the guidance and requirements on Energy Performance Contracts (EPCs) that applies to public housing under the Public Housing Operating Fund Program pursuant to 24 CFR Part 990 and EPCs pursuant to 24 CFR Part 965, Subpart C (PIH -2009-16). An EPC is a financing technique that uses cost savings from reduced energy consumption to pay the cost of installing energy conservation measures. HUD encourages PHAs to employ innovative approaches such as EPCs to achieve programmatic efficiency and reduce utility costs, particularly as PHAs transition to asset management. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.5 2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Corporate Average Fuel Economy Chapter 3. Affected Environment The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were established from the "Energy Policy Conservation Act," first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975, and intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the United States. CAFE is the required average fuel economy for a vehicle manufacturer's entire fleet of passenger cars and light trucks for each model year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates CAFE standards and the EPA measures vehicle fuel efficiency. The CAFE standards for model year 2010 are 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 23.5 mpg for light trucks; the targeted standard for year 2020 is 35 mpg for the combined fleet of passenger cars and light trucks, which was established from the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007. 3.5.2.2 State Washington State Building Code and Energy Code The Washington State Energy Code (Chapter 51-11 of the WAC) is adopted by the Washington State Building Code Council pursuant to Chapter 19.27A.020 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). This code provides a minimum level of energy efficiency, but allows flexibility in building design, construction, and heating equipment efficiencies. The design of this code allows space heating equipment efficiencies to offset or substitute for building envelope thermal performance. The State Building Code Act (RCW 19.27) requires that each local jurisdiction enforce the State Building Code within its jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction can contract with another jurisdiction or an inspection agency to provide the mandated enforcement activities. Any jurisdiction may amend the State Building Code provided the amendments do not reduce the minimum performance standards of the codes. Local amendments are limited or prohibited in the following areas. • Residential provisions of the Washington State Energy Code (WAC 51-11) and the Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code (WAC 51-13), any provision of the International Building Code or International Residential Code affecting accessibility, and standards specifically adopted in RCW 19.27 and 19.27A cannot be amended by any local jurisdiction. Amendments by local jurisdictions that affect the construction of single-family and multifamily residential buildings must he reviewed and approved by the State Building Code Council before such amendments can be enforced. 3.5.2.3 Local Renton Building Code and Energy Code The City of Renton's Building and Energy codes are specified in Chapter 4-5 (Building and Fire Prevention Standards) of the RMC. The Building Code (RMC 4-5-050) primarily consists of the adoption and amendment of state (WAC 51-40) and international building codes. The City's energy regulations (RMC 4-5-051) adopt the Washington State Energy Code (WAC 51-11). Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.5-3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.6 Noise 3.6.1 Environmental Context Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section discusses the existing conditions related to noise in the Planned Action Study Area. Below are brief definitions of noise terminology used in this section. Table 3.6-1 provides sound levels of various sound sources. Emphasis is on noise from roadways and airfields.' • Sound. A vibratory disturbance transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g., air, water, and solids) and capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone. • Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. In general, sound waves travel away from a ground -level noise source in a hemispherical pattern. As a result, the energy contained in a sound wave is spread over an increasing area as it travels away from the source. This results in a decrease in loudness at greater distances from the noise source. • Decibel (dB). A measure of sound intensity based on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared ratio of actual sound pressure level to a reference sound pressure level (20 micropascals). • A -weighted decibel (dBA). A measure of sound intensity that is weighted to take into account the varying sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies of sound. Typical A -weighted noise levels for various types of sound sources are summarized in Table 3.6-1. + Equivalent sound level (Leq). Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. Leq is the steady-state sound level that would contain the same acoustical energy as the time -varying sound that actually occurs during the monitoring period. The 1 -hour A -weighted equivalent sound level (Leq 1h) is the energy average of A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 1 -hour period. • Day -night level (Ldn). The energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with a 10 -dB penalty added to sound levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when community noise diminishes and noise from roadways, railroads and airports becomes amplified. People generally perceive a 10-dBA increase in a noise source as a doubling of loudness. For example, an average person would perceive a 70-dBA sound level as being twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound level. People generally cannot detect differences of 1 to Z dBA between noise levels of a similar nature (e.g., an increase in traffic noise compared to existing traffic noise). However, under ideal listening conditions, some people can detect differences of 2 or 3 dBA. Under normal listening conditions, most people would likely perceive a 5-dBA change in sounds of a similar nature. When the new sound is of a different nature than the background sound (e.g., backup alarms compared to quiet residential sounds), most people can discern the new noise even if it increases the overall Leq noise by less than 1 dBA. 1 There are no railroad lines within the Planned Action Study Area; therefore, their contribution to noise levels is not considered. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.6 1 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Fnvironment Attenuation rate is used to describe the rate at which the intensity of a sound signal declines as it travels outward from its source. When distance is the only factor considered, sound levels from isolated point sources of noise typically decrease by about 6 dBA for every doubling of distance from the noise source. When the noise source is a continuous line (e.g., vehicle traffic on a highway], sound levels decrease by about 3 dBA for every doubling of distance. For traffic noise studies, an attenuation rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance is often used when the roadway is at ground level and the intervening ground (e.g., ground vegetation, scattered trees, and clumps of bushes] is effective in absorbing sound. When the roadway is elevated, 3 dBA of noise attenuation per doubling of distance is used because the sound -absorbing effects of the intervening ground are limited. Noise levels can also be affected by several factors other than the distance from the noise source. Topographic features and structural barriers that absorb, reflect, or scatter sound waves can affect the reduction of noise levels. Atmospheric conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, humidity levels, and temperatures) also can affect the degree to which sound is attenuated over distance. Table 3.6-1. Typical A -Weighted Sound Levels Sound Source Decibels (A -weighted) Typical Response Carrier deck jet operation Limit of amplified speech Jet takeoff (200 feet) Auto horn (3 feet) Riveting machine Jet takeoff (2,000 feet) Shout (0.5 foot) New York subway station Heavy truck (50 feet) Pneumatic drill (50 feet) Passenger train (100 feet) Helicopter (in flight, 500 feet) Freight train (50 feet) Freeway traffic (50 feet) Air conditioning unit (20 feet) Light auto traffic (50 feet) Normal speech (15 feet) Living room Bedroom Library 140 Limit amplified speech 130 Painfully loud 120 Threshold of feeling and pain 110 — 100 Very annoying 90 Hearing damage (8 -hour exposure) 80 Annoying 70 Intrusive 60 — 5o Quiet 40 — Soft whisper (15 feet) 30 Very quiet Broadcasting studio 20 — 10 Just audible 0 Threshold of hearing Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006. 3.6.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Land Uses and Noise -Sensitive Receivers Noise -sensitive receivers addressed by community noise studies generally include residences, schools, parks, places of worship, and businesses with outdoor use areas. Generally, outdoor areas of Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.6-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 1CF 59110 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment frequent human use are considered noise -sensitive receivers. Noise -sensitive land uses in the Planned Action Study Area consist mainly of single-family houses, multiplexes, residential condominiums, apartment buildings, parks, schools, and a library. Existing Noise Levels and Sources The Planned Action Study Area is likely affected by the following noise sources: • vehicles on NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) and local public streets, • aircraft from the Renton Municipal Airport, and • rooftop equipment (e.g., ventilation systems) placed on top of buildings Throughout the Planned Action Study Area, traffic is likely the dominant noise source near major roadways. Although no sound -level measurements were taken as part of this evaluation, noise levels are expected to generally comply with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) criteria, except near busy roads and NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900). Noise levels vary throughout the Planned Action Study Area because of the variety of development and land use. Typical background day -night noise levels are estimated to be between 40 and 50 dBA Ldn in rural areas, between 50 and 55 dBA Ldn in residential areas away from major roadways, and between 55 and 70 dBA Ldn in commercial areas and near major roadways, depending on distance from the roadway (Federal Transit Administration 2006). In addition to traffic noise, aircraft noise from Renton Municipal Airport may also contribute to background noise. The airport is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Planned Action Study Area. However, according to the airport's master plan (City of Renton 1997), the 65-dBA-Ldn contour projected for the year 2015 is mostly within the boundary of the airport. Therefore, the aircraft noise levels caused by Renton Municipal Airport are far below the Federal Aviation Administration's 65-dBA-Ldn threshold in the Planned Action Study Area. 3.6.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Noise -sensitive receivers in the subarea are residences, and the dominant noise source is vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard, adjacent to the subarea. Existing traffic noise in the subarea is estimated using the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's (2010) site noise level calculator. The existing annual average daily traffic (AADT) on NE Sunset Boulevard adjacent to the subarea is 20,200 vehicles per day (Washington State Department of Transportation 2009); this is estimated to result in the noise level of 68.1 dBA Ldn for the first row homes facing the roadway. 3.6.2 Regulatory Context 3.6.2.1 Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Limits Noise criteria established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in its Noise Guidebook (U.S, Department of Housing and Urban Development 1985) are applicable to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, because federal approval is required for Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment disposition of the property and/or federal funding may be used. Table 3.6-2 summarizes HUD noise criteria and their corresponding acceptability categories for housing developments. HUD recommends that outdoor day -night sound levels not exceed 65 dBA Ldn in residential areas. Federal funding for housing projects in areas where noise levels exceed 75 dBA Ldn is considered unacceptable and is normally withheld unless there is special approval, based on particular circumstances and specific criteria. In addition to exterior noise criteria, HUD noise policy further clarifies that the indoor noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA Ldn. Attenuation measures (e.g., noise barriers, natural terrain or constructed buffers, site design, mitigation in building materials) shall be employed, where feasible. Emphasis shall be given to noise -sensitive interior spaces such as bedrooms. The exterior noise criteria also apply at other outdoor locations where it is determined that quiet outdoor space is required in an area ancillary to the principal use on the site. Other outdoor locations may include play areas, open spaces, or parks incorporated into residential development. Table 3.6-2. Housing and Urban Development Noise Guidelines Acceptability Category Outdoor [Poise Levels (dBA Ldn) Special Approvals and Requirements Acceptable Not exceeding 65 None Normally unacceptable Above 65 but not exceeding 75 Special approvals, environmental review, and attenuation Unacceptable Above 75 Special approvals, environmental review, and attenuation" Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1985 5 dBA of additional attenuation required for sites above 65 dBA but not exceeding 70 dBA, and 10 dBA additional attenuation required for sites above 70 dBA but not exceeding 75 dBA. b Attenuation measures to be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development on a case-by-case basis. Federal Traffic Noise Impact Criteria FHWA has adopted criteria for evaluating noise impacts associated with federal- and state -funded highway projects, and for determining whether such impacts are sufficient to justify the funding of noise abatement as part of roadway improvement projects. These criteria are specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Section 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. The FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) are summarized in Table 3.6-3. Table 3.6-3. Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category Criterion (dBA Leq) Description of Activity Category A 57 Lands where serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and that (exterior) serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, (exterior) residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B (exterior) above D — Undeveloped lands E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, (interior) hospitals, and auditoriums Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.6 4 ICF 593.14 City of Renton Chapter 3, Affected Environment 3.6.2.2 State State Traffic Noise Impact Criteria The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has adopted the FHWA NAC for evaluating noise impacts and for determining if such impacts are sufficient to justify funding of noise abatement for roadway improvement projects with state funding. For WSDQT roadway projects, a noise impact occurs when a predicted traffic noise level under the design year conditions exceeds the NAC, or when the predicted traffic noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level. A 10-dBA increase over existing noise levels is considered a substantial increase. 3.6.2.3 Local City of Renton Noise Regulations Chapter 8-7 of the Renton Municipal Code adopted the Washington Administrative Code 173-60 that establishes limits on the noise levels and durations of noise crossing property boundaries. Permissible noise levels at a receiving land use depend on its environmental designation for noise abatement (EDNA). The City of Renton EDNAs are classified as follows: residential zones are classified as Class A; commercial zones as Class B; and industrial zones as Class C. Permissible noise limits are shown in Table 3.6-4. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (nighttime hours), the noise limits are reduced by 10 dBA for receiving property within a Class A EDNA. Table 3.6-4. Maximum Permissible Noise Levels at Receiving Property Line Permissible Noise Level in dBA EDNA of Receiving Property A B C EDNA of Noise Source Daytime Nighttime All Hours All Hours A 55 45 57 60 B 57 47 60 65 C 60 50 65 70 For noise levels that exceed the above levels for short durations, maximum permissible sound levels are regulated as shown in Table 3.6-5. Table 3.6-5. Adjustment to Maximum Permissible Noise Levels at Receiving Property Line Duration of Sound Level within Add Amount to a 1 -Hour Interval Maximum Permissible Sound Level 15 minutes + 5 dB S minutes + 10 dB 1.5 minutes + 15 dB Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.6 U 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Sounds that are exempt, at all times, from the maximum permissible noise levels adopted by the City include but are not limited to sounds: • originating from temporary construction (the exceptions do not apply to the receiving properties within Class A EDNA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.); • originating from vehicles on public roads (in these cases, the WSDOT noise regulations described previously govern allowable noise levels); • originating from aircraft in flight and originating from airports that are directly related to flight operations; • created by warning devices not operating continuously for more than 5 minutes or bells, chimes, and carillons; and created by motor vehicles, licensed or unlicensed, when operated off public highways, except when such sounds are received in Class A EDNA. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.6-6 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.7 Environmental Health This section inventories the locations of hazardous material sites within the Planned Action Study Area. Hazardous material sites are those properties that have been impacted by a current or previous use that could have resulted in a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products. These materials could include pesticides, volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, heavy metals, petroleum products (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubricants), lead-based paint, and asbestos -containing materials (AGMs). Information regarding hazardous materials sites in the Planned Action Study Area was obtained by reviewing environmental agency records and through Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), a database service that searches current federal and state environmental agency records of sites known to contain hazardous materials or have contained them in the past. The search area included the Planned Action Study Area and properties within 1 mile of the center of the Planned Action Study Area, depending on the database. The EDR report is included as Appendix D. The list of major federal, state and local database sources are listed below. • Federal National Priority List (NPI.) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) List. CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to EPA by states, municipalities, private companies, and private individuals. CERCLIS contains sites that are either proposed to be included or are included on the NPL (also known as Superfund) and sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Another category of the CERCLIS list is the CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (CERCLIS-NFRAP) list, which includes sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS. Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo). RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. RCRAInfo includes selective information on sites that generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA. For this Draft EIS, the RCRAInfo data have been subdivided into the Federal RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) Facilities List and the Federal RCRA Generators List. o Federal RCRA TSD Facilities List. TO facilities are permitted under RCRA by EPA (or states authorized by EPA) to treat, store for up to 90 days, and dispose of hazardous waste. There are few of these sites in western Washington. o Federal RCRA Generators List. The RCRA Generators List includes facilities identified as small -quantity generators (SQGs) and large -quantity generators (LQGs) of hazardous wastes. The wastes handled are separated into non-acute hazardous waste and acutely hazardous waste. (State Dangerous Waste regulations define hazardous and dangerous waste and acute hazardous and dangerous waste.) SQGs are defined as those generating less than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) per month of non-acute hazardous waste or less than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of acute hazardous waste. LQGs generate at least 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) per month of non-acute hazardous waste or 1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste. Conditionally exempt SQGs generate less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kilogram of acutely hazardous waste per month. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'7-1 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment • Washington State waste sites identified for investigation or remediation. These are the equivalent at the state level of the NPL and CERCLIS lists. They include the Washington State Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL), CSCSL—No Further Action (CSCSL-NFA), Independent Clean -Up Report (ICR), and Voluntary Clean -Up Program (VCP) sites. The Washington State lists have some cross-over reporting that is not necessarily consistent. For example, a site can be on the ICR and the VCP list but not on the CSCSL; also, a site can be on the VCP list and the CSCSL but not on the ICR. For this Draft EIS, the sites are discussed by their presence on the ICR, the CSCSL, and the CSCSL-NFA. • Washington State Landfill or Solid Waste Site List. This list includes active and closed landfills and solid waste disposal areas within the state. • Washington State Underground Storage Tank (UST) List and Leaking UST List. Presence on the UST list means that the property has a registered UST; this means that there is a potential for a future release and resulting impact to possible future construction if the UST remains on site. Residential properties are not required to register UST's. Presence of a site on the leaking UST list means that the site has a reported leaking UST. Status of the site needs to be researched in Ecology records to determine if clean-up has been completed or is ongoing and the extent of the problem. 3.7.1 Environmental Context 3.7.1.1 Planned Action Study Area This section presents the existing conditions related to environmental health in the Planned Action Study Area. The potential to encounter hazardous materials is closely related to past and existing land use. Existing land use in the Planned Action Study Area includes single-family and multifamily residential, mixed use, institutional -public services, commercial, and park. These land uses have relatively low potential for hazardous materials compared to properties with a history of industrial land use. Properties in the Planned Action Study Area where a current or previous use could have resulted in a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products are identified below. Hazardous Materials Sites This section consists of lists of sites in or near the Planned Action Study Area that might contain hazardous materials or wastes. Figure 3.7-1 identifies sites where hazardous materials or wastes are known to exist or to have existed in the past. The far left column of each table provides the corresponding site number from the figure. Federal NPL Site List and CERCLIS List One NPL site was identified within 1 mile from the center of the Planned Action Study Area. The Pacific Car and Foundry is located at 100 North 4th Street, approximately 0.75 mile to the southeast of the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'7 2 1CF 593.10 ..•N- Figure 3.7-1 'CF Hazardous Materials Sites INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Federal RCRA TSD Facilities List Chapter 3. Affected Environment No RCRA TSD facilities or RCRA Corrective Action sites were identified within the Planned Action Study Area. Federal RCRA Generators List The RCRA-SQGs, RCRA-LQGs, RCRA-CESQGs (conditionally exempt SQGs), and RCRA non -generators (RCRA-NonGen, which are former hazardous waste generators) are identified on Table 3.7-1. Table 3.7-1. RCRA Generators of Hazardous Waste in the Planned Action Study Area Map ID No. Type of Generator Site Name Address D18 RCRA-SQG Coipetts Development 936 Harrington Avenue NE B9 RCRA-CESQG Renton Highlander Center Inc 2806 NE 10th Street A2 RCRA-NonGen Cleaning Shoppe 2830 Sunset Blvd NE B8 RCRA-NonGen Highlands One Hour Cleaners Inc 2808 NE10th Street B5/A11 RCRC-NonGen Plaid Pantries Inc 2801 Sunset Blvd NE E17 RCRA-NonGen ConocoPhillips 2705509 3002 Sunset Blvd NE D16 RCRA-NonGen Renton Marine 900 Harrington Avenue NE G28 RCRA-LQG Daniels Drycleaners Sunset Blvd 3155 NE Sunset Blvd G29 RCRA-CESQG Busy Bee Cleaners 3164 Sunset Blvd NE SQG = small -quantity generator; CESQG = conditionally exempt small quantity generator; LQG = large -quantity generator; NonGen = former Washington State Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites List The Washington State CSCSL sites located within 1 mile of the center of the Planned Action Study Area are presented in Table 3.7-2. Sites more than 0.5 mile from the center of the Planned Action Study Area are not shown on the figure. These sites have been identified by Ecology as having confirmed or potentially contaminated environmental media, which can include soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and air. Contaminants identified at these sites include one or more of the following: petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic carbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Sites that have received a no further action [NFA] determination are also listed in the table below. Table 3.7-2. Washington State CSCSL Sites within 1 Mile of the Planned Action Study Area Map ID No. In Study Area? Site Address Database 0 No Pacific Car & Foundry Co. 1400 North 4th Street CSCSL 33 No Learning Center 4101 NE Sunset Blvd CSCSL 32 No Renton Highlands Landfill NE 3rd Street/NE 4th Street CSCSL BS Yes JC Mart 2801 NE Sunset Blvd CSCSL-NFA E17 Yes ConocoPhillips 2705509 3002 Sunset Blvd NE CSCSL-NFA F25 Yes Arco #4400 3123 NE Sunset Blvd CSCSL-NFA CSCSL = confirmed or suspected contaminated site list; NFA = no further action Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.7-4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Washington State Independent Clean -Up Report and Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites The Washington State ICR and VCP sites found in the Planned Action Study Area are presented in Table 3.7-3 below. These sites include previously contaminated sites where Ecology has received reports on site clean-up actions. These clean-up actions have been conducted independently by the owners or operators of these sites, and Ecology has not formally overseen these actions. Table 3.7-3. Washington State ICR and VCP Sites in the Planned Action Study Area Map 1D No. Site Address B5 JC Mart 2801 NE Sunset Blvd E17 ConocoPhillips 2705509 3002 Sunset Blvd NE F26 Arco #4400 3123 NE Sunset Blvd Washington State Landfill or Solid Waste Site Lists Based on the information provided, no solid waste facilities were identified within the Planned Action Study Area. The Renton Highlands Landfill is located at NE 3rd Street/NE 4th Street about 0.75 mile to the south. Washington State Leaking Underground Storage Tank Lists No leaking USTs were identified in the Planned Action Study Area. Washington State Registered Underground Storage Tank Lists The registered USTs located in the Planned Action Study Area are identified in Table 3.7-4. Table 3.7-4. Washington State Registered Underground Storage Tank Sites in the Planned Action Study Area Map ID No. Site Address 133/134 Sunset Blvd Shell 2800 NE Sunset Blvd BS JC Mart 2801 NE Sunset Blvd 15 McKnight Middle School 2600 NE 12th Street D16 Renton Marine 900 Harrington Avenue NE 22 Friendly Fuels Inc Renton 1190 Sunset Blvd NE Ste F 23 Renton Fire Station 901 Harrington Avenue NE F24 Rite Aid Store 5203 3116 NE Sunset Blvd 30 North Highlands Community Center 3000 NE 16th Street Historical Service Stations and Dry Cleaners In addition to the regulatory agencies listed above, historical service stations and dry cleaners identified by EDR are provided in the Table 3.7-S. Historical service stations and dry cleaners are sites that are no longer in operation, but because of the nature of their past use, have a higher potential for having previous releases that may not have been discovered. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.7-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/Si Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Table 3.7-5. Historical Service Stations and Dry Cleaners in the Planned Action Study Area Map ID No. Site Address Database 12 Highland Automotive C13 Farrell S Service Shop E18 Highlands Texaco B3 Gull Service Station A2A Cleaning Shoppe B9 Renton Highlander Center 2615 NE Sunset Blvd 960 Harrington Avenue 3005 NE Sunset Blvd 2800 NE Sunset Blvd 2830 NE Sunset Blvd 2806 NE 10th Street Historical Service Station Historical Service Station Historical Service Station Historical Service Station Historical Dry Cleaners Historical Dry Cleaner Bab Highlands One Hour Martinizing 2808 NE 10th Street Historical Dry Cleaner 21 Sparkle Dry Cleaning and 927 Harrington Avenue NE Historical Dry Cleaners Laundromat ID no. in EDR report is Al; Aland A2 are the same property and only A2 is shown on Figure 3.7-1. h ID no. in EDR report is B10; B10 and B8 are the same property and only B8 is shown on Figure 3.7-1. Lead -Based Paint and Asbestos -Containing Materials Lead-based paint and ACMs probably are also present within the Planned Action Study Area, due to the age of the buildings. Many of the structures in the Planned Action Study Area were constructed prior to the 1978 Consumer Products Safety Commission ban on the manufacture and sale of lead- based paint. Therefore, lead-based paint is likely present in these buildings. Similarly, ACMs that were banned after the 1970s and are likely present in structures where asbestos abatement has not been conducted. Underground Storage Tanks In addition to lead-based paint and asbestos, unregistered USTs may also be present in residential and commercial areas. Depending on age and use, USTs may or may not be registered under Ecology's UST regulations. For example, residential heating USTs are not typically registered. USTs in residential areas likely contain heating oil, whereas tanks used in service stations and locations where fuel can be purchased typically contain automobile fuel and other petroleum products. Aboveground Storage Tanks Aboveground stationary storage tanks (ASTs) with capacity greater than 100 gallons have not been identified within the Planned Action Study area. According to the Fire Inspector at the City's Emergency Management Department, there were no records of commercial liquid propane tanks (the most common liquid gas stored in ASTs) located within the Planned Action Study Area (Cappelletti pers. comm.). Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCBs may also be present in fluorescent light ballasts, paint, hydraulic systems (e.g., at service stations), or other materials, or historical spills in the Planned Action Study Area. Although utilities have removed most PCBs from larger transformers and capacitors, PCBs may be present in privately owned smaller equipment due to the age of the existing development. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3"7 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.7.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Existing land use in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea primarily consists of multifamily residential housing owned by the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and vacant properties. The multifamily residential housing was built in 1959, and, therefore, likely contains lead-based paint and ACMs. USTs and PCB -contaminated equipment/materials may also be present in this subarea. No ASTs greater than 100 gallons are believed to be present in the subarea. Additional historical information about a vacant property located on the northwest corner of Sunset Lane NE and NE 10th Street (Piha site) was provided in a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Adapt Engineering Inc. 2010). The assessment revealed that the vacant property supported multiple residences in the 1940s and that the possibility exists that the former residences may have utilized oil -burning heating systems, which may have utilized USTS. The property was reported to be vacant from 1960 until present. The assessment concluded that there was no evidence of current or historical recognized environmental conditions that could have resulted in a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products at the property or the immediate surrounding area. 3.7.2 Regulatory Context 3.7.2.1 Federal The following federal regulations are potentially applicable to the proposal. • CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA or Superfund) and the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992, provides for consultation with natural resources trustees and cleanup of any release of a hazardous substance (excluding petroleum) into the environment. • RCRA, as amended by the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992, governs the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. • The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 allows the EPA to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States. • The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 discloses the extent to which each of the actions and alternatives would prevent or reduce pollution, or recycle potentially polluting materials, or treat and dispose of pollutants in an environmentally safe manner. • Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutions for asbestos, 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M, establishes work practices to minimize release of asbestos fibers during activities involving processing, handling, and disposal of ACM when a building is being demolished or renovated. • Under Section 2 Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969, 24 CFR Part 51 establishes environmental standards, criteria, and guidelines for determining project acceptability and necessary mitigating measures to achieve the goal of a suitable living environment in HUD - assisted projects. • 24 CFR Part 35, Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential Structures, contains lead -abatement requirements for housing that is federally owned or receives federal assistance. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.7.2.2 State The following state regulations are potentially applicable to the proposal. • The Model Toxics Control Act of the State of Washington. This act sets forth prescribed limits of contamination that must be addressed by any disturbance, based on the type of activity and proposed use for a parcel. The standards for voluntary clean up for lower levels of contaminants are incorporated into new development or redevelopment parcels that have been noted to have contamination potential. • Water Quality Standards. Ecology administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program (WAC 173-220) which regulates the discharge of pollutants and waste materials to surface waters of the state. Water quality standards protect beneficial uses of surface waters of the state. Any activity that could affect water quality is subject to WAC 173- 201A. Ecology regulates groundwater quality under the Water Quality Standards for Groundwater of the State of Washington (WAC 173-200). See Section 3.3. • State Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303). Wastes or environmental media that are designated as dangerous must be managed in accordance with these regulations. • Underground Storage Tank Statute & Regulations (Revised Code of Washington 90-76, WAC 173-360). A registered UST site assessor is required to conduct a site assessment/check at the time any regulated UST is removed from a site. Regulated tank removal regulations include specifics on appropriate notification, closure, and reporting procedures. 3.7.2.3 Local Critical Areas Ordinance. Projects in environmentally critical areas must comply with the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance (Regulation No. 5137). Areas specifically protected under this ordinance include wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently Flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (including streams and riparian areas). City authorizations commonly include requirements intended to fully disclose impacts in critical areas and to minimize environmental impacts. Of these regulations, the aquifer protection regulations place additional restrictions on uses and activities related to hazardous materials for facilities located within an aquifer protection zone. The Planned Action Study Area is located within Zone 2 defined as the land area situated between the 365 -day groundwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a well or well field owned or operated by the City (City of Renton 2008). Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. The requirements of the Clean Air Act are administered by Ecology and delegated to the PSCAA. Owners and operators subject to the asbestos standards contained in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutions are required to notify the PSCAA before beginning any demolition or renovation activity involving ACM. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.7-8 ICF 593.10 City of Menton 3.8 land Use 3.8.1 Environmental Context Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section discusses the existing conditions related to land use and plans and policies and describes existing and planned (or future) land use patterns in the Planned Action Study Area. Land use plans and policies are addressed under the regulatory framework. Additional information on plans and policies is provided in Appendix E. 3.8.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Existing Land Uses The Planned Action Study Area is generally oriented around the NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) corridor between Edmonds Avenue NE and Monroe Avenue NE (Figure 2-1). Existing uses in the area are generally auto -oriented commercial and multifamily development served by surface parking lots. Smaller amounts of existing uses include single-family, park, church, and vacant parcels. The Planned Action Study Area is served by several public institutions outlined by subarea below. Building heights are generally one to two stories, but multifamily development includes three- to five -story buildings. Existing land uses are shown on Figure 3.8-1 anti described below by subarea from north to south. • North Subarea. This subarea is largely multifamily (mostly duplex), but also includes larger multifamily developments on larger properties. The subarea also includes the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, North Highlands Park, and multifamily housing on a large block north of NE 16th Street, between Index Avenue NE and Kirkland Avenue NE. The McKnight Middle School campus is located on the western edge of this subarea acting as a buffer between the subarea and adjacent single-family residential areas to the west and north. • Central Subarea. Existing uses consist of low -intensity multifamily (mostly duplexes) housing, a park, a church, and the Highlands branch of the King County Public Library. Sunset Mixed Use subarea. The western portion consists of auto -oriented commercial uses south of NE Sunset Boulevard and west of Edmonds Avenue NE. Between Edmonds Avenue and Harrington Avenue NE the subarea includes a church, several single-family and multifamily parcels, a commercial use (tavern), and a vacant lot. Commercial uses abut NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NE through the remainder of the subarea. South of NE Sunset Boulevard, the southern half of the block between Harrington and Kirkland Avenues NE consist of a five -story multifamily development with structured parking, a large church property with surface parking, and multifamily and office developments. East of Kirkland Avenue NE, the southern part of the subarea consists of multifamily and commercial uses. The northern part of the subarea includes commercial uses and Fire Station No. 12. • south Subarea. Largely single-family residences are located between NE 9th Place and NE 9th Street. The Highlands Elementary school campus and the Highlands Neighborhood Park and Community Center take up a large part of the southwestern portion of this subarea and act as a transition between the Planned Action Study Area and single-family residential uses adjacent to the subarea. Low intensity multifamily uses are located on the east side of Harrington Avenue NF. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.8 ICF 593.10 City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Parcels Existing Land Use Single Family Residential Multifamily Residential b Mixed Use Institutional - Public Service Retail Service Park Vacant N A 0 500 1,000 eel NF I ITH AI NE 10TH PL Z � NE 10TH ST 2 NE 9TH PL NE 9TH ST w z NE 8TH PL W Q z NE 87-11 ST 0 0 6 W6THPL x �F 6TH CNi! n 9 a` 'Source: City of Renton; King County NE 21ST ST NE 20TH ST NE 19TH ST NE 18TH ST NF 71 4z7* [T 5T W z X NE$�Np1. W z � NE$�Ng( z O *n M q m r 'Z NE 21ST ST I 17TH PL NE 17TH ST `i r 0 UJ NE 11TH PL z J NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL w z W a a 0. W z 0 z d NE 10TH ST LU w0 w 0 0 NE 9TH ST o g 3 z z J NE STH ST NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL 'CF Figure Existing Land Use Use INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Existing uses surrounding the Planned Action Study Area are described clockwise from the north. The north edge of the subarea consists of single-family residential uses and a 72 -unit two-story condominium complex. The northeast corner abuts the Honey Creek natural area, which is owned by the City. Northeast of NE Sunset Boulevard, a small -lot single-family neighborhood extends south to approximately NE 12th Street. A small multifamily area exists along the eastern edge of the Planned Action Study Area between NE 12th Street and NE 11th Street, with the remainder of the eastern edge further south bounded by a single-family residential neighborhood. A single-family residential neighborhood borders the southern edge. The west edge consists of single-family residential north to NE 9th Place, where it transitions to a multifamily area with some single-family and church buildings until reaching NE Sunset Boulevard. North of NE Sunset Boulevard, the west edge is bordered by a single-family residential area. A church is located on the west edge just north of the McKnight Middle School Campus. Future Land Uses The majority of the Planned Action Study Area is within the Center Village (CV) land use designation on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-2). The exceptions are the McKnight Middle School campus in the North Subarea, the Highlands Community Church in the southeast corner of the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea, and a single-family neighborhood in the South Subarea south of NE 9th Place/west of Glenwood Avenue NE, as well as the Highlands Elementary School, and Highlands Neighborhood Park properties. These areas are all designated Residential Single Family (RSF). In addition, the commercial area located south of NE Sunset Boulevard and west of Edmonds Avenue NE is designated Commercial Neighborhood (CN). The City Comprehensive Pian characterizes the CV designation as areas of the city that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as pedestrian -oriented urban mixed-use residential and commercial areas. These areas are intended to accommodate medium- to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub -regional markets. CVs typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth by providing compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept (City of Renton 2009). Land designated RSF is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. Larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing are to be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family living environments in RSF areas (City of Renton 2009). The purpose of the CN designation is to provide small-scale, low -intensity commercial areas located within neighborhoods primarily to provide convenient goods and services to residents who live nearby. In addition, these areas are intended to provide a limited amount of residential opportunities (City of Renton 2009). The majority of the land surrounding the Planned Action Study Area has an RSF land use designation. There are small areas of Residential Medium Density (RMD) on the north, east, and southern boundaries; Residential Low Density (RLD) on the northeast border (Honey Creek Natural Area); and Residential Multifamily (RM -F) in a small area east of Monroe Avenue NE and south of NE 12th Street, and on the western boundary south of NE Sunset Boulevard and the property boundary between NE 9th and NE 10th Streets. See Table 3.8-1 for implementing zoning for these designations. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'S-3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Table 3.8-1 lists the zoning that implements the comprehensive plan land use designations discussed above, within and abutting the Planned Action Study Area. Figure 2-3 illustrates zoning in the Planned Action Study Area. Table 2-1 also provides more information about the purpose and development standards of the zones. Table 3.8-1. Comprehensive Plan Designations and Implementing Zones in the Planned Action Study Area Comprehensive Plan Designation Implementing Zoning Designation Center Village (CV) Center Village (CV) Residential 10 dwelling units per acre (R-10) Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) Residential Multifamily (RM -F) Residential Single Family (RSF) Residential 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Residential Low Density (RLD) Residential 1 dwelling units per acre (R-1) Residential Medium Density (RMD) Residential 10 dwelling units per acre (R-10) Residential Multifamily (RM -F) Residential Multifamily (RM -F) 3.8.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Existing Land Uses The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea consists of 100 multifamily dwelling units owned and operated by RHA as public housing in the southern portion of the subarea (south of where Glenwood Avenue NE and NE 10th Street intersect). Dwellings are contained in approximately 27 one- and two-story buildings. Four small parcels are located north of Glenwood Avenue NE and west of Harrington Avenue NE, each with a one-story duplex. The northeast portion of the subarea includes a 1.1 -acre vacant parcel that is also owned by RHA (Piha site). A small discontinuous part of the subarea to the northwest consists of 2 acres of vacant land and a one-story duplex located on a 0,33 -acre parcel (Edmonds -Glenwood site). The subarea is bordered on the north by multifamily developments in the Central Subarea, mostly of a similar scale and character as the subarea's duplexes found north of Glenwood Avenue NE. The exceptions are: a 60 -unit three-story apartment building on the northwest corner and a 30 -unit three-story condominium on the northeast corner of the subarea. The northeast border of the subarea (north of NE 10th Street) within the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea includes single -story commercial shopping center property served by large surface parking lots, and a gas station. South of NE Sunset Boulevard, also within the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea, are commercial uses in the southeast (including a grocery store, restaurant, and tavern) and a vacant lot. A variety of multifamily developments, some single-family residences, and a church are southwest. The area between the two noncontiguous portions of the subarea is made up of duplexes, a single-family residence, and a medical/dental office. Future Land Uses The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is completely within the City's CV land use designation. This designation is implemented with CV zoning in the entire subarea with the following exceptions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'8 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment • Four parcels north and east of Glenwood Avenue NE and west of Harrington Avenue NE in the northern portion of the subarea are zoned R-14. • Two parcels abutting Glenwood Avenue NE totaling approximately 0.65 acre (part of the Edmonds -Glenwood site) in the northwest part of the subarea (part of the noncontiguous portion of the subarea) are zoned R-1.41. With the exception of the 1.7 -acre parcel that abuts Edmonds Avenue NE in the noncontiguous part of the subarea, the entire subarea is surrounded by properties with the CV land use designation. The 1.7 -acre parcel abutting Edmonds Avenue NE borders an area to the west with an RSF land use designation. The main part of the subarea abuts R-14 and CV zoning on the north, CV on the east, CV and RM -F zoning on the south (across NE Sunset Boulevard), and CV and R-14 on the west. The noncontiguous portion of the subarea abuts CV and R-14 on the north, R-14 on the east, CV and R-14 on the south, and R-10 zoning on the west. 3.5.2 Regulatory Context 3.8.2.1 Federal There are no applicable federal regulations for land use. 3.8.2.2 State The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), adopted by the State Legislature in 1990, requires urban counties and the cities within them to develop comprehensive land use plans addressing 14 planning goals relevant to managing growth. The City has adopted a comprehensive plan consistent with GMA. There are no other state land use planning plans or regulations that are applicable to the Planned Action Study Area. For example, no shorelines governed by the Shoreline Management Act are found within this area. 3.8.2.3 Local King County Countywide Planning Policies GMA requires counties and cities to work together to develop framework policies to guide comprehensive plan development. These Countywide Planning Policies, most recently amended in May 2010, establish a vision for the future of King County and its cities. King County's Countywide Planning Policies encourages development and redevelopment to occur in urban areas where infrastructure is in place or can be made available to support development. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan The City's GMA-compliant comprehensive plan addresses the state -required elements, including land use, transportation, capital facilities, utilities, and housing, among others. A summary of 1 A 1.7 -acre parcel abutting Edmonds Avenue N1: is also part of the Edmonds -Glenwood project, however, this parcel is zoned CV. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.8-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter B. Affected Envlrnnment relevant goals of the City Comprehensive Plan are included below. A more detailed listing of relevant objectives and policies is found in Appendix E. Land Use Element The City's Land Use Element addresses residential and commercial land uses and centers. The most relevant goals and policies are those relating to centers, due to the predominant CV land use designation in the Planned Action Study Area. The City's Centers goal is to develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the city and the region, with specific goals and policies addressing the CV in particular (Objective LU -XX and related policies). The land Use Element also includes residential goals of promoting new development in the city that are walkable places, developed at densities sufficient to support public transit and that make efficient use of urban services. The Land Use Element's commercial goal is to support existing businesses and provide an energetic business environment for new commercial activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed-use residential uses that enhance the City's employment and tax base along arterial boulevards and in designated development areas. Housing Element Among the City's relevant Housing Element goals are those that call for ensuring sufficient land capacity to accommodate the existing and future housing needs of the community, including Renton's share of forecasted regional growth; ensuring that housing exists for all economic segments of Renton's population; and ensuring that housing opportunities are available for people with special needs. Transportation Element The City's Transportation Element includes the goal of contributing to a balanced multimodal transportation system through arterial improvements that enhance transit operations and support adopted land use plans. Transportation goals also include maximizing the use of transit to serve demand generated by Renton residents and businesses; increasing the person -carrying capacity of the Renton's arterial system; and enhancing and increasing pedestrian and bicycle travel for commuting and other purposes. The Transportation Element also calls for encouraging reduction in single -occupant vehicle commutes. See Section 3. 14, Transportation, for more information on this subject. Capital Facilities Element The City's Capital Facilities Element calls for development and implementation of a capital facilities plan, in which public infrastructure and services provided by the City are provided concurrent to new development. See Sections 3.14, Transportation, 3.16, Public Services, and 3.17, Utilities, for more information on this subject. Economic Development Element The City's Economic Development goal is to create and maintain a broad and stable economic base to sustain a high quality of life for the Renton community. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'$-6 ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Renton Municipal Code The City's land use goals and policies are implemented through Title 4 of the Renton Municipal Code, which includes the zoning described above, as well as development standards regulating land uses within the city. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 8 ICF 593.10 City of Rcntan 3.9 Socioeconomics 3.9.1 Environmental Context Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section discusses the existing conditions related to socioeconomics in the Planned Action Study Area. Socioeconomics provides information on the demographics, household characteristics, and economics including employment and tax base. 3.9.1.1 Planned Action Study Area The socioeconomic information was collected from the census tract block groups and blocks that are located within or the majority of the area is located within the Planned Action Study Area (Figure 3.9-1). For employment estimates and forecast information for population and households, data were collected from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for the forecast analysis zone (FAZ) that corresponds with the Planned Action Study Area. FAZ data are composed of census tracts; FAZ 4120 includes the three census tracts that encompass the Planned Action Study Area (census tracts 252, 254, and 255). Additional information from King County was used for housing information. The Planned Action Study Area is located in the Renton Highlands neighborhood in the city of Renton in King County, Washington. It is located east of Renton's central business district and the Boeing Company's manufacturing site. The Planned Action Study Area is primarily residential with smaller businesses and services that are supported by those in the surrounding neighborhood. Housing is characterized by a mixture of older single-family and multifamily residences. Social, religious, and educational facilities located in the Planned Action Study Area include the Highlands Library; the Highlands Neighborhood Center and Park; the North Highlands Neighborhood Center and Park, three churches; and an elementary school, middle school, and an early childhood center. In addition, a number of agencies located in the Planned Action Study Area provide services to those in need or with lower incomes, including a food bank, a service providing free weekly hot meals, Goodwill, St. Vincent De Paul, and the Renton Housing Authority. (See also Section 3.16 for a description of social services.) The majority of local businesses in the Planned Action Study Area are centered on NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900), a major link between Renton and Issaquah, and include typical retail and services (e.g., restaurants, grocery stores, dentist offices). The Planned Action Study Area is served by four King County Metro bus routes that provide daily service. Many of the roadways contain sidewalks. Population and Household Growth The following section provides information on the population and housing characteristics of the Planned Action Study Area in relation to the larger areas of Renton and King County. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'9 1 ICF 593.10 City Limits OPlanned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace 0 Redevelopment Subarea Parcels Census Blocks by Tract Tract 25200 =Tract 25400 0 Tract 25500 Shading indicates Census Blocks included in EIS analysis. N A 0 500 1,000 eel 5T 3005 3003 3004 E3006 500 50035001 5000 S 11. ll 1jj Q z SE 88TH S7 SF897FI PV a 11 30TH Si SF 9g� NE27+iFI STy`_ w.� 11 d z W a ; 0 O- w N m NE 12TH St 1 X111 z w 7 o ]C 1 1 2 a i NEWHVJ—. w 51 NF=3¢G LL Source: City of Renton; King County; US Census Bureau Z i;u w ioo4 ,1000 1CF Figure Census Blocks Located Within or Bisecting the Planned Action Study Area Area INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Population Characteristics Chapter 3, Affected Environment Table 3.9-1 provides information on the demographics in the Planned Action Study Area. Based on 2000 U.S. Census block information, the study area had a population of 2,996. Compared to Renton and King County as a whole, the study area contained a higher percentage of the population over 65, a greater percentage of the population with a disability, lower median household income, greater percentage of individuals below poverty, and a smaller household size. Table 3.9-1. Population Characteristics Table 3.9-2 provides information on the ethnicity of the Planned Action Study Area compared to the larger geographic areas of Renton and King County. The majority of the study area population is White at 65% with minority population at about 35%. The study area has a similar diversity to Renton as a whole and is more diverse than King County as a whole. Table 3.9-2. Race/Ethnic Characteristics Potential Sunset Terrace Planned Action Redevelopment King Characteristic Study Area Subarea Renton King County Total population 2,996, 6010 50,052 1,737,034 Median age 37.70 25.70 34.0 35.7 Population under 18 (%) 24.10 35.4-' 22.7 23.7 Population over 65 (%) 18.10 12.13 10.2 10.5 Population 5 years and over 42.81, 27.1E 20.6 26.6 with a disability (%) 9.8 5.7 7.6 5.5 Median household income $40,7156 $33,2856 $45,820 $53,157 (average across blocks) Average household size 1.930 2.93, 2.29 2.39 Foreign born (o/,) 22.76 29.7h 19.2 15.4 Individuals below poverty (%) 13.7 e 19.46 9.7 8.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2600 Information is based on U.S. Census Block data Information is based on U.S. Census Block Groin data Table 3.9-2 provides information on the ethnicity of the Planned Action Study Area compared to the larger geographic areas of Renton and King County. The majority of the study area population is White at 65% with minority population at about 35%. The study area has a similar diversity to Renton as a whole and is more diverse than King County as a whole. Table 3.9-2. Race/Ethnic Characteristics Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-3 ICF 593.14 Potential Sunset Terrace Planned Action Redevelopment King Race/Ethnicity Study Area, Subarea, Renton County White (%) 64.8 47.9 65.4 73.4 African American {°/o) 8.7 21.0 8.3 5.3 Asian (%) 10.8 18.1 13.7 11.2 American Indian/Alaska Native (%) 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (o/a) 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 Hispanic or Latino (%) 9.8 5.7 7.6 5.5 Some other/two or more races (%) 3.7 6.7 4.0 3.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 „ Information is based on U.S. Census Block data, Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-3 ICF 593.14 City of Renton Population Growth Chapter 3. Affected Environment Table 3.9-3 provides information on population growth using FAZ data. Since the 2000 Census, the study area population has grown by a similar rate as the Renton population; however, From 2010 the study area is forecasted to grow by another 11.3%, while Renton and King County are forecasted to grow by over 15% each. Using information from the King County Assessor's Office (King County 2010a), based on dwelling counts within the Planned Action Study Area (estimated at 1,289), and an average household size of 2.31, based on an average of household sizes in Census Tracts 252 and 254, results in an existing (2010) population estimate of 2,978, similar to the 2000 Census. Table 3.9-3. Population Forecast Year builth 1990 to March 2000 14.7 3.2 21.3 16.7 1980 to 1989 14.2 23.2 21.5 17.3 Older than 1980 71.1 73.6 57.2 66.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 a Based on census block data for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. n Based on census block group data. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'g_q ICF 593.10 2010 Change fi-om Change from Area 2000 Census (Estimate) 2000(%) 2030 2010(%) Planned Action Study Area 16,829 17,832 6.0 19,842 11.3 Rentonb 57,455 61,215 6.5 70,60$ 15.3 King County 1,737,034 1,892,999 9.0 2,234,775 18.1 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council 2010 Based on Forecast Analysis Zone 4120 Based on forecast analysis zone data, which include areas that are outside of the city limits. Housing Characteristics Table 3.9-4 provides information on the housing tenure and age characteristics located in the Planned Action Study Area compared to Renton and King County. The majority were constructed prior to 1980 that contain one- or two -person households and are renter occupied (710/x). See Section 3.10, Housing, for additional housing information. Table 3.9-4. Housing Characteristics Planned Action Potential Sunset Terrace Housing Characteristic Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Renton King County Total housing units 1,478a 2041 21,708 710,916 Household size: (%)a 7 person 47.7 26.4 33.9 30.5 2 person 25.1 25.9 33.1 33.8 3 person 11.5 20.9 15.2 15.0 4 person 8.1 14.9 10.6 12.6 5 person 4.4 5.5 4.4 5.0 6 person 1.9 4.0 1.6 1.8 7 person 1.4 2.5 1.2 1.2 Owner/renter occupied 29/71 3/97 50/50 60/40 MY Year builth 1990 to March 2000 14.7 3.2 21.3 16.7 1980 to 1989 14.2 23.2 21.5 17.3 Older than 1980 71.1 73.6 57.2 66.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 a Based on census block data for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. n Based on census block group data. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'g_q ICF 593.10 City of Renton Economics Employment Chapter 3. Affected Environment Table 3.9-5 provides employment estimates for the Planned Action Study Area by FAy. The employment estimates include full-time, part-time, and temporary positions. The two largest industries in the Planned Action Study Area—services and education—account for 70% of the jobs. Additionally, based on the square footage of commercial space located within the Planned Action Study Area (approximately 800,000 square feet), between approximately 2,000 and 3,200 employees' work in the Planned Action Study Area. Table 3.9-5. 2009 Employment Estimates by industry Industry Sector Planned Action Study Area Renton King County Construction/Resources 68 1,944 59,795 FIRE 28 1,754 69,684 Manufacturing * 16,801 104,236 Retail 332 5,322 103,921 Services 883 16,143 538,717 WTCU * 5,583 102,691 Government 81 6,052 86,366 Education 837 1,848 70,194 Total 2,413 55,446 1,135,604 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council 2010 FIRE = finance, insurance, real estate, and services; WTCU = wholesale trade, transportation services, communication, and utilities * Puget Sound Regional Council protects confidential employer information through data suppression. Data from individual employers is not shared; where aggregate employment values represent fewer than three reporting firms, or when a single employer accounts for more than 80 percent of jobs, the value is withheld. Additionally, since grand totals are included in the table, an additional suppression is made in any industrial category or geography with a single suppressed value, to prevent disclosure through subtraction. 1 Based on a lower commercial employment rate of 400 square Feet per employee and a higher commercial rate of 250 square feet per employee. Sunset Area community Planned Action 3.9-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF S93.1p City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Table 3.9-6 provides information on the employment projections by industry for 2010 and 2030 for the Planned Action Study Area, Renton, and King County. In all areas, employment is expected to grow in the 20 -year period, except for manufacturing in Renton and King County. In the Planned Action Study Area, all industries are expected to increase, with the largest numbers of employees being added in the retail and government/education sectors. Table 3.9-6. Employment Projections by Industry Industry Planned Action Study Area, Renton' King County Sector 2010 2030 2010 2030 2010 2030 FIRES 873 1,066 16,927 34,179 593,592 860,399 Manufacturing 15 23 20,517 17,612 129,394 112,435 Retail 818 1,158 12,685 16,438 227,295 278,761 WTCU 15 28 7,692 11,870 179,524 211,856 GovEd 1,338 1,700 4,291 5,034 181,381 201,329 Total 3,059 3,975 62,112 85,133 1,311,186 1,644,780 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council 2010 FIRES = finance, insurance, real estate, and services; WTCU = wholesale trade, transportation services, communication, and utilities; and GovEd = government/education Based on Forecast Analysis Zone 4120. Based on forecast analysis zone data, which include areas that are outside of the city limits. Unemployment Based on the latest information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), the unemployment rate for Renton and King County, as of July 2010, was 8.2% for both areas. Starting in 2005, the unemployment rate was decreasing and reached a low of 3.9% and 3.8% percent in Renton and King County, respectively, in 2007. Since 2007, the unemployment rate increased from 2008 to 2009 by 3.7% in Renton and 3.5% in King County, to reach a level of 8.4% and 8.1%, respectively. This increase has been a result of the economic downturn that has affected the entire United States. 3.9.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Data for census blocks entirely or mostly within the subarea boundary were used to define population and household characteristics in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea to compare the information to the Planned Action Study Area, the Renton, and King County. Table 3.9-2 provides information on the population characteristics in this subarea, which is broader than the Sunset Terrace housing complex and, therefore, reflects a greater number of units. Compared to the Planned Action Study Area as a whole, the 214 households in the subarea have a higher average household size (2.93), a lower median age (25.7), a higher percentage of population under 18 (35.4), and a more diverse population (over 504/x) considered minority, with the largest concentrations being African American (21%) and Asian (18.1%). The subarea population has a lower median household income and a higher percentage of poverty (approximately 20% below the poverty line). In addition to the 2000 U.S. Census data, more recent demographic information from the Renton Housing Authority for the Sunset Terrace housing community was also reviewed (Renton Housing Authority 2010). When comparing the more recent data with the Census information for a larger Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'9 6 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment area, there are still similarities in the demographics. Based on the September 2010 data, 98 of the 100 housing units were occupied and the total population was 279 with approximately 70% considered minority, with the African American and Asian population each accounting for approximately 30% of the total population. The percentage of those under 18 is approximately 40% and the average household size is 2.85. According to Table 3.9-4, the subarea is almost entirely composed of renters and has a higher percentage of three- to seven -person households compared to the other areas. Additionally, most of the residences, approximately 97%, were constructed prior to 1990, based on the U.S. Census information. 3.9.2 Regulatory Context No federal regulations apply specifically to socioeconomics. State and local regulations related to socioeconomics are described below. 3.9.2.1 State Washington State GMA Adopted in 1990, the GMA is a comprehensive framework for managing growth and development and coordinating land use planning. The planning goals outlined in the GMA guide development of local comprehensive plans and development regulations, such as directing growth to urban areas and reducing sprawl. The development of comprehensive plans is a requirement of the GMA for all the largest and rapidly growing cities and counties, and the plans must include land use, housing, transportation, public facilities, parks and recreation, economic development, and utilities elements. Additional elements also can be added by the cities and counties. The comprehensive plans are also prepared to accommodate population growth, determined by regional agencies and the local jurisdiction, typically within an urban growth area. 3.9.2.2 Local King County Countywide Planning Policies King County's Countywide Planning Policies (CPPB) (King County 2010h) serve as the vision and framework for the comprehensive plans of King County and its cities. King County and its cities developed these planning policies to meet GMA requirements and to coordinate planning among all of the jurisdictions. The CPPB establish an urban growth area in the western one-third of King County, where most growth and development is projected to occur. The CPPB address reducing urban sprawl; protecting rural areas; and providing more efficient roads, parks, and other services. The CPPB also include information on target levels for housing and employment to accommodate the 20 -year population and projection and employment forecast. King County and the cities determined the allocations through a collaborative process. The numbers were updated in 2010 to ensure consistency with PSRC's Vision 2040 (2 009) and to reflect the county -level forecasts that were produced by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (2010). Based on the adopted policies in the May 2010 CPPB, the City needs to plan for 14,835 new dwelling units and 29,000 new jobs by 2031. These numbers do not reflect targets for Potential Annexation Area. The City will have until 2014 to address the recently amended allocations. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 3'9 1CF 593.10 City of Renton City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3. Affected Environment The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan was adopted in November 2004 and most recently updated in November 2009 (City of Renton 20091. The City Comprehensive Plan provides information to guide growth and development within Renton. Although it does not specifically identify the Sunset Area Community, many of the goals and objectives in the Economic Development, Housing, and Land Use elements directly relate to socioeconomics. Goals relevant to socioeconomics are summarized below. Economic Development Element. The related goal of this element is to create and maintain a broad and stable economic base to sustain a high quality of life for the Renton community. Housing Element. Related goals of this element include ensuring housing in Renton can accommodate the forecasted regional growth; ensuring housing opportunities for all populations including low-income, seniors, people with disabilities, and the homeless; and maintaining, protecting, and enhancing the quality of life of Renton's residents. Land Use Element. Related goals of this element include planning for future growth based on forecasts, growth targets, and land capacity determined through the implementation of the GMA; promoting new development and neighborhoods in Renton; developing designated centers with commercial and residential development that serve Renton and the surrounding region; supporting existing businesses; and providing for new commercial activity that offers a range of services and residential development that enhances Renton's employment and tax base along boulevards (i.e., NE Sunset Boulevard) and in designated development areas. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.9-8 ICF 543.10 City of Renton 3.10 Housing Chapter 3. Affected Environment This section discusses the existing conditions related to housing in the Planned Action Study Area. It focuses on housing units and affordability, whereas Section 3.9, Socioeconomics, addresses household characteristics. 3.10.1 Environmental Context 3.10.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Housing Stock There are currently approximately 1,2891 dwellings units in the Planned Action Study Area, predominantly multifamily in character as shown in Table 3.10-1. Table 3.10-1. Current Dwelling Units The North Subarea contains most of the dwelling units and contains 67% of the multiplex units as well as nearly 28% of the Flats. The Central, Sunset Mixed Use, and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas predominantly contain flats. The South Subarea has a nearly even split of the dwelling types. About half of the flats are in public ownership by RHA as shown in Table 3.10-2. Single-family and multiplex units tend to be privately owned, though a few are owned by RHA. 1 Another 217 have recently been constructed as part of the Harrington Square development and are leasing (these are considered in the future growth numbers). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.10-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 Housing Type Multiplex Flats Subarea Subarea Single -Family (2-4 dwelling units) (5+ dwelling units) Total North 53 261 218 532 Central 0 54. 178 232 Sunset Mixed Use 5 20 232 257 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment 0 10 100 110 South 59 44 55 158 Planned Action Study Area Total 117 389 7R3 1,289 Source: King County Assessor 2010 The North Subarea contains most of the dwelling units and contains 67% of the multiplex units as well as nearly 28% of the Flats. The Central, Sunset Mixed Use, and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas predominantly contain flats. The South Subarea has a nearly even split of the dwelling types. About half of the flats are in public ownership by RHA as shown in Table 3.10-2. Single-family and multiplex units tend to be privately owned, though a few are owned by RHA. 1 Another 217 have recently been constructed as part of the Harrington Square development and are leasing (these are considered in the future growth numbers). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.10-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Table 3.10-2. Current Renton Housing Authority Public and Affordable Housing in Planned Action Study Area Source: Renton Housing Authority 2010a Based on 2000 Census block information, approximately 4.6% of the total dwellings in the Planned Action Study Area were vacant. At the 2000 Census tract level, the estimate was approximately 4.1%, now estimated at 6.5% in 2009 (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010). There are about 8.3 acres of vacant land in the Planned Action Study Area. Household Sizes Household sizes are generally between 2 and 2,5 persons per unit (numbers rounded), as shown in Table 3.10-3. At the block and block group scale, household size in the study area is lower than at the Census tract scale. Citywide, household size has increased from 2.29 to 2.47 between 2000 and 2008. New information at smaller geographies is not available. Table 3.10-3. Household Size Geography Household Size Census Blocksa: 2000 Average 1.93 Number 2.18 Property Housing Type of Units Date Built Golden Pines, 2901 NE 10th Street Senior -based: must be over the age of 53 1976 2000 62 to be eligible 2006-2008 2.47 Sunset Terrace, 970 Harrington Family Public Housing 100 1959 Avenue NE Hillcrest Terrace, 1442 Hillcrest Lane Elderly Public Housing: must be over 60 1962-63 NF, the age of 62 or disabled to be eligible Evergreen Terrace, 3027 NE 15th Elderly Public Housing: must be over 50 1968 Street the age of 62 or disabled to be eligible Houser Terrace, 3151 NE 16th Street Senior Local Program: Over age of 62 104 1993 or 55 and disabled eligibility Highland House, 2825 NE 12th Street Family Local Program 19 Varies (15 units), and 3000 NE 15th Street (4-plex) Total 386 Source: Renton Housing Authority 2010a Based on 2000 Census block information, approximately 4.6% of the total dwellings in the Planned Action Study Area were vacant. At the 2000 Census tract level, the estimate was approximately 4.1%, now estimated at 6.5% in 2009 (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010). There are about 8.3 acres of vacant land in the Planned Action Study Area. Household Sizes Household sizes are generally between 2 and 2,5 persons per unit (numbers rounded), as shown in Table 3.10-3. At the block and block group scale, household size in the study area is lower than at the Census tract scale. Citywide, household size has increased from 2.29 to 2.47 between 2000 and 2008. New information at smaller geographies is not available. Table 3.10-3. Household Size Geography Household Size Census Blocksa: 2000 Average 1.93 Median 2.18 Census Block Groups, (Average): 2000 2.21 Census Tracts 252 and 254 (Average): 2000 2.31 Census Tracts 252 and 254 (Average): 2009 2.35 City (Average) 2000 2.29 2006-2008 2.47 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000; Puget Sound Regional Council 2002x; American Community Survey 2009 Census blocks and block groups are listed in Section 3.11, Environmental Justice. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.10 2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Household Income, Rents, and Home Values Household income and home values were generally higher in Census Tract 252 than south of NE 12th Street in Census Tract 254 and than in the city as a whole as of 2000. Conversely, median contract rent was higher in Census Tract 254 than in 252, though both tracts were lower than the median contract rent in the city as a whole. See Table 3.10-4. More recent information, though for larger geographies, shows a higher income, home value, and contract rent in the last decade. Table 3.10-4. Household Income, Home Values and Contract Rent Median Household Geography Income Median Home Value Median Contract Rent' Census Tract 252; 2000 $53,676 $196,100 $579 Census Tract 254: 2000 $39,029 $150,200 $629 1 -mile radius (intersection $65,757 $295,247 Not available NE Sunset Blvd & NE 10th St): 2009 Renton: 2000 $45,820 $183,800 $723 Renton: 2006-2008 $57,607 $339,800 $935 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000; Puget Sound Regional Council 2002b; American Community Survey 2009; City of Renton 2010 The monthly rent agreed to or contracted for, regardless of any furnishings, utilities, fees, meals, or services that may be included. For vacant units, it is the monthly rent asked for the rental unit at the time of interview. Housing is considered affordable when households pay no more than 30% of their gross income for housing costs including rent or mortgage and utilities. Housing that requires more than 30% of gross income is considered unaffordable. Current income, home values, and contract rents are not available at the scale of the Planned Action Study Area, but information is available at the city and county level and is described below. Table 3.10-5 provides affordability information based on the median income for King County in 2008 ($70,193). Based on the information for those households that earn 40% of the King County median income and assuming a maximum of 30% for housing, the monthly rent should not exceed $703 and a monthly housing payment should not exceed $585 (approximately $108,000 home price). In 2009, the median price for a single-family home in King County was $399,950, a condominium was $269,950; the median prices for Renton were $333,710 and $200,000, respectively. For both areas the prices for hornes and condos have declined since 2008. In Renton the price of a single-family home decreased by over 15% and a condo by over 8%. Even with the decline, the prices still exceed the affordable home price for those earning the King County median income. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.10 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 3.10-5. Affordable Housing by Income Category Annual Household Affordable Income Category Income Monthly Rent Chapter 3. Affected Environment Affordable Monthly Housing Payment Affordable Home Price 40% median income $28,100 $703 $585 $107,900 50% median income $35,100 $878 $731 $134,800 60% median income $42,100 $1,053 $877 $161,700 70% median income $49,100 $1,228 $1,023 $188,600 80% median income $56,200 $1,405 $1,171 $215,800 Median income $70,193 $1,755 $1,462 $269,600 Source: King County 2010 Table 3.10-6 provides information on the number of market -rate rental units in Renton and King County and what percentage of the units are affordable to those households with 80%, 50%, or 40% of the median income. For those households where the median income is 40% of the King County median, only 9.3% (1,742 units) of the total rental units would be considered affordable in Renton. The numbers are lower for King County. In addition to the information from King County, HUD (2010a) data for the Seattle -Bellevue area indicate that fair -market rents should range from $720 for a studio unit to $1,704 for a four-bedroom unit. It should be noted that the affordable housing may not be secured with a guarantee to remain affordable to households at 30% of their income. Table 3.10-6. Rental Information* Median Market -Rate Area Rent Rental Units Renton $940 18,732 King County $975 339,328 Source: King County 2010 * Numbers do not include subsidized housing in King County. Percent Affordable by Income Category <80% <SO% <40% 92.1 41.9 9.3 86.5 35.8 8.7 3.10.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there are 100 public housing units in two-story, flat -style buildings and 10 duplex units. One duplex is owned by RHA and the others are privately owned. Two RHA properties are currently vacant with no structures. As seen on Figure 2-5, the duplexes were constructed in the 1940s and the Sunset Terrace complex was built in 1959-1960. The Sunset Terrace public housing units range in size as follows: • 20 one -bedroom units, 36 two-bedroom units, • 36 three-bedroom units, and • 8 four-bedroom units. As described in Chapter 2, the units are antiquated and dilapidated. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact statement 3.10-4 1CF 593.20 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Within the Sunset Terrace complex, the current household size is 2.85. As of September 22, 2010, two units were vacant; however, vacant units are typically painted and rented again within 2 weeks. (Renton Housing Authority 2010x) Public housing may admit applicants earning up to 80% of the county median income. One-third of Sunset Terrace residents earns wages; about 45% are on fixed incomes due to their age or disability. Only 19 % receive welfare. The remaining 11% have other sources of income, including unemployment. (Renton Housing Authority 2010b) 3.10.2 Regulatory Context 3.10.2.1 Federal Nearly all federal public housing programs are based on the Housing Act of 1937. HUD administers programs in accordance with this act. The goal of HUD assistance is to provide safe, decent, and sanitary housing. HUD administers federal aid to local housing agencies such as the RHA. RHA, like others, manages public housing for low-income residents. Below is a summary of public housing programs within HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing (2010b): • Capital Fund. The Capital Fund provides funds to housing authorities to modernize public housing developments. This fund is currently being used by AHA for the purposes of the environmental review related to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and a demolition/disposition application described below. • Demolition/Disposition. This program was created in an effort to help eliminate old, run-down public housing. • Homeownership. This program allows a public housing authority to sell all, or a portion of, a public housing development to eligible residents or resident organizations, for purposes of homeownership, provided that a homeownership plan has been submitted to and been approved by HUD. • HOPE VI, HOPE VI allows for the revitalization of distressed public housing developments by providing grants and flexibility to address the housing and social service needs of residents. • Choice Neighborhoods. The Choice Neighborhoods initiative is intended to transform distressed neighborhoods and public and assisted projects into viable and sustainable mixed -income neighborhoods by linking housing improvements with appropriate services, schools, public assets, transportation, and access to jobs. In 2010, Congress authorized HUD to use up to $65 million of the HOPE VI appropriations for a Choice Neighborhoods demonstration. (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2010c.) • Housing Choice Vouchers (Formerly Section 8). These vouchers allow very low-income families to choose and lease or purchase safe, decent, and affordable privately owned rental housing. • Moving to Work Demonstration. This program allows housing authorities to design and test ways to give incentives to families to become economically self-sufficient, achieve programmatic efficiencies, reduce costs, and increase housing choice for low-income households. • Public Housing Operating Fund. This fund provides operating subsidies to housing authorities to assist in funding the operating and maintenance expenses of their own dwellings, in accordance Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.10-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 59310 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment with Section 9 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended. The subsidies are required to help maintain services and provide minimum operating reserves. Rental Housing Integrity Improvement Project. This project develops and implements plans that address HUD's high-risk rental housing subsidy programs. Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) and Neighborhood Networks (NN). These programs link services to public housing residents by providing grants for supportive services, resident empowerment activities, and activities to assist residents in becoming economically self-sufficient. The Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program is found in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and was enacted by Congress in 1986 to provide the private market with an incentive to invest in affordable rental housing. As described by HUD, the incentive works as follows (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2010d): Federal housing tax credits are awarded to developers of qualified projects. Developers then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax credit property can in turn offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar -far -dollar credit against their Federal tax liability each year over a period of 10 years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. Other federal programs seek to create affordable housing and provide flexibility to communities through block grants. The Community Development Block Grant program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2010e). HOME is a federal program described as "the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households" (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20100. These programs are implemented through state and local governments. Participating jurisdictions may be states or units of general local government, including consortia and urban counties. Locally, funds are allocated through the King County Consortium, which includes most of the suburban cities in the county including Renton, as well as the unincorporated areas of the county. 3.10.2.2 State The Washington State GMA (RCW 36.70A) requires that local governments prepare a housing element as part of their comprehensive plan. The act's housing goal is to: "Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock" (RCW 36.70A.020(4)). See the above federal description for federal programs that are implemented through state governments. In addition, Washington State implements the following programs. 0 Housing Trust Fund. Established by the Legislature in 1987 at RCW 43.185A, the Washington State Housing Trust Fund is intended to develop and coordinate public and private resources targeted to meet the affordable housing needs of low-income households in the State of Washington. Organizations that may receive assistance are local governments, local housing Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.10 6 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment authorities, nonprofit community or neighborhood-hased organizations, federally recognized Indian tribes in the State of Washington, and regional or statewide nonprofit housing assistance organizations. The Housing Trust Fund provides funds to: o support the construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation of 4,500+ units every 2 years, o create rental and homeownership opportunities in every region of the state for people with incomes below 80% of the average median income, and o support special -needs housing for clients of the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Health programs and services. Washington Works. Washington Works is a bond -financing program for multifamily dwellings developed by nonprofits. It is administered by the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. The commission acts as a financial conduit, which can issue nonrecourse revenue bonds and participate in federal, state, and local housing programs, thereby making additional funds available at affordable rates to help provide housing throughout the state. 3.10.2.3 Local The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Housing Element provides goals and policies and is implemented by development regulations such as zoning (City of Renton 2009). The overall element goals are to: 1. Ensure sufficient land capacity to accommodate the existing and future housing needs of the community, including Renton's share of forecasted regional growth. 2. Ensure that housing exists for all economic segments of Renton's population. 3. Ensure that there are housing opportunities for people with special needs, such as seniors, people with disabilities, and the homeless. 4. Maintain, protect, and enhance the quality of life of Renton's residents. Based on a collaborative process between King County and its cities, the King County Countywide Planning Policies allocated to Renton a housing target of 6,198 housing units between 2001 and 2022. The year 2006-2031 growth allocations were recently ratified, and the City has until 2014 to address the newer allocation of 14,835 new dwelling units. (King County 2010.) See the above federal description for federal programs that are implemented through local agencies and governments such as the City and RHA. In addition, the City has implemented the following programs or incentives. Housing Opportunity Fund. In 2008, the City created a Housing Opportunity Fund to assist public and private housing projects serving low- and/or moderate -income households and/or special - needs populations within the city limits. Requests for funding require City Council approval. in 2009, the City awarded a $100,000 grant to the Edmonds -Glenwood housing proposal that is within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. • Multifamily Tax Exemption. Based on allowances in state law at RCW 84.14, the City has adopted incentives (RMC 4-1-220) that provide exemptions, for a period of 8 to 12 years, from ad valorem property taxation for qualified new multifamily housing located in designated residential targeted areas including the Center Village designation in the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.10-7 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.11 Environmental Justice This section discusses the existing conditions related to environmental justice in the Planned Action Study Area. 3.11.1 Environmental Context NEPA requires that an environmental justice analysis be addressed and documented for all projects that receive federal funds. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations," issued by President Clinton in 1994, provides that "each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations." According to this order, there are three fundamental environmental justice concepts: (1) to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations; (2) to ensure the full and Fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the decision-making process; and (3) to prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and/or low-income populations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." The follow definitions used in this analysis are from the Council of Environmental Quality's (1997). Minority individuals are persons, as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census, who are members of any of the following population groups: Slack or African American; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native; Multiracial (and at least one race which is a minority race under the 1997 CEQ guidance), not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic or Latino (regardless of race). Minority population is the total number of minority individuals residing within a potentially affected area. Low-income individuals are persons, as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census, whose self-reported income is below the poverty threshold. Low-income population is the total number of low-income individuals residing within a potentially affected area. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects are those that are significant (per NEPA, 40 CFR 1508.27) or above generally accepted norms, and for which the risk of adverse effects to minority populations or low-income populations appreciably exceeds the risk to the general population. Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects are those that are significant (per NEPA, 40 CFR 1508.27), and that would adversely impact minority populations or low-income populations appreciably more than the general population. For this analysis, U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2000 Census were used to determine the presence of minority populations and low-income populations. Since these data are more than 10 years old, elementary school data from the Renton School District, for those elementary schools with Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.11-1 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment attendance boundaries in the Planned Action Study Area, were also used to look for changes in population characteristics. Additional information regarding population characteristics in the Planned Action Study Area are provided in Chapter 3.9, Socioeconomics. As part of the EIS process and to ensure full and fair participation in the decision-making process, a scoping meeting was held in the Planned Action Study Area. The meeting was held at the Highlands Neighborhood Center and the public was invited to attend. The public was informed of the meeting via the distribution of postcards, posters, publication in a local newspaper, and notices sent to the residents of the Sunset Terrace complex. Meeting materials were provided in English and Spanish, and a Spanish translator was at the meeting to provide any assistance. Those who attended were asked to comment on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action. The City of Renton is maintaining a web site on the project that will provide updates, inform the public of any upcoming public meetings, and allow residents to provide comments. In addition, those who sign up on a mailing list or contact the City will also receive notices on upcoming meetings. 3.11.1.1 Planned Action Study Area For this analysis the Planned Action Study Area was defined as the Census Blocks that are located within or bisect the Planned Action Study Area (Table 3.11-1 and Figure 3.9-1). Table 3.11-1. Census Tracts and Block Groups in the Planned Action Study Area Census Tract Block Group Blocks 252 3 and 4 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 4002, 4005, 4006, 4007 254 1, 4, and 5 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 4000, 5000, 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, S005, 5006, 5007, 5012, 5013 255 2 2004 Table 3.11-2 provides information on the minority and low-income populations in the Planned Action Study Area compared to in the city of Renton and King County. In the Planned Action Study Area, the minority population concentration is lower than in the city and higher than in the county; the low-income population concentration is higher than in both the city and county. Table 3.11-2. Minority and Low-income Population Population for Total Minority whom Poverty Income Below Area Population Population (°/Q} Determined Poverty Level Planned Action Study Area 2,9968 35.2' 6,524" 13.7" Potential Sunset Terrace 601 52.1 1,6106 19.41 Redevelopment Subarea Renton 50,052 34.6 49,397 9.7 King County 1,737,034 26.7 1,706,305 8.4 Source; U.S. Census Bureau 2000 a Census blocks provide partial Census information at a scale more similar to the Planned Action Study Area. 1 Census Block Groups are much larger than the Planned Action Study Area but have more complete data. Three elementary schools have attendance boundaries that cross the Planned Action Study Area. Another school is within a census tract that bisects the Planned Action Study Area (Hillcrest Early Childhood Center); however, because students from all over Renton can attend the school, it was not including the analysis. Table 3.11-3 provides information on the 1,746 students who attended these Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.11-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment schools as of October 1, 2008. Of the students approximately 65% are minority and 47% participated in the Free/reduced-price lunch programs. Of the minority students approximately 30% are Hispanic and 23% are Asian. Table 3.11-3. Public Elementary Schools in the Planned Action Study Area 3.11.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Table 3.11-4 provides information on the minority population and low-income population located in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, based on 2000 census data. Even though the smallest census area was used to determine minority information for the subarea, the census data include other areas outside of the subarea. Table 3.11-4 also provides more recent 2010 RHA data for the Sunset Terrace complex. The subarea contains greater concentrations of minority populations and low-income populations than the other larger geographic areas in Table 3.11-1. Since 2000, the minority concentration has increased, and it is likely that all of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would have incomes that are lower than the median income level for King County, and, therefore, some residents would be considered low-income. Table 3.11-4. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Minority and Low -Income Population Income Below Poverty Source Total Population Minority Population (91/u) Level (%) 2000 Census Data 601 64.1 19,41/oa Renton Housing Authority 314b 69.31' N/A Source, U.S. Census Bureau 2000; Renton Housing Authority 2010 a Information is based upon Census Block Group data because income information is not available at the Census Block level. Based on Renton Housing Authority demographic information for the Sunset Terrace Public Housing Community, dated September 22, 2010; population is estimated for S duplexes (dwellings multiplied by the average household size of Sunset Terrace at 2.85), other minority and poverty data for these ten dwellings is not available. Kennydale Elementary is the primary elementary school that serves the subarea and as shown in Table 3.11-3 of the 573 students who attend the school the approximately 55% are minority with the majority being Asian and approximately 34% participated in the free/reduced-price lunch program. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.11-3 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 American Free/Reduced Elementary Indian/ African Price Lunch School Students Alaskan Asian American Hispanic White Eligible Highlands 559 3 96 65 274 121 284/101 Sierra 614 1 142 60 174 237 189/51 Heights Kennydale 573 9 160 74 70 260 150/46 Total 1,746 14 398 199 518 618 623/198 Percent 1.0% 22.7% 11.40A 29.6% 35.3% 47.0% Source: Renton School District 2010x, 2010b 3.11.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Table 3.11-4 provides information on the minority population and low-income population located in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, based on 2000 census data. Even though the smallest census area was used to determine minority information for the subarea, the census data include other areas outside of the subarea. Table 3.11-4 also provides more recent 2010 RHA data for the Sunset Terrace complex. The subarea contains greater concentrations of minority populations and low-income populations than the other larger geographic areas in Table 3.11-1. Since 2000, the minority concentration has increased, and it is likely that all of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would have incomes that are lower than the median income level for King County, and, therefore, some residents would be considered low-income. Table 3.11-4. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Minority and Low -Income Population Income Below Poverty Source Total Population Minority Population (91/u) Level (%) 2000 Census Data 601 64.1 19,41/oa Renton Housing Authority 314b 69.31' N/A Source, U.S. Census Bureau 2000; Renton Housing Authority 2010 a Information is based upon Census Block Group data because income information is not available at the Census Block level. Based on Renton Housing Authority demographic information for the Sunset Terrace Public Housing Community, dated September 22, 2010; population is estimated for S duplexes (dwellings multiplied by the average household size of Sunset Terrace at 2.85), other minority and poverty data for these ten dwellings is not available. Kennydale Elementary is the primary elementary school that serves the subarea and as shown in Table 3.11-3 of the 573 students who attend the school the approximately 55% are minority with the majority being Asian and approximately 34% participated in the free/reduced-price lunch program. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.11-3 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.11.2 Regulatory Context 3.11.2.1 Federal Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Chapter 3. Affected Environment Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (United States Code (USC] Title 42, Section 2000(d) et seq.) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898, known as the Federal Environmental Justice Policy, requires federal agencies to address, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, the disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental impacts of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations in the United States. Federal agency responsibilities under this order also apply to Native American programs. Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC 12101-12213) prohibits discrimination based on disability. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act The purpose of the Relocation Assistance Program (42 USC 61) is to ensure that persons displaced as a result of a federal action or an undertaking involving federal funds are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably, so that such persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. 3.11.2.2 State No state regulations apply to environmental justice. 3.11.2.3 Local No local regulations apply to environmental justice. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.11-4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.12 Aesthetics 3.12.1 Environmental Context This section discusses the existing conditions related to aesthetics in the Planned Action Study Area. 3.12.1.1 Planned Action Study Area This section generally describes existing conditions related to aesthetics in the Planned Action Study Area, with the exception of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, which is described separately in Section 3.12.1.2 below. Descriptions are provided by subarea. North Subarea The North Subarea, which is the largest subarea, consists of a diverse mixture of residential properties, recreational uses, and public facilities. The western and northern edges of the subarea are dominated by the campuses of McKnight Middle School and Hillcrest Early Childhood Center. The elementary school is bordered on the east by North Highlands Park. Together, these facilities provide a sense of openness and greenery. The medium -density residential development in the interior of the subarea is a mixture of ages and styles, although it consists primarily of single-family homes and duplexes. Examples of older housing stock remain, particularly along Harrington Avenue NE east of McKnight Middle School and north of Hillcrest Elementary, as well as along Jefferson Avenue NE. As seen farther south, many of these properties are in need of repair, some lack landscaping or street trees, and sidewalk location and quality is inconsistent. Figure 3.12-1 illustrates existing conditions in the North Subarea. Territorial views to the west are available in open areas, such as the McKnight Middle School playfield. Heights in the subarea are generally two stories and lower. As a result, visual bulk is low, particularly in locations with a large amount of trees, such as near the schools, at North Highlands Park, along Index Avenue and Jefferson Avenue, and in the northeastern corner of the subarea, which is bordered by the Honey Creek Greenbelt. The presence of trees and vegetation breaks up the visual pattern of residential development. Because development in this subarea is primarily residential, levels of ambient light and glare are low and are generated mostly by exterior home lighting and residential vehicular traffic. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.12 1 ICF 593.10 G�ji�r�940 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Central Subarea Located immediately north of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the Central Subarea is focused on Glenwood Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE, and NE 12th Street, and is highly residential in character. Housing stock in this subarea consists largely of duplexes and single- family residences in a mix of ages. A large amount of the housing stock in this subarea was originally constructed as workforce housing in the 1940s (City of Renton 2008), and many of these homes are showing signs of age and are in need of repair. Most of the structures are a single story, though some newer, two-story homes have been constructed along Harrington Avenue NE. In general, the homes in the eastern half of the Central Subarea are newer, larger, and in better condition than in the western half. Many of these newer homes also have a larger amount of landscaping and more street trees; however, architectural styles and materials remain similar to their older counterparts. Figure 3.12-2 illustrates existing conditions in the Central Subarea. Territorial views to the west are available from the upper floors of multistory buildings at the western edge of the subarea, such as the apartment complex at the corner of NE 12th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE. Overall, heights in the Central Subarea are one or two stories, resulting in low visual bulk. However, the northwestern corner of the subarea features several three-story apartment buildings, located along Edmonds Avenue NE, which differ in form and materials from the rest of the subarea. Because development in this subarea is primarily residential, levels of ambient light and glare are low and are generated mostly by exterior home lighting and residential vehicular traffic. Sunset Mixed Use Subarea The Sunset Mixed Use Subarea consists of the primarily commercial development that fronts on NE Sunset Boulevard as it passes through the Planned Action Study Area, as well as development along several cross streets, including Harrington Avenue NE, NE 10th Street, Kirkland Avenue, and NE 12th Street. Development along NE Sunset Boulevard is characterized in the western end of the subarea by auto -centric uses and large surface parking lots. Sidewalks are narrow and unprotected from traffic. Buildings are set far back from the street or physically separated from it by differences in grade. Moving east, the visual character of the corridor gradually changes, as the hillside on which the road sits prevents direct access from adjacent buildings. This portion of the corridor is characterized by a greater amount of trees and vegetation used to screen development and the presence of territorial views to the southwest. The intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE is characterized by a mix of commercial and residential development,. East of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE, NE Sunset Boulevard takes on the character of a tree -lined urban boulevard. The street is wide and fronted by large areas of surface parking and auto -oriented commercial development, but each side of the road is lined with mature trees, screening businesses from the road. Sidewalks are provided and are separated from traffic in some areas by planting strips, but few other pedestrian amenities are available. Landscaping and tree screening are well provided along most of NE Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE, but there are several gaps, most notably immediately south of NE 12th Street, where the character reverts to an auto -oriented commercial corridor with few concessions to pedestrians. Figure 3.12-3 illustrates existing conditions in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 312 3 December 2010 . Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 9Cr 59110 N �r ii Bilk iAi0.1 ik ohs 9-TrrT9r WIrkdomraa Fes �late r ti...e 3 ` r 6- � �� r � � - � _ — •mai--�' -. City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Territorial views are available to both the south and west within the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea, though only along NE Sunset Boulevard west of Harrington Avenue NE and in the southeastern portion of the subarea along Kirkland Avenue NE and NE 9th Street. The presence of intervening buildings and vegetation limits these views primarily to the upper floors of multistory buildings, Properties within the subarea that do not front directly on Sunset Boulevard consist of smaller - scale, lower -intensity commercial developments and residential properties, both single-family and multifamily. Most buildings are one to two stories, though multifamily residential buildings reach three stories. The recently completed Harrington Square Apartments, located on Harrington Avenue NE south of NE Sunset Boulevard, consists of two five -story buildings. Due to the presence of commercial development along NE Sunset Boulevard, levels of ambient light and glare in this subarea are slightly higher than in the surrounding residential areas. Major light sources are concentrated along NE Sunset Boulevard in the form of illumination for commercial buildings and parking, as well as vehicular traffic. South Subarea The South Subarea consists primarily of a diverse collection of housing south of NE Sunset Boulevard, as well as Highlands Park and Highlands Elementary School south of NE 9th Street. Residences in this subarea consist of a mix of single-family, duplexes, and apartments of a variety of ages. Many of the properties here are part of Renton's older housing stock, and some are in need of maintenance and repair. Compared to more northerly portions of the Planned Action Study Area, the South Subarea contains a greater amount of mature trees, and the presence of the school and park greatly increase the sense of openness. Sidewalks and planting strips, while provided, are inconsistent in availability and condition. Figure 3.12-4 illustrates existing conditions in the South Subarea. Territorial views are generally not available in the South Subarea, due to the presence of intervening development and vegetation. Building heights are generally limited to a single story in most of the subarea. A small number of multifamily residential buildings along Harrington Avenue NE, across from Highlands Elementary School, as well as along NE 9th Place, north of Highlands Park, reach two or three stories. All together, visual bulk is quite low in the South Subarea. Because development in this subarea is primarily residential, levels of ambient light and glare are low and are generated mostly by exterior home lighting and residential vehicular traffic. The presence of mature trees in this subarea also provides effective screening of light sources. 3.12.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea consists of the Sunset Terrace public housing development at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE, the Edmonds - Glenwood site northwest of Sunset Terrace public housing complex, and a currently vacant RHA - owned parcel on the north side of NE 10th Street known as the Piha site (Figure 2-9). The interior of the subarea is characterized primarily by two-story residential buildings owned by the Renton Housing Authority. The edges of the subarea contain a mix of one- and two-story structures in the same style. These structures were built in the late 1950s and constructed using a similar layout, architectural style, and palette of building materials, imparting a sense of homogeneity to the subarea. Figure 3.12-5 illustrates existing conditions in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Territorial views are available to the south and west along NE Sunset Boulevard, though they are occasionally blocked by the presence of mature street trees. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.12 6 ICF 593.10 t �:.4 '�3'a'. .wa,.,bc•.�`.7. 's• •}tip tY.T--7�y��'`q'.���1tr�Oy�w r • ice' �+ ,_ �C - _ iY �.^.4�����.y ��•}�,�n'r'F IL • .t,,' .: �: ,* 5121/1003 yl -T Source: King County Msessor 2010 Figure 'CFExisting Aesthetic Conditions in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ,'JAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Because structures in the subarea are two stories or shorter, and most buildings have moderate to large setbacks from the street, visual hulk in the subarea is low. While these low heights and lack of visual mass create a scale of development that does not overwhelm viewers, buildings generally lack connectivity to the street. While sidewalks are present throughout the Sunset Terrace housing site, other pedestrian amenities, such as street trees or street furniture, are rare. Residential buildings are connected by shared pathways, but these shared spaces do not contain landscaping or furniture, and they provide little opportunity for Facilitating social interaction or gathering of residents. While the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea consists of residential development, the ambient light and glare levels at this location are slightly higher than in other nearby residential areas due to the proximity of commercial areas and vehicular traffic along NE Sunset Boulevard, as well as the lack of vegetative screening within the subarea. Internal sources of light and glare consist of residential vehicular traffic and exterior building illumination, such as floodlights. 3.12.2 Regulatory Context 3.12.2.1 Federal While individual federal agencies are subject to guidelines and policies regarding aesthetic and visual resource issues, such as the Federal Highway Administration's Context Sensitive Solutions program, the federal government does not promulgate laws and regulations relating specifically to aesthetic character. 3.12.2.2 State The GMA (Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 36.70A) governs the preparation of comprehensive plans by local jurisdictions and requires that particular elements be included. Aesthetics is not listed in the act as a mandatory element, and local jurisdictions are allowed to address this topic in their comprehensive plans at their discretion. 3.12.2.3 Local City regulations regarding aesthetics are contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan and RMC. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan The Community Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan establishes the following goals pertaining to the aesthetic environment in Renton (City of Renton 2009). 1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City. 2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development. 3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves. To implement the above goals, the Community Design Element contains a list of objectives and associated policies that pertain to more specific community design topics. A list of relevant objectives is included below. A list of these objectives and their associated policies is contained in Appendix E. • Objective CD -C: Promote reinvestment in and upgrade of existing residential neighborhoods through redevelopment of small, underutilized parcels with infill development, modification and alteration of older housing stock, and improvements to streets and sidewalks to increase property values. Sunset Area Community Planned Actfon 3.12-9 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment • Objective CD -E: New development and infill patterns should be consistent with a high quality urban form. • Objective CD+ Protect and enhance public views of distinctive features from public streets and other focal points within the City and the surrounding area. • Objective CD -J: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community aesthetic. • Objective CD -L: New commercial and industrial buildings should be architecturally compatible with their surroundings in terms of their bulk and scale, exterior materials, and color when existing development is consistent with the adopted land use vision and Purpose Statements for each Commercial, Center Designation, and Employment Area in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Center and Commercial Policies. • Objective CD -0: Promote development of attractive, walkable neighborhoods and shopping areas by ensuring that streets are safe, convenient, and pleasant for pedestrians. • Objective CD -P: Develop a system of residential streets, sidewalks, and alleys that serve both vehicles and pedestrians. • Objective CD -R: Lighting systems in public rights-of-way should be provided to improve safety, aid in direction finding, and provide information for commercial and other business purposes. Excess lighting beyond what is necessary should be avoided. City of Renton Development Regulations Title IV of the RMC contains development regulations that implement the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In particular, urban design regulations are contained in RMC 4-3-100, and Residential Design and Open Space Standards are contained in RMC 4-2-115. Urban Design Regulations Renton's Urban Design Regulations are contained in RMC 4-3-100 and address the following topics: • site design and building location; • parking and vehicular access; • pedestrian environment; • recreation areas and common open space; • building architectural design; • signage; and • lighting. Compliance with design standards under RMC 4-3-100 is required within several design districts established throughout the city. The Planned Action Study Area lies partially within Urban Design Districts B and D. Within each design district, some or all of the regulations regarding the above topics apply, per the tables in RMC 4-3-10063e. Residential Design and Open Space Standards In 2009, the City adopted Residential Design and Open Space standards, codified in AMC 4-2-115. These standards apply to all new dwelling units in the Resource Conservation (RC) zone and Residential zones R-1, R-4, R -S, R-10, and R-14. The standards seek to enhance quality of life by promoting high-quality residential design. The standards regulate the following topics: Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.12-10 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.1.0 City of Renton • site design, + open space, and residential design. Chapter S. Affected Fnvlronment The Residential Design and Open Space Standards would apply to approximately half of the Planned Action Study Area. Lighting Standards RMC 4-4-075 contains standards for exterior illumination, which are intended to provide "ample but not excessive" levels of illumination, thereby promoting public safety and accenting building design features. Citywide standards are established for exterior building illumination as well as parking lot and display lights. Additional requirements covering street lighting, lighting for residential access, alley lights, and sidewalk and pathway illumination apply to development in the R-10 and R-14 zones. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.12-11 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ECF 593,10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.13 Historic/Cultural Resources 3.13.1 Affected Environment The study area for cultural resources is defined as the geographic area or areas within which the proposed action may directly or indirectly cause change of character or use of archaeological and/or historic resources. The definition of the study area is influenced by the scale and nature of the proposed action. For purposes of this analysis, the study area for cultural resources is considered identical to the Planned Action Study Area defined in Chapter 2 (Figure 2-1). 3.13.1.1 Environmental Setting The Planned Action Study Area is located within the Puget Lowland, a structural and topographic basin that lies between the Cascade Range and Olympic Mountains. The modern topography of the Puget Lowland is primarily the result of surface scouring and moraine formation caused by the most recent glacial advance, known as the Vashon stale of the Fraser glaciation, which took place between 14,000 and 20,000 years before present (BP) (Booth et al. 2009; Easterbrook 2003). As a result of this glacial activity, the study area is characterized as a moderately glacial drift upland, composed of glacial till (Mullineaux 1965). In the modern era, the surface of the Planned Action Study Area has been modified to accommodate development. For example, geotechnical borings, excavated along NE Sunset Boulevard within the Planned Action Study Area reveal 4 to 7 feet of fill along the roadway (Golder Associates 1996). It is not known whether fill to this depth extends away from the roadway. Likewise, geotechnical excavations at the northern portion of the study area, on 1442 Hillcrest Lane NE, revealed a thin layer of topsoil underlain by unweathered glacial till, indicating that sediments had been removed from the ground surface in the recent past (Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc. 2010). 3.13.1.2 Cultural setting Precontact Cultural developments in the Puget Sound area have been summarized by a number of reviewers (Kidd 1964; Greengo and Houston 1970; Nelson 1990; Larson and Lewarch 1995; Ames and Maschner 1999; Blukis Onat et al. 2001; Forsman and Lewarch 2001), most recently by Kopperl (2004). The archaeological record and cultural histories of the prehistory of Puget Sound and surrounding areas generally divide the prehistoric cultural sequence into multiple phases or periods from about 13,000 BP to Ab 1700. These phases are academic in nature and do not necessarily reflect tribal viewpoints. A summary of the phases is provided below, hased on the periods proposed by Kopper[ (2004): • Paleo-Indian Period (11,000 to 8,000 BP). Generalized resource development in a post -glacial environment. Site contents consist of large lithic bifaces and bone technology. • Early Period (8,000 to 5,000 BP). Inland sites with lithic artifacts, rarely found with associated plant or animal remains, or hearth structures. + Middle Period (5,000 BP to 2,500 8P). Increase socioeconomic complexity, exploitation of a wider range of environments, and utilization of marine resources. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.13-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SFPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3, Affected Environment Late Period (2,500 BP to European contact). The establishment of large semi -sedentary populations, increased diversity of hunting, fishing, plant processing, and woodworking tools, followed by European contact. Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Context Ethnographic information recorded during the early part of the twentieth century indicates that the Planned Action Study Area is located within the territory of a Native American group traditionally known as the Duwamish. The Duwamish people traditonally spoke the Southern Lushootseed language, which is one of two Coast Salish languages spoken in the Puget Sound (Suttles and Lane 1990:486). They inhabited areas that encompassed Salmon Bay, Lake Union, Portage Bay, Union Bay, Lake Washington, and their tributary streams (Blukis Onat and Kiers 2007:6). The Duwamish people hunted deer, elk, bear, ducks, geese, and other game animals and waterfowl, when available. Inland of the Puget Sound, they fished for salmon when available (Duwamish Tribe 2010). Plant foods such as sprouts, roots, bulbs, berries, and nuts were collected as well (Suttles and Lane 1990:489) Although ethnographic village locations and place names are documented south of the Planned Action Study Area along the Cedar River, no ethnographically documented villages or place names are known to exist within the the study area (Hilbert et al. 2001) European American settlement of the Puget Sound area in the 1850s severely disrupted the Duwamish way of life. Early contact between the Duwamish and European Americans was cordial, and the Duwamish were essential to the survival of many early settlers. As the city of Seattle and the surrounding towns grew, natural resources on which the Duwamish relied became increasingly scarce and other traditional areas became inaccessible as a result of development. Further urban expansion, combined with the banning of native urban residence in 1865, resulted in many of the Duwamish people moving away from, or being forced out of, the Seattle area. Many of the Duwamish people went to reservations where they had relatives, including the Muckleshoot, Suquamish, Tulalip, Lummi, or Snoqualmie reservations (Blukis Onat et al. 2005). Today, some of the descendents of the Duwamish people are now members of several federally recognized tribes in including the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Suquamish, Tulalip Tribe of Indians, and Snoqualmie Tribe, while others remain enrolled with the Duwamish tribe, although it is not a federally recognized tribe (Duwamish 'Tribe 2010). Historic Context The first European American settler in the Renton area was Henry Tobin, who arrived in 1853 and established a 320 -acre claim on the Black River, along with his family. Tobin, together with three partners, subsequently established the Duwamish Coal Company and built the area's first sawmill (Buerge 1989:22). After the signing of the Treaty of Point Elliott and the forced removal of the native Duwamish, an increasing number of settlers entered the area (Buerge 1989:23). In 1856, Erasmus M. Smithers acquired Tobin's earlier claim and purchased an additional 160 acres (Buerge 1989:24; City of Renton 1989:4; Slauson 2006:2). Smithers' substantial land holdings eventually became the center of a burgeoning community that would eventually form the city of Renton. Rich deposits of coal found in the mountains surrounding the small community in the 1860s and 1870s furthered its prosperity. Wealthy entrepreneurs, such as Captain William Renton, who had built an enormous and prosperous sawmill on Bainbridge Island, invested heavily in the area's coal and transportation industries, allowing the fledgling community's economy to boom (Buerge 1989:24-27; Slauson 2006:6). In 1875, Smithers and two partners filed the town plat for the new Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment community and named it Renton in honor of the investor's financial backing (Boeing Company et al. 2001;5; Buerge 1989:27; City of Renton 1989:4; Slauson 2006:7). The coal -mining and logging industries continued to draw new residents to the area (Buerge 1989:30-32; City of Renton 1989:4- 5). In 1875, less than 50 people lived in Renton, but by 1900, 1,176 people called it home (City of Renton 1989;4). Renton was fully incorporated on September 6, 1901 (Boeing Company et al. 2001;5; Buerge 1989:37). At the turn of the twentieth century, the area's coal -mining industry began to decline in importance, soon to be replaced by a new set of industries. The discovery of superior quality clay deposits at the south end of Lake Washington led to the establishment of the Renton Clay Works in 1902. By 1917, this company was the largest brick manufacturing plant in the world (Boeing Company et al. 2001:5; City of Renton 1989:5). Addressing the growing needs of the railroad, logging, and later military, during the two World Wars, the Pacific Car & Foundry was first established during this period, supplying steel, pig iron, and other equipment for the production of railroad boxcars, tanks, and later, wing spans for aircraft. The company acquired Kenworth Motor Trucks in 1945 and Peterbilt Motors in 1958, merging them into one company called PACCAR in 1972 (City of Renton 1989:5). One of the greatest influences on the development of Renton occurred during World War 11 with the establishment of the Boeing Company aircraft manufacturing plant at the south end of Lake Washington (City of Renton 1989:6). Built in 1940, the Renton Boeing plant manufactured B-29 Superfortress bombers; the plant exponentially increased in size through the course of the war (Boeing Company et al. 2001:1.2). At its height in 1942, the plant employed 44,754 people and produced approximately 90 planes each month, with a total of 6,981 planes completed before the war's end (Slauson 2006:126). Development in Renton boomed with the flood of jobs and new residents brought by Boeing and other manufacturers. After the war, Boeing continued to employ as many as 35,000 workers and PACCAR was the city's second largest employer (Buerge 1989:82). Dubbed the "Hub City of Enterprise," Renton was one of the most important manufacturing centers in the state at this time (Buerge 1989:82). In the postwar era, new housing, retail shops, schools, churches, and civic services were established to provide For the new masses, and the Federal government provided nearly $4 million in funds for the construction of new housing alone (Buerge 1989:75-79). Boeing continued to play a prominent role in Renton's economy through the rest of the twentieth century, producing commercial airplanes locally including the 727, 737, and 757 and employing as many 25,000 (City of Renton 1989:6). Today, Renton's economy is shifting towards a greater economic diversification with technology firms, microhreweries, and the Wizards of the Coast, a game and card company (Boeing Company et at. 2001:19; Buerge 1989:88). Planned Action Study Area Despite Renton's rapid growth in the early twentieth century, the area encompassed by the Planned Action Study Area remained largely undeveloped until the 1940s. The area was logged starting in 1883 (Slauson 200(:42) and Primary State Highway 2 (PSH 2), later known as the Sunset Highway or SR 900 and referred to in this Draft EIS as ISE Sunset Boulevard, was established through the southern portion of the study area from 1909 through 1910. The route was first paved in 1920, becoming the principal highway between Seattle and Snoqualmie Pass prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Floating Bridge in 1940 (Buerge 1989:67; Morning Olympian 1909:3). Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.13 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Although development in Renton's downtown grew with the arrival of the highway, the study area remained primarily rural. With the arrival of the Renton Boeing plant and its tens of thousands of workers in the 1940s, housing development exploded within the study area with many of its existing residential neighborhoods first established during the war. In order to accommodate the enormous work force, the federal government embarked on a series of housing projects in the study area (Buerge 1989:75). Known as the "Highlands" south of the highway and as the "North Highlands" north of the highway, the development of these two neighborhoods relied heavily on federally loans, grants, and other programs (City of Renton 1989:34). During this early development, the Highlands emerged as the center of housing project development while the North Highlands evolved with the construction of mixed commercial and multi -use family housing along the highway (City of Renton 1989:34-35). Overnight, retail and social services emerged to serve the bustling new community. The Highlands area received its own post office and fire station in the fall of 1943 (Slauson 2006:45, 85), and a large recreational complex complete with tennis courts, ball fields, and a small gymnasium was completed in 1949 (Slauson 2006:81). Later improvements included the move of a prominent Methodist church from downtown Renton to the Highlands area in 1958 and construction of a new branch of the library in 1979 (Slauson 2006:62, 97). By 1975, the area was almost fully developed (City of Renton 1989:34-35; Renton History Museum 1975). Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Federal funding in the study area during the postwar period included significant investment in public housing. Central to this effort was construction of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex along the north side of Primary State Highway 2 (NE Sunset Boulevard) in 1958-1959, comprising most of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Authorized on June 28, 1958, and completed in 1959, Sunset Terrace is a complex of 100 tow -income housing units consisting of both one- and two-story structures arranged along curvilinear streets in a style that has commonly become known as Garden Style Apartments (Associated Press 1958:1; King County Department of Assessments 2010; Seattle Times 1959:44). Sunset Terrace was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Company, and designed by architect George W. Stoddard- Huggard & Associates (Seattle Times 1959:44). George W. Stoddard, principal of the firm, was a prominent Seattle architect, credited with construction of many public, private, and civic structures in the region. Stoddard retired in 1960 and the Sunset Terrace project is believed to have been one of his last commissions (Elenga 2007:48,230; Ochsner 1998:208,352; Seattle Times 1967:16). 3.13.2 Regulatory Environment This section presents the federal, state, and local codes and regulations that are applicable to the protection of cultural resources in the study area. 3.13.2.1 Federal National Environmental Policy Act NEPA requires the federal government to carry out its plans and programs in such a way as to preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage by considering, among other things, unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)) and the degree to which the action may adversely affect Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmentai impact Statement 3.13 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)). Although NEPA does not define standards specific to cultural resource impact analyses, the implementing regulations of NEPA (40 CFR 1502.25) state that, to the fullest extent possible, "agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with environmental impact analyses and related surveys and studies required by ... the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq.)." Although NEPA statutes and implementing regulations do not contain detailed information concerning cultural resource impact analyses, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), with which NEPA must be coordinated, details standards and processes for such analyses. The implementing regulations of Section 106 state: "Agency officials should ensure that preparation of an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or an EIS and record of decision (ROD) includes appropriate scoping, identification of historic properties, assessment of effects upon them, and consultation leading to resolution of any adverse effects" (36 CFR 800A [a] [3]). Section 106, therefore, typically forms the crux of federal agencies' NEPA cultural resources impact analyses and the identification, consultation, evaluation, affects assessment, and mitigation required for both NEPA and Section 106 compliance should be coordinated and completed simultaneously. This practice is followed in the present analysis. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 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 NRNP, and to provide 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 Part 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. National Register of Historic Places First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the NRNP was established by the NHPA as "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments; private groups; and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment." The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. According to NRHP guidelines, the duality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that meet any of the following criteria: Criterion A. A property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion B. A property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C. A property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.13-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D. A property yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Ordinarily, birthplaces, cemeteries, or graves of historical figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; properties primarily commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the NRHP, unless they satisfy certain conditions. The NRHP requires that a resource not only meet one of these criteria, but must also possess integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey historical significance. The evaluation of a resource's integrity must be grounded in an understanding of that resource's physical characteristics and how those characteristics relate to its significance. The NRHP recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define the integrity of a property, including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. An adverse effect on a historic property is found when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it may diminish the integrity of the historic property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The assessment of effects on historic properties is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 800.5. 3.13.2.2 State Washington State Environmental Policy Act SEPA requires that all major actions sponsored, funded, permitted, or approved by state and/or local agencies be planned so that environmental considerations—such as impacts on cultural resources—are considered when state -agency -enabled projects affect properties of historical, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance (WAC 197-11-960). These regulations closely resemble NEPA. Under SEPA, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is the specified agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other state agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. For the purposes of this analysis, the degree to which the alternatives adversely affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP is the primary criterion for determining significant impacts under SEPA. Secondary criteria include whether an alternative has the potential to affect districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the NRNP. Washington Heritage Register The WHR is an official listing of historically significant sites and properties found throughout the state. The list is maintained by DAHP and includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.13-6 ICF 593.10 City cf Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment that have been identified and documented as being significant in local or state history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. To qualify for placement on the WHR, the resource must meet the following criteria. A building, site, structure or object must be at least 50 years old. if newer, the resource should have documented exceptional significance. The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity (i.e., it should retain important character -defining features from its historic period of construction). • The resource should have documented historical significance at the local, state, or federal level. Sites listed on the NRHP are automatically added to the WHR and hence a separate nomination form does not need to be completed. Washington State Governor's Executive Order 05-05 Washington State Executive Order 05-05, which requires state agencies with capital improvement projects to integrate DAHP, the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs, and concerned tribes into their capital project planning process, was signed into action by Governor Chris Gregoire in November 2005. All state agency capital construction projects or land acquisitions, not otherwise reviewed under federal law, must comply with this executive order, if the projects or acquisitions have the potential to affect cultural resources. Agencies with projects or acquisitions subject to review under the executive order must consult with DAHP and concerned tribes and invite their participation in project planning. If cultural resources are present, then reasonable steps to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential effects must be taken. 3.13.2.3 Local The City currently does not have a local historic preservation ordinance. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2016 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.13 7 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.14 Transportation 3.14.1 Environmental Context 3.14.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Traffic Study Area The Planned Action Study Area includes roadways that are within the jurisdictions of the City and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The traffic study area (Figure 3.14-1) is a smaller area selected to represent existing traffic conditions in the core center of the Planned Action Study Area where traffic could be affected in the future. All study intersections (Table 3.14-1 and Figure 3.14-1) are within the City's jurisdiction. The traffic study area is bordered by NE 12th Street to the north, NE Sunset Boulevard to the south, Monroe Avenue NE to the east, and Edmonds Avenue NE to the west. Figure 3.14-1. Traffic Study Area and Study Intersections Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.14-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 NE 19th St r .2 NF 19th Si NF z z rv�>•m N� yi�.nrs NE 17th PI 11 Q St NE 17th St m z N4 Y6tr '^ NE 16th St C Z c E p W 'a a 4 NE ti OSkinset Blvd w Z m Z � Z a NE 130h P1 d ao` Z a a c 11 ty r NE C u a a 0E 12th St NE 12th St ao� NE 131h Pf 904 NE 11th St a' NE 10th PI'12 3 Li 0 4`e NEy " NE 10th Ct Z m NE 10th PI s ¢ �Elg'h q NF 10th St S f fp NE loth Ln z. NE 91h PI °9 M NE 10th Si NE 91h PI )trfe N P Y � NR NOTE: State route milepost 12.46 is identified as milepost 13.400 in the 2009 State Highway Log. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.14-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 3.14-1. Study Intersections Chapter 3. Affected Environment Intersection # Intersection Jurisdiction Control 1 NE Sunset Blvd & NE Park Dr WSDOT Signalized 2 NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds Ave NE WSDOT Signalized 3 NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington Ave NE WSDOT Signalized 4 NE Sunset Blvd & NE 10th St WSDOT Signalized 5 NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE WSDOT OWSC b NE Sunset Blvd & NE 12th St WSDOT Signalized 7 NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Avc NE WSDOT OWSC S Edmonds Ave NE & NE 12th St City AWSC 9 Harrington Ave NE & NE 12th St City AWSC 10 Kirkland Ave NE & NE 12th St city AWSC OWSC = one-way stop control; AWSC = all -way stop control Roadways State roadway classification systems prioritize roads in terms of mobility, access, and function. Higher functioning roadways, such as interstate Freeways, typically carry higher traffic volumes, have limited access, and serve longer trips; whereas lower Functioning roadways, such as arterials and collector streets, typically carry regional or local traffic and provide many opportunities for property access. Roadways in the traffic study area include arterials and local collector access roads, and are described below. State Route (SR) 900 is a winding east -west state highway that connects Interstate (1) S in Renton to I-90 in Issaquah. Within the Planned Action Study Area, SR 900 is known as NE Sunset Boulevard, and it connects I-405 with Renton Highlands. This roadway is owned and maintained by WSDOT, and in the vicinity of the study area it is classified as an urban principal arterial (Washington State Department of Transportation 2009a). It is also classified as a highway of regional significance. NE Sunset Boulevard generally operates with two through lanes in each direction with left -turn pockets at the signalized study intersections. Directional traffic is divided by a center two-way left - turn lane that begins at Harrington Avenue NE and extends to east of Monroe Avenue NE. This center turn lane allows generally unrestricted access to businesses and adjacent land uses along NE Sunset Boulevard by providing a refuge for left turns into and out of driveways. The posted speed limit along NE Sunset Boulevard is 35 miles per hour (mph) in both directions. Local roadways in the study area include Edmonds Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Avenue NE. These north -south roadways intersect with NE Sunset Boulevard to provide connections with residential areas, and are generally two-lane (one lane in each direction) streets with sidewalks and parallel parking. The posted speed limit is 25 mph on these local roads, except on Edmonds Avenue NE where the posted speed is 30 mph. Monroe Avenue NE is a north -south local roadway on the east end of the study area that provides access to residential areas, but does not have sidewalks or parallel parking. NE 10th Street extends east from Harrington Avenue NE, connects with NE Sunset Boulevard at a signalized intersection, and continues east into residential areas of Renton Highlands. Sidewalks are provided in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard, and parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.14-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment street. NE 12th Street is an east -west local study roadway that intersects with Edmonds Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Avenue NE at stop -controlled locations. It also intersects with NE Sunset Boulevard at a traffic signal. NE 12th Street is a two-lane (one lane in each direction) street that provides sidewalks and parallel parking in both directions. The posted speed limit along NE 12th Street is 25 mph in both directions. No designated bicycle lanes are provided on either NE 10th Street or NE 12th Street. Transit Four King County Metro bus routes serve the Planned Action Study Area. King County Metro provides fixed -route transit service connecting the study area to Seattle and Bellevue. Table 3.14-2 outlines these routes. Table 3.14-2. King County Metro Transit Service Route # Route Name Operation Days Operation Times Headway' 105 Renton Highlands -Downtown Weekday 4:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 30 minutes Renton Saturday 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 30 minutes Sunday 7:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 1 hour 111 Downtown Seattle -Lake Weekday 5:20 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. 15 minutes Kathleen 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 15 minutes 240 Bellevue -Renton Transit Weekday 5:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 30 minutes Center Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 30 minutes Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 1 hour 909 Renton Highlands -Downtown Weekday 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. 1 hour Renton Saturday 6:15 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. I hour Source: King County 2010. Headway is defined at the time between successive busses as they pass a common point on the roadway. Metro Route 105 is a local route that travels between downtown Renton and Renton Highlands, terminating at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 16th Street. From the north, the route travels along NE 12th Street and NE 10th Street through the study area before heading south on Union Avenue NE to NE 4th Street and downtown Renton. Metro Route 111 provides weekday directional peak -period service between downtown Seattle and the Renton Highlands. In the morning, the route travels through the study area along NE 10th Street, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Kirkland Avenue NE before heading west along NE 16th Street towards Interstate 405 and its final destination in downtown Seattle. In the afternoon, reverse peak -period service comes from Seattle and travels through the study area towards Renton Highlands. Metro Route 240 provides daily service between the Renton Transit Center and the community of Clyde Hill (Bellevue). Within the study area, the route travels along NE Sunset Boulevard from NE Park Drive to Duvall Avenue NE. At Duvall Avenue NE, the route turns northbound and travels through the Newcastle Transit Center to Bellevue. Metro Route 909 is part of King County Metro's Dial -a -Ride -Transit (DART) program. The route provides weekday and Saturday service between Kennydale and downtown Renton, and passes through the study area along Kirkland Avenue NE, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Harrington Avenue NE. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.14-3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Nonmotorized Facilities Within the traffic study area, continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of NE Sunset Boulevard, and marked crosswalks are available at each of the signalized study intersections. No designated bicycle lanes are provided on NE Sunset Boulevard, although ample paved shoulders are provided and can likely accommodate bicycles. Edmonds Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Avenue NE have sidewalks on both sides of the street within the study area. These sidewalks connect to sidewalks along NE Sunset Boulevard to provide continuous pedestrian access. Sidewalks are also provided on both sides of NE 10th Street and NE 12th Street in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard. Monroe Avenue NE is the only local study roadway that does not have sidewalks. No designated bicycle lanes are provided on local streets within the study area. Accident Data Accidents are typically computed as rates based on the traffic volume of the roads in question. This is done to better measure the risk to drivers on roadways with different traffic volumes. Accident rates for road segments were calculated as the number of accidents per million vehicle miles of travel. This section provides an assessment of vehicular accident history in the study area for the most recent 3 years of available data (between 2007 and 2009). The WSDOT Collision and Analysis Branch provided accident history statistics for this period (Washington State Department of Transportation 2009b). These data were analyzed to identify the average accident rate on NE Sunset Boulevard between NE Park Drive and Redmond Place NE, as well as on the local study roadways. These rates were then compared with statewide average rates for similar roadway classifications. Table 3.14-3 includes accident rate summaries. On the 1.21 -mile stretch of NE Sunset Boulevard (both directions), 112 accidents occurred between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009. No fatalities were reported. Of the accidents, 47 involved personal injury and 65 involved property damage only. The most common type of accident involved collisions between vehicles turning into or out of driveways (34/0). The second most common type of accident involved vehicles rear -ending another vehicle (26%). The accident rate for this segment of the roadway is 3.93 accidents per million vehicle miles, higher than the most recently published average statewide accident rate for similar roadways (2.05 accidents per million vehicle miles on urban principal arterials in 2009). The accident rate on NE Sunset Boulevard is likely higher than the statewide average because of the high number of driveways on both sides of the street, and the center two-way turn lane that allows access into and out of these driveways in both directions of travel. Accident rates at each of the study intersections were calculated from incidents reported to the City between May 1, 2007, and April 30, 2010. Over this 3 -year period, each intersection experienced less than one accident per million entering vehicles, and fewer than five accidents on average per year at each location. Average daily entering traffic volumes at study intersections were calculated from existing peak -hour entering traffic volumes. The peak -hour traffic volumes are assumed to be 10% of the average daily volume. The most common type of accident that occurred at the study locations involved rear -end collisions or vehicles colliding at angles. Due to the number of vehicles that must slow down or stop as they Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.14-4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment approach the intersections, and the number of turning movements allowed at all study locations, a high occurrence of these types of crashes could be reasonable. Table 3.14-3. Accident Rates MP = state route milepost; ADT = average daily traffic Volumes were averaged between count locations. Source: Washington State Department of Transportation 2009c. e 2007-2009 multiyear accident rate. Rate is in accidents per million vehicle miles. This location is identified in the 2009 State Highway Log as milepost 13,0013. The "B" designates whether the milepost value is the "back" duplicate of a milepost value "ahead" on the route. A back duplicate occurs as a result of a realignment that shortens or lengthens a section of a state route (other than at the end of the route). SR 900 was likely realigned from its original path within the study area. Rather than renumbering mileposts to account for this realignment, WSDOT uses a "B" indicator to identify where a "duplicate" milepost occurs. This indicator allows the mileposts on either side (upstream or downstream) of where the realignment took place to remain the same. Source- Washington State Department of Transportation 2009a. d Volumes were summed from each intersection approach. Peak -hour volumes are assumed to be 10% of existing average daily entering traffic volumes. E 2007-2009 multiyear accident rate. Rate is in accidents per million entering vehicle. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.145 ICF 593.10 Length 2010 Number of Accident Roadway From To (Miles) ADT -1 Accidents Rate' NE Sunset Blvd MP 12.46 MP 13.67 1.21 21,500 112 3.93 Property Total Number Accident Intersection 2010 ADT Damage Only Injury Fatality of Accidents Rate NE Sunset Blvd & NE Park Dr 26,250 5 4 4 9 0.31 NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds Ave NE 24,690 10 4 0 14 0.52 NE Sunset Blvd & 23,260 9 6 0 15 0.59 Harrington Ave NE NE Sunset Boulevard & NE 23,500 8 3 0 11 0.43 10th St NE Sunset Boulevard & 19,130 4 4 0 8 0.38 Kirkland Ave N E NE Sunset Boulevard & NE 23,680 10 2 0 12 0.46 12th St NE Sunset Boulevard & 19,630 0 2 0 2 0.09 Monroe Ave NE Edmonds Ave NE & NE 12th St 9,680 5 5 0 10 0.94 Harrington Ave NE i & NE 12th St 7,4.10 1 0 0 1 0.12 Kirkland Ave NE & NE 12th St 6,960 2 2 Q 4 0,52 MP = state route milepost; ADT = average daily traffic Volumes were averaged between count locations. Source: Washington State Department of Transportation 2009c. e 2007-2009 multiyear accident rate. Rate is in accidents per million vehicle miles. This location is identified in the 2009 State Highway Log as milepost 13,0013. The "B" designates whether the milepost value is the "back" duplicate of a milepost value "ahead" on the route. A back duplicate occurs as a result of a realignment that shortens or lengthens a section of a state route (other than at the end of the route). SR 900 was likely realigned from its original path within the study area. Rather than renumbering mileposts to account for this realignment, WSDOT uses a "B" indicator to identify where a "duplicate" milepost occurs. This indicator allows the mileposts on either side (upstream or downstream) of where the realignment took place to remain the same. Source- Washington State Department of Transportation 2009a. d Volumes were summed from each intersection approach. Peak -hour volumes are assumed to be 10% of existing average daily entering traffic volumes. E 2007-2009 multiyear accident rate. Rate is in accidents per million entering vehicle. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.145 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Traffic Volumes Chapter 3. Affected Environment Average daily traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard within the study area have remained fairly constant over the past 3 years. The average daily traffic volumes reported by WSDOT are shown in Table 3.14-4 below. Existing year (2010) peak -hour turning movement counts were collected at four of the study intersections between 4:00 p.m, and 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 29, 2010. These four intersections include NE Sunset Boulevard at Monroe Avenue NE and at Kirkland Avenue NE, and NE 12th Street at Harrington Avenue NE and at Kirkland Avenue NE. Weekday PM peak -hour counts at the remaining study intersections were provided by the City. Counts provided by the City are assumed to represent existing year conditions. Existing turning - movement volumes at study intersections are presented in Figure 3.14-2. Table 3.14-4. Average Daily Traffic Volumes Roadway Location 2006 2007 2008 2009 NE Sunset Blvd MP 12.50 24,000 24,000 23,000 25,000 NE Sunset Blvd MP 74.31 19,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 MP = state route milepost Source: Washington State Department of Transportation 2009c. Traffic Operations Analysis Existing traffic conditions were analyzed in a Synchro, version 7, traffic model. Synchro is a tool commonly used to analyze traffic operations that is based on methodologies in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board 2005). It is capable of analyzing both signalized and stop -controlled intersections. Output from the Synchro model, including average vehicle delay and associated level of service (LOS), can be compared with applicable mohility standards to determine whether the intersection performs acceptably or if congestion and capacity issues could be expected. A portion of the model (NE Sunset Boulevard, including signalized locations), was provided by the City. Additional study intersections along NE 12th Street and at stop -controlled locations were added to the network based on field observations. Peak -hour factors and truck percentages used in the model were provided by the City, or were based on field collected traffic turning movement counts. Results from the operational analysis (Table 3.14-5) indicate that all study intersections for the weekday PM peak period operate at LOS C or better. The worst LOS at any study intersection is LOS C, which occurs on NE 12th Street at Edmonds Avenue NE and at Harrington Avenue NE. LOS C suggests the existing roadways still have adequate capacity. Table 3.14-5 and Figure 3.14-2 show the results of the existing conditions intersection operational analysis. Appendix F provides the detailed HCM-generated Synchro reports for each study intersection. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.14 6 ICF 593.10 Clty of Renton Table 3.14-5. Intersection Operations Chapter 3. Affected Environment Intersection # Intersection Control Existing (2010) PM Peak LOS Delays) 1 NE Sunset Blvd& NE Park Dr Signalized A 7.6 2 NE Sunset Blvd& Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 10.7 3 NE Sunset Blvd& Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 6.5 4 NE Sunset Blvd& NE 10th St Signalized B 11.0 5 NE Sunset Blvd& Kirkland Ave NE OWSC C 19.5 6 NE Sunset Blvd& NE 12th St Signalized B 18.2 7 NE. Sunset Blvd& Monroe Ave NE OWSC B 14.5 8 Edmonds Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC C 23.1 9 Harrington Ave NE & NE. 12th St AWSC C 17.8 10 Kirkland Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC B 11.1 OWSC = one-way stop control; AWSC = all -way stop control; LOS = level of service Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle 3.14.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Roadways The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is roughly bordered by NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Glenwood Avenue NE. The subarea includes properties along Sunset Lane NE, Harrington Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and NE 10th Street. These roadways are within the City's jurisdiction and serve mainly residential traffic with direct access from NE Sunset Boulevard via signalized intersections at NE 10th Street and Harrington Avenue NE. Driveway access to existing retail is provided from NE 10th Street. Sidewalks and parallel parking are provided on both sides of each street within the subarea, and marked crosswalks at their intersections provide continuous pedestrian paths. Roadways in the subarea are all two-lane, undivided streets with posted speeds of 35 mph or lower. Transit Transit service in the subarea is similar to that provided in the Planned Action Study Area. Regular stops for Metro routes 240 and 909 are located at NE 10th Street, Harrington Avenue NE and Edmonds Avenue NE along NE Sunset Boulevard. These stops are within walking distance of the subarea (500 feet or less). Route 111 has regular stops within walking distance of the subarea on NE 10th Street at NE Sunset Boulevard and at Index Avenue NE (one block east of NE Sunset Boulevard). Metro route 105 does not immediately serve the subarea. Accident Data Within the subarea, a single crash was reported between May 1, 2007, and April 30, 2010. This crash occurred at the intersection of Glenwood Avenue NE and Sunset Lane NE, and involved a vehicle - bicycle injury collision. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.14-7 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 0 �yre �m e W � !N ar.l ,;,pow,•! 114%M t a INN a Mph z ^ u� 9 rr� z Y z N LU W Ak3N aAV ao-Iuoyyl z z 'g Monroe Ave NE z o O 444y a Q U Y �s d5 m _n a.t p„[y�ny htt► f 3N ana Puelli!)i D ^ W LU W Ak3N aAV ao-Iuoyyl z z 'g Monroe Ave NE W l'J +ny„n:brxue,� Z 4* W �s 1r, a,pmuor:,p� O f 3N ana Puelli!)i Y S 3N any PUel1iiA S; r ,tib E a y z c v J is _ 4 G v z Index Ave NE IS y ry � G� a M HO 't - o R � t7 z LU z S 'Ua pve N 3N and uol6urjjeHO 2 Glen rw V `VAS ' L rl J p3 0 z a y 37 u044Pa Z d z r a m rn W ♦ Z NJ z z b W l'J +ny„n:brxue,� Z 4* N u 4A 4 EE .1 M Q rri }- d L W Es o Q LL y' W m z a CL ru 0 � U �a b a � C X E W 0 U W z .6 1r, a,pmuor:,p� W 2 f Y S N u 4A 4 EE .1 M Q rri }- d L W Es o Q LL y' W m z a CL ru 0 � U �a b a � C X E W 0 U Y S E a y z c J is _ 4 G v z 0 0 r s O a M HO 't - o R � t7 z N u 4A 4 EE .1 M Q rri }- d L W Es o Q LL y' W m z a CL ru 0 � U �a b a � C X E W 0 U City of Renton Traffic Operations Analysis Chapter 3. Affected Environment Traffic volumes collected for NE Sunset Boulevard, which serves as the southern border of Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, are shown in Table 3.14-4. Traffic volumes were not collected at residential intersections in the subarea. Turning volumes at these residential intersections are expected to be lower than volumes at any of the study intersections, due to the smaller area being served and the limited variation of land use (residential only). Therefore, existing operations at the stop -controlled intersections along Harrington Avenue NE at NE 10th Street, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE are likely operating at LOS C or better. The intersection at Glenwood Avenue NE and Sunset Lane NE is also likely to be at LOS C or better. Congestion is not expected at any of these stop -controlled approaches. 3.14.2 Regulatory Context 3.14.2.1 Federal No federal regulations apply to the study area intersections because they are within state or City jurisdiction. 3.14.2.2 State Mobility Standards The existing condition of study intersections is evaluated based on LOS definitions. LOS is a qualitative measurement of intersection operation based on control delay reported as letter grades that range from LDS A (low delay per vehicle, favorable traffic progression) through LOS F (extremely high delay per vehicle, could involve long queues). The current mobility standard for study intersections along NE Sunset Boulevard is LOS E (with mitigation). This standard is set by the Puget Sound Regional Council for regionally significant state highways within an urban area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010). 3.14.2.3 Local Mobility Standards The City does not apply a letter -grade LOS threshold standard to individual intersection operations. Instead, the City uses a complex travel -time index system to assess traffic operations. This travel - time system measures the distance (in miles) that various modes can travel in 30 minutes within and through the city. Travel distances for single -occupant vehicles, high -occupancy vehicles, and transit are summed when developing the travel -time index. Transit distances are given double weighting to recognize the passenger -capacity advantages. This index is then compared to a travel -distance standard, or goal, that takes into account the preferred number of miles each travel mode can achieve in 30 minutes at a horizon year. In the most recent version of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the 30 -minute travel -time standard for the horizon year (2022) is 42 miles. This standard was calculated assuming that single -occupant vehicles would be able to travel 15 miles, high -occupancy vehicles would be able to travel 17 miles, and transit Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.14-9 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement1CF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment would be able to travel S miles in 30 minutes. Corridors or routes not expected to meet this travel - distance index could then he considered for mitigation or improvement. Travel routes between study intersections are short (less than '1 mile), and would not produce travel times that could be compared with the City's current LDS methodology. Therefore, a mobility standard for local study intersections (that are not located on NE Sunset Boulevard) was developed through discussions with the City for the purposes of this Draft EIS. For urban core areas, where congestion or long delays are common, an LOS E threshold is appropriate. Because the traffic study area is typically represented by lower volumes and less congestion than an urban core, an LOS D threshold is appropriate. Other Goals and Policies The City has adopted a Transportation Element of its Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton 2009) that addresses a variety of topics including transportation system conditions, planned improvements, mobility, and others. Below are relevant goals for the Planned Action Study Area. 1. Contribute to a balanced multi -modal transportation system through reasonable, planned, economically feasible arterial improvements that enhance HQV and transit operations, support adopted land use plans, protect or improve business access, and protect Renton's neighborhoods. 2. Maximize the use of transit in Renton by providing step-by-step transit improvements to produce regionally linked and locally oriented transit services and facilities needed to serve travel demand generated by Renton residents and businesses. 4. Maintain, enhance, and increase pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing both safe and convenient routes and storage for the commuting and recreating public. 9. Develop a transportation system that contributes to the attainment and maintenance of regional air and water quality standards within the City of Renton, and complies with regional, state, and Federal air water quality standards, and preserves/protects natural resources. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.14 10 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.15 Parks and Recreation 3.15.1 Environmental Context The City park and recreation facilities include 29 city -maintained public parks, over 13 miles of trails, and over 800 acres of public open space. Additionally, the City's recreation and community facilities include public beaches, a golf course, swimming pools, and a number of community/neighborhood centers. This section discusses existing conditions relative to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area and Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area. 3.15.1.1 Planned Action Study Area As listed in Table 3.15-1 and illustrated in Figure 3.15-1, two neighborhood recreation/park facilities (the North Highlands and Highlands neighborhood centers) are located in the Planned Action Study Area. Both neighborhood centers provide recreation buildings, multi -use Fields, playgrounds, and tennis courts. The Highlands Park facility also provides paved multi -use courts, a paved roller-blading rink, and a paved- and soft -surface trail system. Both centers are available for use by people ages b and up. These centers offer a variety of activities including art clubs, gym games, kids' activities, basketball, and soccer. In addition to the two neighborhood centers, Sunset Court Park is also located in the Planned Action Study Area. This 0.5 -acre centrally located park provides a playground, picnic tables, and a basketball court. Three schools are located in the study area: McKnight Middle School, Highlands Elementary School, and the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center. Each school has a multi -use sports fields and baseball fields. The Highlands and Hillcrest schools have playgrounds. The McKnight school has tennis courts. Currently, the City does not categorize school facilities as parks and recreation facilities; however, for the purposes of this EIS, school facilities are discussed, because they are facilities that could be considered in LOS evaluations as a future policy choice or could be combined with existing/new parks and recreation facilities in the study area. This is discussed further in Section 4.15, the environmental impacts section for this resource. Directly adjacent to the north-eastern corner of the Planned Action Study Area are the May Creek and Honey Creek open space and trail systems. Other facilities within 0.5 mile or less of the study area include the Kiwanis Park, Windsor Hills Park, and Kennydale Lions Park. Walkability barriers preclude these parks from serving the Planned Action Study Area. If these parks' service areas were to be mapped without considering the walkability barriers, there would be a service area radii overlap with Sunset Court, North Highlands, or Highlands park service areas, and the area of overlap is most likely served by Sunset Court, North Highlands, or Highlands Park service areas. The population within this area of overlap, however, is most likely served by Sunset Court, North Highlands, or Highlands Park. For example, the northern portion of Windsor Hills Park's service area overlaps with the Highlands Neighborhood Center service area; due to distance and recreation amenities, the Highlands Neighborhood Center better serves this overlap service area. As a result, the Kiwanis, Windsor Hills, and Kennydale Lions parks are not included in this analysis. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.15 1 icF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Gene Coulon Park, a regional park as defined by City standards, is located less than 1 mile west of the study area on the shores of Lake Washington. Table 3.15-1. Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities in and Adjacent to Planned Action Study Area Park/Recreation Map 1D Facility Name Facility Type,, Size Amenitiesb Facilities in Planned Action Study Area 1 North Highlands Park Neighborhood park 2.64 -acre park Multi -use paved court (half and Neighborhood 4,430 -square- basketball court) Center foot recreation Multi -use Field building Picnic area Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 3'15 2 ICF 59310 Tennis court Playground Recreation building 2 Highlands Park and Community park 10.4 -acre park Softball field Neighborhood Center 11,906 -square- Multi -use paved court foot recreation Paved roller-blading rink building Tennis courts Multi -use field, Paved and soft -surface trail system Picnic areas Playground Recreation building 3 Sunset Court Park Neighborhood park 0.5 -acre park Playground Picnic tables Basketball court 4 McKnight Middle School 11.5 acresd of Baseball fields School, recreation Soccer fields facilities Tennis courts Basketball courts Track & field facilities S Hillcrest Early School 3.4 acresd of Baseball field Childhood Center recreation Soccer field facilities Playground 6 Highlands Elementary School 2.9 acresd of Sports field/baseball field School, recreation Playground facilities Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 3'15 2 ICF 59310 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Park/Recreation Map ID Facility Name Facility Type,, Size Amenities'' Facilities Adjacent to Planned Action Study Area, 7 Honey Creek and May Open space Over 300 acres" Trails Creek Open Space and Trails N/A Kiwanis Park Neighborhood Park 9 acres N/A Windsor Hills Park Neighborhood Park 4.5 acres N/A Kennydale Lions Park Neighborhood Park 6 acres N/A Gene Coulon Regional Park 57 acres Memorial Park (less than 1 mile from study area) Activity building Ballfields' Basketball court Multi -use fields Picnic facilities Playground Tennis courts Picnic facilities Ballfieid Basketball court Playground Activity building Ballfieldg Basketball court Multi -use fields Picnic facilities Playground Boat launches Picnic facilities Playground Tennis courts Volleyball courts Food concessions Swimming area WalkinE, trails Source; City of Renton 2009 and 2010a, b, c Type (not including school facilities) is from the adopted standards of the City of Renton Porks Implementation Plan. h Does not include amenities such as parking and restrooms. The City does not categorize school property as parks and recreation facilities. Land is owned by King County and the Cities of Renton and Newcastle. Approximate area calculated using GIS/aerial imagery. Located 0.5 mile or less outside study area. Does not include school facilities. This (park) field is classified as a multi -use field but could likely accommodate soccer. It is unknown whether the dimensions would satisfy football field standards. 9 Multi -use field space overlaps softball outfield area. Softball cannot be played concurrently with another field sport. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Fnvironmental Impact Statement 3.15 3 ICF 593.10 NE 21ST ST I IE 21ST 5T NES .5�5't Z 4E 20TH ST [�E �o a 7 a z Y E 19TH ST W r 18TH ST OO rA q g NE 17TH PL Y N�16C'�5 NE 17TH ST NE 1STH ST W 1CF Figure 3.15-1 Parks and Recreation Facilities INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS ® z p W 7 a NE 15TH PL a a z UJI G W NE 14TH ST' NE 14TH z ST W W NE 13TH PL ,` U. W NE13S1 z NE 13TH ST p W z j NE 12TH ST a Q W z z W LU a aToo�o 3 3 00-U NE 11TH PL �2w �-O �� y�� W } NE 11TH ST hJ uai �a�� NE 10TH PL z W �� 4, F joH Z 3a W a w NE 10TPL Jay 4 Q NE 10TH ST ti Y w m p Uj Z W O NE 9TH PL w Z W w 7 LM NE 16TH 5T ap U, X O Q NE 9TH ST NE 9TH ST W p o z L" z atW z - z NE 8TH PL ¢ c7° z !VF srH 5r Z ° W W ¢ ? ti 2 W NE STH ST t4,, l7 z z o`c NE 67-H sr s a acN PL �ysT NE 7TH ST NF BrH CIR G C 5 % R, Z 3 Source: City of Renton b r en 3 NE 7TH PL 1CF Figure 3.15-1 Parks and Recreation Facilities INTERNATIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Table 3.15-2 summarizes the facility usage and activities at the North Highlands and Highlands neighborhood centers. Table 3.15-2. North Highlands and Highlands Neighborhood Center Activities and Usage Summary Map ID Facility Name Facility Hours Members Programs/Activities 1 North Highlands Monday -Friday, mid- Open to all ages Drop-in programs: gym, game Park and afternoon to evening Primarily serves room, art and crafts, tennis Neighborhood Average 22.5 hours per preschool and courts, open space Center week (fall, winter, youth Fee-based programs: Junior spring) Leader program, Chub North Average 30 hours per Highlands, rentals, day camps, week (summer) workshops, athletics 2 Highlands Park and Monday -Friday, mid- open to all ages Drop-in programs: gym, game Neighborhood afternoon to evening, Primarily serves room, art and crafts, tennis Center Saturday late morning preschool, courts, ball field, open space to evening youth, teens Fee-based programs: Junior Average 36 hours per Leader Program, Club week (fall, winter, Highlands, rentals, leisure spring) classes, day camps, workshops Average 72 hours per week (summer) Source: Betlach pers. comm. The City has adopted standards, as part of its Parks Implementation Plan (Betlach pers. comm.), for determining the LOS for parks and recreation facilities in the city. These standards were applied to determine if the existing facilities adequately serve the existing population in the Planned Action Study Area or if there are deficiencies. Table 3.15-3 provides an overview of these LOS standards and the current deficiencies and surpluses in neighborhood and community park properties in the service areas and study area. For existing parks LOS calculations, two area measures were used: 1) within the park service area (0.S mile for neighborhood park and 1 mile for community park) and 2) area of the Planned Action Study area within each park service area. To calculate park LOS deficiencies and surpluses, existing population within these areas was applied to the City's LOS standards (1.2 acres/1,000 persons for neighborhood park and 2.5 acres/1,000 persons for community park). For recreation facilities LOS, two measures were calculated: 1) with school facilities and 2) without school facilities. (The City currently does not categorize school property as parks and recreation facilities; however, in future conditions, as discussed in Section 4.15, combining park facilities with school facilities as joint -use may be considered). To calculate recreation facilities LOS deficiencies and surpluses, the existing study area population was applied to the City's LOS standards for each facility type (refer to Table 3.15-3 for facility LOS). Refer to Appendix G for the detailed calculations for parks and recreation LOS. Within the Planned Action Study Area, the North Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center and the Highlands Park and Neighborhood Center meet the City's adopted criteria to be considered neighborhood park and community park, respectively. Both are close to the minimum standards. The number of people living within the 0.5 -mile service area for North Highlands Park and the 1 -mile service area for Highlands Park is more than permitted by the City's park area LOS Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.15 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment population served standard. Sunset Court Park would need to he 3 to 5 acres larger to serve the population living within its service area based on current adopted City standards. As specified by the City's park LOS standards, walking distances within a neighborhood park's service area should be safe and present no disconnectivity between neighborhoods and park facilities. The pedestrian route must not cross geographic or human -made barriers. Physical harriers such as topography and major roadways (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard) represent an obstacle to safe pedestrian access between residential areas and a park. Using Sunset Court Park as an example, about 4,500 persons reside within its 0.5 -mile service area radius. Over half of these people are located south of NE Sunset Boulevard. This means that over half of the population within the park's service area does not have safe pedestrian access, as required by the City's standards. Within the services areas for Highlands and North Highlands Neighborhood Centers, geographic barriers such as NE Sunset Boulevard also prevent safe pedestrian access between residential areas and the facilities. As shown in Table 3.15-3, of the existing City recreation facilities (not including school district facilities) within the Planned Action Study Area, the football/soccer fields meet the City's adopted standards, and the tennis courts exceed the City's adopted standards. However, the field space available at the park location for football/soccer field may not meet adopted standards for football league play. There is a deficiency of baseball/softball fields and walking/hiking trails. School recreation facilities, under existing conditions, are not combined as joint -use with City - owned park and recreation facilities. If school facilities were combined as joint -use with City recreation facilities, there would be a surplus of fields and courts, but a deficiency of walking/hiking trails would remain. Table 3.15-3 shows the option of a joint -use of school and park facilities as a measure of comparison for future plans as discussed in Section 4.15. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.15-6 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 u as � U_ CL i v E ro L[. CL m o � E r-1 N M U H N C U a a L � U) v1 V vi v 'O Ch U V1 U ;j �J tom. V Fes. U V U U m:J u c m q Ln C:; dam^ N v u n OJ u v 0. D T au 6 LUG Z Ln L ccy Vj C r11 C 'J1 C D O O 41 Y aJ C U O U N N M 00 co N q n N Ci O: N N N C n Q � 'u O VJ V1 V] G] lr to C C C rN C C o a a a U m L aJ 71 d LO 0 as 4z v aJ u 1 u a G7 u a L L r1 r- L Q. q q vi U U Vi C ✓1 Q q n O O O n O e n n L 6. O u.. -teC) O O ¢ c� ,U C o c � Q y � a o c N N N LLn to Ln c '� Ley c N In N y z CJ 3) C N 6 v1 C ra r � M cc .0 r C � N V V -te C C C Z Gam.. � CU.7 T Z V VC7 r-1 N M a a � a � 0. 0. D v 6 cn :n C U O U N N M q U q c VJ V1 V] G] lr to C C C C C C o a a a o 0 a) aY 0 as 4z v a a a C. r- Q. q q q q CA q n n n n n n N N N N N N I I Ln N M C � N V V v L L Ti C Q1 L � aJ N C y� O tc L7 U C? [,r C:)Y tr. • v. N N c \ V)O _ w E Q \ \ u Y v y 1 y v ❑ o n K Ln C: C+ C U ra rp W I� F m CL � a — a aJ 111 ()7 3 ra O. Cr r— Z w E 4 Ci. Z G a C7 d w u a o 0 cu v m ¢ Cl. co co N N WD O O N y ro o M N Qi n" v Q• tp a y .Q v � c G i u O vi OD ¢ w v C y N tkO r - m O 6 C u c c c a 3 o v cn Vl � y u� a o ar u E 'Z Ll cn 73 L ++ LL O C curu rC G ro ca 41 sv. 004 p CL Ln 0 'G o u "U .� •� N C bio Ln G co r N N �" _�• C G C G ro c c Ln ❑ z G Q x •J O 45 V cn y � b G � 0. a.- tJ7 4L CU _ • V w tn N v O C a .+' O G 'Q Ln ra 5 a L y Q E y W r4j w v: U v d �o a lu ' D a U V a U L U w E f�6 C N L C U ro U a � C; L h o v ca o o City of Renton Chapter B. Affected Environment 3.15.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea There are no existing park or recreation facilities located in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. As documented in Table 3.15-3, the population in this subarea is underserved at the same level as the larger Planned Action Study Area due to a deficiency in neighborhood parks, community parks, fields, courts, and walking/hiking trails. Residents of this subarea could use the parks in the Planned Action Study Area and surrounding areas, but many of the adopted parks LOS would still not be met. 3.15.2 Regulatory Context 3.15.2.1 Federal Although no federally owned or managed park and recreation facilities are located in the Planned Action Study Area, federal regulations related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for example, apply to parks and recreation facilities in the study area. 3.15.2.2 State No state parks and recreation facilities are located in the Planned Action Study Area; therefore, state regulations do not apply. 3.15.2.3 Local The City has adopted standards, as part of its Parks Implementation Plan (Betlach pers. comm.), for determining the LOS of parks and recreation facilities in the city. Parks (neighborhood, community, regional, linear, special use, and open space) are classified based on their acreage per person served, service area, and size. The LOS and the need for recreation facilities (baseball/softhall fields, football/soccer fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, and walking/hiking trails) is determined based on number of facilities per persons served. See Table 3.15-3 for applicable standards. The City is considering amendments to its development codes that would provide for payment of a fee -in -lieu for required common open space that may be otherwise required. 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. (City of Renton 2010d.) Sunset Area Community Planned Action October 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.15 9 1CF 593.10 Ci -y of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.16 Public Services 3.16.1 Environmental Context 3.16.1.1 Planned Action Study Area This section discusses the existing conditions related to public services in the Planned Action Study Area. Figure 3.16-1 shows the location of fire, schools, social services, and library facilities in and adjacent to the study area. Figure 3.16-2 shows the location of police, health care, and social service facilities serving the study area that are located in Renton outside of the study area. Public Safety Police The City Police Department is a full-service law enforcement agency serving the city of Renton in six divisions with a total of 173 personnel, including 123 sworn officers and 50 non -sworn personnel (City of Renton Police Department 2010:5). In 2009, the department's Patrol Operations Division responded to 60,174 calls for service in the city, this translates to approximately 1,074 calls for service for each of the 56 officers assigned to the division in 2009 (City of Renton Police Department 2010:231.1 The Planned Action Study Area is located within the department's North Patrol Sector, which encompasses the city limits north of S 3rd Street and north of the Maple Valley Highway, The Patrol Operations Division has a response -time goal for Priority 1 or emergency calls for service of an average of 3.5 minutes or less. The actual average response time for Priority 1 calls in 2009 was 2.74 minutes (City of Renton Police Department 2010:24). Although an LOS standard for the department is not included in the City's Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element, the City uses a standard of 1.6 officers per 1,000 population for estimating its police LOS standard for future population growth and annexations (Marsalisi pers. comm.). The department provides police service citywide from the Renton City Hall facility at 1055 S Grady Way, which is outside the study area. Fire and Emergency Medical Services The Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department provides fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) to the city from six locations. The Planned Action Study Area is primarily served from Fire Station 12 located at 1209 Kirkland Avenue NE (Figure 3.16-1). Station 12 is staffed by five personnel and is equipped with one engine company and one aid unit. In 2009, Station 12 responded to 2,326 aid calls (Aid 12 unit) and 1,293 fire calls (Engine 12 unit) (City of Renton Fire & Emergency Services 2010). Other fire stations that provide back-up response to the Planned Action Study Area include Station 16 and Station 112 (Flora pers. comm.). 1 This statistic does not account for 911 calls for service that required more than one officer to respond, or for the 18,097 traffic -related vehicle stops initiated by patrol officers. 2 Station No. 16 staffed with four personnel (156th Ave NE near NE 4th Street); and Station No. 11 staffed with three personnel (2 11 Mill Avenue S in Downtown Renton) to ensure adequate personnel coverage. As of January 2011, Station No. 11 will increase staffing to six personnel. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.16-1 ICF 593.10 City Limits NE 21ST ST Planned Action Study Area NE�215T 5T Parcels ZUj 03SChool Parcels Q NE 20TH ST. RHA Parcels O School Service Areas Q NE 19TH ST! 8 Highlands Elementary NE 18TH ST " 0 Dimmit Middle School Z 47 G' Renton High School La- ¢ 10 ren' Hillcrest NE 17TH PL- �_.. z Kennydale Elementary Z McKnight Middle School d. ti6t�+5 Eiementary o NE 17TH ST Hazen High School }._.W g Y a a Sierra Heights Elementary Y..,.. McKnight Middle School "' �- - z u; z r' Hazen High School z- 7 - Mcl ight Middle �_ a NE 15TH'PL Public Services o school 3W a - z o NE 14TH -ST- W Educationi --;� ¢ L w Q CC Fire Renton Highlands NE 13TH 5T Library © Library NE:12TH 5T ._... . OSocial Services 7 -anti, ff Uj W LU f Z La Social Services Map ID 1 4 (Table 3.16-3) ¢ -.. 2Ca 0 D �¢ mak. 9 f , ! O NE 11TH PL -- 2 N z ���' Z NE 11TH ST LU NE 10TH PL J v o soo 1,000 2 4" 0 Feet W ���' �h ... Q E 10TH PL ,, Q Y 2 NE 10TH ST o Uj a a w z LU 6 Z a NE 10TH ST w NE 9TH PL Uj Z w w � w ¢ > Q y J O Q O NE 9TH,ST O W NE 9TH ST z ? Z Z LU W Y LU Z {{ J Q I 7 W Z NF 87-H ST Q Highlands z u P� NE STH ST Elementary x 011f_ L3 t9 p fZ Z rYi srti PL NE. x N v NE 7TH ST a Aft N C18 0 ,rysr I b a rn J 7,( M A � Sau�e: City of Renton r t ren' NE 7TH PL. w ICF INTFIRNATioNAi Figure 3.16-1 Public Services in Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS ICF Figure Police, Health Care, and Social Services outside the Planned Action Studyy Area Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment The department's LOS standards are based on response time, fire flow, and personnel (City of Renton 2009:111-45-11I-46), as follows. 1. Acceptable response time, from the time that a call is received until the firefighting force arrives at the scene is 7 minutes 30 seconds for 90% of incidents (Flora pers. comm.). 2. Acceptable fire flow is defined as having water available to all parts of the city in sufficient quantity and pressure to extinguish the worst-case fire in an existing or projected land use. 3. Acceptable staffing is defined as having four firefighters on each piece of firefighting apparatus. The City strives to comply with national standards related to the staffing of fire apparatus, because the placement of personnel at the incident location is the basis for the success of the fire and EMS delivery system (City of Renton 2009:111-45-46). The department currently meets its response time goals 100% of the time. Water infrastructure improvements in the Planned Action Study Area in recent years have ensured that fire flows are adequate in the study area. Fire Station 12, located in the Planned Action Study Area, is staffed by five firefighting personnel, providing adequate staffing to the study area. In 2010, the City maintains a staffing ratio of one firefighter for every 4,400 residents. This ratio is an unofficial measure, but has steadily increased over the years as the city's population has grown (Flora pers. comm.). Education The Renton School District encompasses 32.5 square miles, including the city and smaller portions of nearby communities. The district serves an estimated population of 1.07,1.86 with 13 elementary, three middle schools, and four high schools, as well as several additional early childhood education, special -education and support facilities. The district has a current capacity to serve approximately 14,500 students in grades K through 123 (Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects 2008:29). The district obtains funding from a school impact fee to help develop capital facilities needed to meet increases in student population. Three Renton School District facilities are located in the Planned Action Study Area; Highlands Elementary (capacity of 564 students), 2727 NE 9th Street, a McKnight Middle School (capacity of 985 students), 2600 NE 12th Street, and Hillcrest Early Childhood Center (capacity of 450 students), 1800 Index Avenue NE. This facility, located in the North Subarea, provides early education services, including pre -kindergarten, for low-income families within the Renton School District. Its enrollment area corresponds to the school district's boundaries (Matheson pers. comm.). The Planned Action Study Area is currently served by three elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. Current attendance boundaries within the Planned Action Study Area are shown in Figure 3.16-1. The following elementary schools serve the Planned Action Study Area (Renton School District 2010a). Highlands Elementary serves the South Subarea and the portion of Sunset Mixed Use Subarea south of NE Sunset Boulevard. 3 Current capacity excludes special -education facilities and capacity provided by portable classrooms. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.16 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment • Kennydale Elementary serves the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea and portions of the Sunset Mixed Use and Central subareas south of NE 12th Street and north/west of NE Sunset Boulevard. • Sierra Heights Elementary serves the North Subarea and portions of the Sunset Mixed Use and Central subareas north and west of the intersection of NE 12th Street and NE Sunset Boulevard. Each of the three elementary schools offers English Language Learners programs for students learning English as a second language. Forty-two percent of students attending Highlands Elementary and 26% of students attending Sierra Heights are in English Language Learners programs (Renton School District 2010b). Kennydale Elementary and the middle and high schools have smaller percentages of students in English Language Learner/English proficiency programs, but the school district is experiencing an increase in students needing this program districtwide. The school district anticipates that additional programs to address these needs will reduce capacity at all grade levels (Renton School District 2008). Each of these schools is currently over its permanent capacity. The district has opened a portion of the Honey Dew Elementary campus to kindergarten -only for the 2010-2011 school year to partially alleviate overcrowding. Opening Honey Dew Elementary in fall 2011 will add permanent capacity for 500 elementary students and shift elementary attendance boundaries in the general area around the Planned Action Study Area (Matheson Pers, comm.). Students located north of NE Sunset Boulevard attend McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School, whereas those located south of NE Sunset Boulevard attend Dimmitt Middle School and Renton High School. The district does not expect changes to middle or high school boundaries (Matheson pers. comm.). The school district has continued to see an increase in student population of approximately 100 students per year (Matheson pers. comm.), and projections included in the Renton School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2009-2015, indicate that this trend will continue (Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects 2008:26-28). The district's impact -fee calculation includes a student -generation factor that is applied to single-family and multifamily development as a means of helping to project future student population (Table 3.16-1). Table 3.16-1. Renton School District Student Generation Factors Students per Dwelling Unit by Development Type School Type Single -Family Multifamily Elementary School 0.329 0.112 Middle School 0.184 0.042 High School 0.227 0.070 Source: Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects 2008:37-38. The school district's Capital Facilities Plan projects a school permanent facility capacity deficit of 1,107 students by 2015, with deficits in both elementary and middle school facilities. By 2029, the district projects a permanent facility capacity deficit of 5,916 students. (Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects 2008:29.) Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.16 5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3, Affected Environment The school district passed a bond measure in 2008 that addresses much of the capacity deficit through 2015. Among projects contained in the 2008 bond measure are reopening an elementary school (fall 20111 and constructing a middle school in the latter part of the school district's 6 -year planning period. Reopening Honey Dew Elementary, which located southeast of the Planned Action Study Area at the northeast corner of Union Ave NE and NE 8th Street, would increase elementary capacity by approximately 500 students. Constructing a new middle school on a district -owned site in Kennydale would increase middle school capacity by approximately 750 students. The 2008 bond also includes money for a new early childhood center (Matheson pers. comm.). Health Care Renton is within the Valley Medical Center (also known as King County Public Hospital District No. 1) district boundaries. Valley Medical Center is a non-profit medical center governed by a five - member, publicly elected Board of Commissioners serving a district population of 400,000 (Blakely pers. comm.). Its hospital campus is located at 400 South 43rd Street in Renton. Valley Medical Center provides service to Renton, Kent, two-thirds of Tukwila, and parts of Auburn, Black Diamond, Covington, Federal Way, Maple Valley, Newcastle, and Seattle with a 303 -bed acute care hospital, eight primary care clinics, four urgent care clinics, and 23 medical specialties. In 2009, Valley Medical Center had 508,700 outpatient visits, 16,539 inpatient discharges, 70,179 emergency visits, and 10,753 inpatient and outpatient surgeries (Valley Medical Center 2010:3). Although not a formally adopted LOS standard, Valley Medical Center currently provides service to its district with a hospital bed -to -population ratio of 0.76 beds per 1,000 population. Valley Medical Center has no facilities in the Planned Action Study Area. However, the Highlands Primary Care facility, at 451 Duvall Avenue NE, and the Renton Landing Urgent Care facility, at 1205 North 10th Street, both provide medical services proximate to the Planned Action Study Area. The urgent care facility provides walk-in, extended -hour access for non -emergency, acute illness, and injury care that is either beyond the scope or availability of a primary care practice. Valley Medical Center facilities located in Renton are identified in Table 3.16-2 and Figure 3.16-2. Table 3.16-2. Valley Medical Center Health Care Facilities in City of Renton ID # Facility Name Location H-1 Valley Medical Center, 400 South 43rd Street H-2 Renton Landing urgent Care 1205 N 10th Street H-3 North Benson Urgent Care 10555 SE Carr Road, Building M H-4 Highlands (Renton) Primary Care 451 Duvall Avenue NE H-5 Occupational Health Services and Sports Medicine 3600 Lind Avenue SW Source: Valley Medical Center 2010 Valley Medical Center hospital site also co -locates the following Valley Medical Center services both on the campus and adjacent and nearby office buildings on S 43rd Street and Talbot Road: Valley Family Medicine, Cancer Services, Eye Center, Joint Center, Midwives at VMC, Nephrology Health Services, Neuroscience Institute, Psychiatry and Counseling Center, Sleep Center, Valley Ear, Nose, & Throat Specialists, Valley General Surgery, Valley Radiologists, Valley Surgical Specialists, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Wound Care Clinic. Although not within the Planned Action Study Area, the Seattle/King County Public Health Clinic is located just south of its boundary at 3001 NE 4th Street, and the Seattle/King County Public Health Dental Clinic is located at 10700 SE 174th Street in Renton. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NIEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.16-6 ICF 59310 City of Renton Social Services Chapter 3. Affected Environment The socioeconomic analysis contained in Section 3.9 informs the social service demands within the Planned Action Study Area. As described in Section 3.9, the population within the Planned Action Study Area contains a higher percentage of population over 65, a greater population with a disability, higher percentage of foreign born, lower median household income, and greater percentage of individuals below poverty when compared to the city as a whole and to King County. Social services meeting the needs of these populations are particularly relevant to the Planned Action Study Area and are addressed in this section. RHA's main office is located in the Planned Action Study Area at 2900 NE 10th Street. RHA also owns several properties in the Planned Action Study Area that meet social service needs of affordable and public housing for many of the population groups described, including seniors and disabled (Table 3.16-3). In addition to RHA affordable and public housing services, the Planned Action Study Area is home to a weekly feeding program called the Friendly Kitchen and a drug/alcohol rehabilitation clinic with a primary focus on substance abuse treatment, including detoxification and methadone maintenance and detoxification. Another weekly feeding program is located immediately adjacent to the Planned Action Study Area's northwest boundary and is operated out of St. Matthews Church. Table 3.16.-2 presents an inventory of social services found within and immediately adjacent to the Planned Action Study Area. Table 3.16-3. Inventory of Social Services within and Adjacent to the Planned Action Study Area ID # Name Address Description 1 Renton Housing Authority 2900 NE 10th Street AHA Administrative Office 2 Sunset Terrace 970 Harrington NE RHA property -100 units for families 3 Hillcrest Terrace 1442 Hillcrest Lane NE AHA property -60 units for seniors and individuals with disabilities 4 Houser Terrace 3151 NE 16th Street, AHA property -104 units for seniors and those 55 and older living with disabilities 5 Evergreen Terrace 3021 NE 15th Street RHA property -50 units for seniors and individuals with disabilities 6 Golden Pines 2091 NE 10th Street RHA property -53 units for seniors 7 Highlands House 2825 NE 12th Street RHA property -16 units for families 8 The Friendly Kitchen 1800 Index Avenue NE Weekly meal service 9 Renton Clinic (also known 2838 NE Sunset Drug/alcohol rehabilitation with focus as Health Group, Inc.) Boulevard on substance abuse treatment. 10 The Emergency Feeding 1700 Edmonds Avenue Weekly meal service Program NE (St. Matthews Lutheran Church) Source; City of Renton 2010; Renton Housing Authority 2010 Social services are found within other parts of Renton that meet some of the needs of the Planned Action Study Area population are inventoried in Table 3.16-4. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.16-7 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Table 3.16-4. Inventory of Social Services in Renton Outside of the Planned Action Study Area ID # Name Address Description 11 Renton Senior Center 211 Burnett Avenue N Services for senior papulation 12 Salvation Army Renton 206 S Tobin Food bank Rotary Food Bank 1.2 Rotacare 206 S Tobin Free medical care, co -located at Salvation Army Food Bank 13 HealthPoint 200 S 2nd Street Community Health Center—low- income health 14 Renton Clothes Bank 1025 S 3rd Street Free clothes with referral of need for low-income, families 14 Renton Area Youth and 1025 S 3rd Street Services for youth and families (see Family Services Sunset Terrace demographics) 1s Burst for Prosperity 200 Mill Avenue S Poverty reduction program—low- income, children 16 YWCA 1010 S 2nd Street Anti -poverty and discrimination programs for women and children 17 DSHS/Renton Community 500 SW 7th Street Variety of services for low-income, Services Office families, unemployed, and other demographics 17 Emergency Feeding 500 SW 7th Street Weekly meal service Program 17 King County Veterans Office S00 SW 7th Street Veterans, seniors, disabled 17 WorkSOurce Renton 500 SW 7th Street Services for unemployment, education 18 Seattle/King County Public 10700 SE 174th Street Low-income dental care Health Dental Clinic Source: City of Renton 2010 Each social service provider located within Renton but outside of the Planned Action Study Area is connected to the study area by King County Metro Transit service. Route 240 connects the study area with the Downtown Transit Center, where connections can be made to reach social service organizations located in other parts of Renton through a single transfer. Solid Waste The 2006 King County Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Pian is being updated with the latest draft dated October 2009. All of King County, except for the cities of Seattle and Milton, is covered by this plan and its update including Renton. The draft 2009 plan accounts for the waste management needs of approximately 1.3 million residents and more than 600,000 jobs (King County 2009). There is one landfill (Cedar Hills) in the King County Solid Waste system, located southeast of Renton near Maple Valley. The King County system relies on a network of recycling and transfer stations to help the County and participating cities, including the City, to transfer, sort, and divert recyclables from the waste stream. One such transfer station is located approximately 1.8 miles south of the Planned Action Study Area in the Renton Highlands. The Draft 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan includes forecasting for future waste disposal as well as estimates for the amount of materials expected to be diverted from the waste stream through city waste prevention and recycling programs. The plan estimates that in 2009, more than 1.5 million tons of solid waste were generated and disposed of or recycled in King Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.16 8 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment County. The forecast assumes that King County will achieve a goal of 55% recycling in 2015 and 70% recycling in 2020. By 2030, the horizon year of the plan, more than 2 million tons of solid waste will be generated and disposed of or recycled in King County. The plan does not provide solid waste generation estimates for individual jurisdictions participating in the plan. However, the plan estimates that 24 pounds of waste per capita are generated each week in King County (King County 2009:3-3). This estimate is used for solid waste generation in the Planned Action Study Area, resulting in an estimate of 71,472 pounds of waste generated each week within the study area under existing conditions. Waste Management, a private company, provides solid waste collection services in Renton (City of Renton 2010). Public Library In early 2010, the City annexed to the King County Library System. The Renton Highlands Branch is located within the study area at 2902 NE 12th Street. The current facility is approximately 6,592 square feet in size and provides 59 hours of service per week to the community (King County Library System 2010). The Renton Public Library Master Pian Study 2008-2013 describes the Renton Highlands Library as outdated and undersized for the population it is intended to serve. The building does not have separate spaces or meetings, programs, or expanded technology, and there are few quiet areas for personal reading and studying. There is inadequate space for a collection of materials to meet the basic needs of the community or to accommodate various media formats, and infrastructure of the existing building is inadequate to accommodate needed technology. (City of Renton 2008.) The King County Library System clusters its libraries by geographic area for administrative purposes. The current King County Library System cluster that includes the Renton Highlands Library also includes Downtown Renton (22,237 square feet) and Fairwood libraries (15,000 square feet) (King County Library System 2010). The Draft 2010 Libruty Service Area Analysis for the Greater Renton Area provides a study of future library services in the Greater Renton area resulting from Renton's annexation to the King County Library System (King County Library System 20101. The draft study provides an analysis of population served by geographic clusters using Forecast Analysis Zones (FAZ). For purposes of the King County Library System, the Downtown Renton, Renton Highlands, and Skyway libraries were combined in one FAZ analysis area. The 2010 population using FAZs in the cluster is 61,215. The combined library square footage in the library cluster under existing conditions is 35,142 square feet. Using the FAZ cluster's 2010 population estimate of 61,215, this would provide an existing standard of library service in the overall area of 574 square feet of library facility per 1,000 population (King County Library System 2010). The King County Library System recommends including the Renton Highlands Library in a cluster with the Newcastle Library to the north. The Draft 2010 Library Service Area Analysis for the Greater Renton Area incorporates the library system's planned capital improvements from its 2004 Capital Improvement Program. These include construction of a 10,000 square foot branch of the library system in Newcastle, north of the Planned Action Study Area, as well as other replacement and expansion projects for libraries in the Greater Renton area. With these changes in place, and considering the demographic and library usage characteristics of all the libraries in the Greater Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.16-9 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment Renton area, the Draft 2010 Library Service Area Analysis for the Greater Renton Area includes the following recommendations relevant to the Planned Action Study Area. The Renton Highlands Library should be a 15,000 -square -foot facility with adequate meeting space. The Renton Highlands Library should relocate to the east and south of its current location to attract population that is not using the current Highlands Library and may not use the future Newcastle Library. The Renton Highlands Library should be oriented primarily towards users who drive to the facility and be designed with a focus on serving the needs of families, schools, and students in the area. In addition, if the Draft 2010 Library Service Area Analysis for the Greater Renton Area is adopted by the King County Library Board, then the Renton Highlands Library would be included in an administrative cluster with the future Newcastle Library and that library cluster would have a service standard of 359 square feet of library facility per 1,000 population. The City Comprehensive Plan includes objectives and policies relating to libraries. Policies relating to libraries direct that the Downtown Library remain the City's main library facility (LU -97), that as branch libraries are developed, they be located to provide convenient access to a majority of their users (LU -98), and that future branch libraries can be included in mixed-use development to serve concentration of users in those areas (LU -99). 3.16.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police and Fire and Emergency Services Police, fire, and EMS provided to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Education Students living in this subarea currently attend Kennydale Elementary, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School, Health Care Health care services in this subarea are the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area, Social Services The socioeconomic characteristics of this subarea indicate that its population has a larger household size, lower median age, and a higher percentage of population under 18 than the Planned Action Study Area as a whole, showing a need to serve youth and families in this subarea. In addition, the subarea has a more diverse population, a higher percentage of foreign born residents, a lower median household income, and a higher percentage of poverty than the Planned Action Study Area as a whole, showing a need for social services that meet the needs of low-income and diverse ethnic population needing English as a Second Language assistance. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.16-10 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3, Affected Environment Sunset Terrace is an RHA public housing community that provides 100 units for families (Renton Housing Authority 2010). Sunset Terrace has a community room that is available for residents to use. During the summers, this community room hosts on-site summer activity programs for children during their school break. This program is sponsored by the Renton Black Parents Association, and it provides daily brown hag lunches and activities for children participating in the program. In addition, AHA provides $250 vouchers per child that can be used for other summer activities, such as aquatics programs or drivers education. During the school year, the community room is open to other uses, such as for hosting a local Cub Scout organization (Groper pers. comm.). No other on-site social services are currently provided. However, social services found within and near the Planned Action Study Area (Table 3.16-3) and within Renton (Table 3.16-4), described above, would also be conveniently located for residents of the subarea, and services available to the wider community are accessible by King County Metro transit, as described above, 7 days per week. In particular, based upon demographics of the subarea, social services that provide service to low- income and youth and family demographics, such as the Renton Area Youth and Family Services noted in Table 3.16-4, would be relevant to the population living in the subarea. Solid Waste Solid waste and recycling collection in this subarea is the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Solid waste generation within the subarea is estimated at 7,536 pounds per week under existing conditions. Public Library The subarea is less than 0.25 mile from the current Renton Highlands Library site. The large]- Downtown argerDowntown Renton Library is accessible by transit from the subarea. 3.16.2 Regulatory Context 3.16.2.1 Federal No federal regulations apply. 3.16.2.2 State GMA requires communities planning under it, including the City, to develop a capital facilities plan that includes an inventory, LOS standards, projected facility needs, and planned facilities to meet those needs. Jurisdictions must include a capital facilities element that includes these features as part of their comprehensive plan. 3.16.2.3 Local Consistent with GMA, the City Comprehensive Plan includes a Capital Facilities Element. In addition, the Land Use Element of the City Comprehensive Plan contains a Public Facilities section that provides further direction on location and development of public facilities, Key goals, objectives, and policies from the Land Use and Capital Facilities elements are included in Appendix E. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.16-11 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3.17 Utilities 3.17.1 Environmental Context This section discusses the existing conditions related to water, wastewater, and telecommunication utilities in the Planned Action Study Area and in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 3.17.1.1 Planned Action Study Area Water Water Supply The City water supply system is provided through nine supply sources from three aquifers (Cedar Valley Aquifer, Maplewood Production Aquifer, recharge area for Well 5A) and one artesian spring (Springbrook Springs). The Cedar Valley Aquifer was designated as a sole source aquifer in 1998 by the EPA. The City maintains a Wellhead Protection Plan, as required by the Washington State Department of Health, which is a component of the City's Aquifer Protection Program that was initiated in 1988. In addition to the groundwater sources described above, the City has an emergency well (EW -3), and nine metered interties with Seattle Public Utilities. The City's water system has 14 pressure zones, with 12 booster pumps and 38 pressure -reducing stations that are used to move water between different zones to provide operational reliability and redundancy. The Planned Action Study Area falls within two of the City's pressure zones: Highlands 565 and Highlands 435. (City of Renton and R.W. Beck, Inc. 2005.) The Planned Action Study Area is currently developed for residential and commercial land uses and water service is provided through a network of 4- to 16 -inch -diameter pipes. The majority of pipes in the vicinity of the study area were installed in the 1940s and 1960s and are in fair condition based on the age of the pipes. Under current conditions, the Highlands 565 pressure zone has a deficit in required storage, but the City is planning a new elevated storage tank for this area that will alleviate the deficit. The City has also planned to install on-site emergency power to increase pumping capability to access storage in other pressure zones for providing required storage in the Highlands 435 pressure zone. (City of Renton and R.W. Beck, Inc. 2005.) Water Storage As of December 2010, the City water system has 10 water reservoirs strategically located within the Renton to provide adequate equalizing and fire -flow reserves. Four of these reservoirs are located in the Highlands area (highlands 435 pressure zone and Highlands 565 pressure zone), in which the Planned Action Study Area is located. In the 2005 City of Renton Water System Plan, the City identified a deficit in storage for fire flow in the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. In March 2009, the City completed the construction of the 4.2 -million -gallon Hazen Reservoir located in the Highlands 565 pressure zone (City of Renton and R.W. Beck, Inc. 2005), The City reevaluates storage requirements every 6 years as part of the update of the water system plan. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.t7 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Water Transmission and Distribution Chapter 3. Affected Environment The City water system contains over 305 miles of water mains. Over 65% of the pipe is ductile iron pipe; other pipe materials include asbestos cement, cast iron, plastic, and steel. The Planned Action Study Area is currently developed for residential, multifamily, and commercial land uses. Water service is provided through a distribution network of about 13 miles of pipes, ranging in diameter from 4 to 16 inches, constructed in the 1940s to 1960s. A 16 -inch -diameter low-pressure transmission water main is located in Edmonds Avenue NE. Existing pipes have reduced flow capacity due to buildup and corrosion inside the pipes. It is the City's water supply policy to provide the minimum water pressure requirement established by Washington State Department of Health at 30 pounds per square inch (psi) at the service meter during maximum day demand and during peak -hour demand conditions. The City's goal is to provide a minimum of 40 psi at the highest domestic water plumbing fixture except during emergency conditions. The City's goal is also to provide a maximum of 110 psi at the service meter to prevent over pressurization of water uses fixtures and appliances. Current building codes require the installation of an individual pressure -reducing valve beyond the water meter where system pressures exceed 80 psi. Within the Planned Action Study Area, water pressure from the pipes in the Highlands 435 pressure zone varies from 35 psi to 72 psi and water pressure from the pipes in the Highlands 565 pressure zone varies from 75 psi to 92 psi. Some areas in the Planned Action Study Area would not meet the minimum goal of 40 psi at upper floors of multistory buildings. In 2009, the City completed the installation on a 12 -inch -diameter high-pressure water main along NE Sunset Boulevard, from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 12th Street. Funding for the project was provided through a cost-sharing agreement between the City and a private developer with cost reimbursement through a latecomer's agreement. Fire flow in the study area may be limited for commercial fire flow in the vicinity of smaller - diameter dead-end pipes. As noted above, the City water system uses twelve booster stations to transfer water throughout Renton. Three additional booster stations are standby stations. The Highlands 435 pressure zone portion of the Planned Action Study Area is supplied by the Houser Way and Mount Olivet booster stations. The Highlands, Monroe, and Maplewood booster stations supply the Highlands 565 pressure zone portion of the Planned Action Study Area. The City water system also uses 38 pressure -reducing valve stations to supply water from higher pressure zones to lower pressure zones. (City of Renton and R.W. Beck, Inc. 2005.) The planning -level fire -flow requirements for the zoning categories in the Planned Action Study Area are summarized in Table 3.17-1, and the existing available fire flow in the Planned Action Study Area is shown in Figure 3.17-1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3.17-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/$EPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 S13 Vd3S/Vd3N 14ea4 uoLIDy pauueld Al!unwwo:) eaay jasunS 4"01 eaay ApnjS uoPy pauueld aqj ui molj aai3 algelieny SuL}six3 �IIi-iwzr-rte T-LVE a,in2i� City of Renton Table 3.17-1. Fire -Flow Requirements in the Planned Action Study Area Chapter 3. Aftected Environment Planning -Level Required Fire Flow Land Use' (gallons per minute) Zoning Single-family (<3,600 square feet) 1,000-1,500 R -B Single-family (3,600 square feet) 1,500-2,000 R-14 Multifamily 3,000-4,000 RM -F Commercial/Industrial 4,000-5,600 Cv By comparing the planning -level fire -Flow requirements for new development and redevelopment in the study area shown in Table 3.17-1 and the existing available fire flow from the City's existing hydraulic model, many areas in the Planned Action Study Area do not have the required fire flow for the proposed level of development/redevelopment. Wastewater The City wastewater collection system is divided into six major wastewater collection basins and consists of approximately 191 miles of gravity sewer, 23 sewage lift stations, and over 5,100 manholes. Wastewater collected in the City's system is discharged to King County facilities at 79 locations and is then conveyed to and treated at the King County South Treatment Reclamation Plant. (City of Renton 2009.) For wastewater collection, the Planned Action Study Area falls within the East Lake Washington Basin. Wastewater from this area is collected in the City's Sunset Interceptor, transferred to the City's N 8th Street Interceptor, and then transferred to King County's East Side Interceptor. The sewers in the Planned Action Study Area were constructed in the early 1940s and are comprised of 8-, 10-, and 12 -inch -diameter concrete sewers. Surcharging has been experienced in this area, and these sewers require additional maintenance. Sewers in the Planned Action Study Area have been identified as high priority sewers for evaluation of replacement due to their age, materials, and leakage. (City of Renton 2009.1 Telecommunication Telecommunications is available in the Planned Action Study Area through providers including Qwest. As the demand increases for telecommunications service with increased population and commercial activity, the telecommunications system can be expanded and improved to rneet the increased demand. 3.17.1.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Utility conditions in this subarea are similar to those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Water Water Supply The subarea is within the Highlands 435 pressure zone. The piping within the subarea ranges from 2 to 12 inches in diameter. The primary 12 -inch -diameter pipe in the vicinity of subarea was installed Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3.17-5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 3. Affected Environment in 2009 to support the Harrington Development, while the majority of the remaining pipes in the subarea were installed in the 1960x. Water Storage The two Highlands Reservoirs (1.5 million gallons, 2.0 million gallons) provide storage for the subarea. As noted above in the Planned Action Study Area, the City reevaluates storage requirements every 6 years as part of its water system plan discussion to improve access to storage will also meet storage needs for this subarea. Water Distribution Water distribution in the subarea is the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area, except that the entire subarea is supplied by the Houser Way and Mount Olivet booster stations. Fire flow in the subarea may also be limited for increased fire -flow requirements of commercial facilities. The 12 -inch -diameter pipe that was recently constructed and noted above was constructed to provide additional fire flow from the Highlands 565 pressure zone. Wastewater The wastewater collected from the subarea is also within the East Lake Washington Basin, and the sewers in the subarea were constructed in the early 1940s and are primarily 8-inch-diamter concrete sewers. The sewers in the subarea have also been identified as high-priority sewers for evaluation of replacement due to their age, materials, and leakage. Telecommunication Telecommunications services are the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area. 3.17.2 Regulatory Context 3.17.2.1 Federal Federal regulations for drinking water are contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act and are typically promulgated through state drinking water requirements.' Federal regulations for wastewater collection are maintained by EPA and contained in the Clean Water Act. 3.17.2.2 State Standards for analysis and design criteria for wastewater collection systems are presented in the Criteria for Sewage Works Design, prepared by Ecology. State regulations for drinking water are provided through the Washington State Department of Health and are administered under Title 246 of the Washington Administrative Code and through the Water System Design Manual, also provided by the Washington State Department of Health. 1 According to §58.5 of HUD's environmental regulations (24 CFR 58), compliance with the requirements of the Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program, authorized by Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act and administered by the FPA, are applicable to HUD -assisted projects. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3'17 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 3.17.2.3 Local Chapter 3. Affected Environment The City requirements for water system design are maintained in the RMC and include supplemental requirements on system pressures and water velocity in pipelines. Fire -flow requirements through the City's service area are established by the City Fire Department and by the Insurance Services Office. Local requirements for wastewater collection are maintained through the King County Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Treatment Division, and by the City through the RMC. Sunset Area Community Planred Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmentai Impact Statement 3,17-7 ICF 593.10 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures This chapter presents beneficial and adverse impacts that could occur with the implementation of the alternatives described in Chapter 2 for both the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. This chapter addresses the following topics: 4.1 Earth 4.2 Air Quality 4.3 Water Resources 4.4 Plants and Animals 4.5 Energy 4.6 Noise 4.7 Environmental Health 4.8 Land Use 4.9 Socioeconomics 4.10 Housing 4.11 Environmental Justice 4.12 Aesthetics 4.13 Historic/Cultural 4.14 Transportation 4.15 Parks and Recreation 4.16 Public Services 4.17 Utilities 4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4.19 Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Long -Term Productivity Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement A-1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.1 Earth 4.1.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Corsequerees and Mitigation Measures Potential impacts are discussed in general terms and then a comparison of the differences in potential between the three alternatives is made. The comparison is broken down into 1) the potential programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The specific impacts are dependent upon the details of development design and actual construction contractor performance, so the comparison is qualitative. 4.1.1.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives Construction Impacts Potential earth -related construction impacts include; increases in erosion due to soil disturbance; requirements for import and export of earth materials; and increased risk of landsliding due to soil disturbance, changing drainage, or temporarily oversteepening slopes. The significance of these potential impacts is judged to be relatively low under all of the alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area for the following reasons. • A series of best management practices (BMPs) has been developed and codified over the last decade that minimizes the potential for both erosion and for eroded material to be transported to waterways where they can cause harm. • As shown in Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, a relatively small proportion of the Planned Action Study Area is considered either steep slope or erosion hazard. Much of the existing soils are also glacial outwash materials with a low erosion potential. • With minimal planning and protection, the outwash soils in most of the Planned Action Study Area could be reused as backfill, minimizing import and export requirements. As noted in the Section 3.1, the outwash limits shown in Figure 3.1-1 are believed to be somewhat understated. • The landslide hazard areas cover a relatively small proportion of the Planned Action Study Area. Both the glacial outwash and till soils are generally strong and of low concern regarding slope instability. The significance of these potential impacts is even lower for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, because it contains no geologic hazards and is underlain by glacial outwash materials, which have one of the highest potentials for structural reuse of any geologic deposit within the Puget Sound area. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.1-1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Operation Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The primary earth -related impact of operations is the active seismicity of the Planned Action Study Area. The active seismicity means that inhabited structures, including buildings, bridges, and water tanks, would have to be designed to withstand seismic loading. Relative to many other areas within the Renton and King County, the Planned Action Study Area is well suited to handling the effects of an earthquake. The soils are not subject to liquefaction, which is the primary cause of damage to buried utilities and other civil infrastructure. Expensive building foundation systems to provide support against settlement or lateral spreading of liquefiable soils would not be needed. The only differential seismic impact in the Planned Action Study Area is that steeper slopes and landslide hazard areas, as identified in Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, would have a slightly higher risk of movement during a seismic event than other areas. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts The primary indirect effect is that the major steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard areas within the Planned Action Study Area extend beyond the boundaries (see northeast corner on Figure 3.1.2 and 3.1.3). Development on the slope above (inside) the study area boundary could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding downslope (outside) of the study area. The risk of this impact is relatively low, as current development regulations limit development in these hazard areas and their buffers. The primary earth -related cumulative effect is associated with the same steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard area discussed above. Intensive development around this hazard area outside of the Planned Action Study Area by other projects is not currently anticipated, but could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding. As explained above, the risk of this impact is low. 4.1.1.2 Comparison of Impacts by Alternative As noted above, the earth -related impacts of all of the proposal alternatives are of low significance. The potential impacts within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are of even less significance, because there are no geologic hazards within the subarea and the underlying glacial outwash soils have the highest potential for reuse within the Planned Action Study Area and the lowest potential for erosion of most soil types in the Puget Sound area. Because the potential impacts are low for all three alternatives, a comparison is not necessary and would be subject to conjecture. 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures 4.1.2.1 Planned Action Study Area The following mitigation measures would apply to development throughout the Planned Action Study Area. • Apply erosion -control BMPs, as described in Appendix D of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manua! (City of Renton 2010). Limit development in geologic hazard areas and their buffers, or require rigorous engineered design to reduce the hazard, as currently codified. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.1 2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequerces and Mitigation Measures It is possible that the City of Renton (City) could promote earth material reuse by establishing websites or other community information exchanges to track material needs and surpluses. Vacant City -owned property could be designated as temporary stockpile sites for quality structural fill. 4.1.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Mitigating measures for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would he similar to those for the Planned Action Study Area, except that there are no geologic hazard areas to avoid. Material reuse between construction zones within the subarea would be easier and more economical to control than in the larger, privately owned study area. 4.1.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant earth -related unavoidable adverse earth impacts. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 41-3 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement .icr 593.10 City of Renton 4.2 Air Quality 4.2.1 Impacts Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction impacts are addressed as well as long-term operational impacts of land use activities and local traffic increases. In addition, indirect and cumulative impacts of the alternatives' contribution to regional growth, travel, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are addressed. 4.2.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Under the No Action Alternative, the Planned Action Study Area would experience growth, but to a lesser extent than under Alternatives 2 and 3. Development under this alternative would still lead to increases in population and employment throughout the study area, could increase localized air pollutant emissions from construction activities and commercial activities, and could increase regional vehicle travel and tailpipe emissions. Construction Emissions During construction, dust from excavation and grading could cause temporary, localized increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Construction activity must comply with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations requiring reasonable precautions to minimize dust emissions (Regulation I, Section 9.15). Regardless, construction activity could cause localized fugitive dust impacts at homes and businesses near the construction site. Construction activities would likely require the use of diesel -powered, heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants that could slightly degrade local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the activity. However, these emissions would he temporary and localized, and the resulting construction tailpipe emissions would likely he far outweighed by emissions from existing traffic around the study area. Some construction activities could cause odors detectible to some people in the vicinity of the activity, especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt. Such odors would be short-term and localized. Stationary equipment used for the construction activities must comply with PSCAA regulations requiring the best available measures to control the emissions of odor -bearing air contaminants (Regulation 1, Section 9.1.1). In addition, no slash burning would he permitted in association. 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 42 1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement . ICF 593.10 City of Renton Emissions from Commercial Operations Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The study area is expected to experience commercial growth. It is likely that new commercial development would occur near either current or future residential property, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea. Unless properly controlled, stationary equipment (such as gas stations), mechanical equipment (such as commercial boilers and heating units), and trucks at loading docks at office and retail buildings could cause air pollution issues at adjacent residential property. However, the new commercial facilities would be required to register their pollutant -emitting equipment with PSCAA (Regulation I and Regulation II). PSCAA requires all commercial facilities to use Best Available Control Technology to minimize emissions. The agency may require applicants with high emissions to conduct an air quality assessment to demonstrate that the proposed emissions would not expose off-site areas to odors or air quality concentrations exceeding regulatory limits. Therefore, it is unlikely that new commercial operations would cause significant air quality issues. Emissions from Vehicle Travel Tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on public roads would be the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with the growth in the Planned Action Study Area. Potential air quality impacts caused by increased tailpipe emissions are divided into two general categories: carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots caused by localized emissions at heavily congested intersections and regional photochemical smog caused by combined emissions throughout the Puget Sound region. Localized Hot -Spot Air Quality Impacts Development under this alternative would increase vehicle travel on existing public roads. However, it is unlikely that the increased traffic and congestion would cause localized air pollutant concentrations at local intersections to form a hot spot (i.e., a localized area where air pollutant concentrations exceed the national ambient air quality standards [NAAQS]). PSCAA operates ambient air pollution monitors at some of the most heavily congested intersections in the Puget Sound region, and none of those monitors have indicated exceedances over the past several years. Furthermore, ongoing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) motor vehicle regulations have provided steady decreases in tailpipe emissions from individual vehicles, and it is possible that those continuing decreases from individual vehicles could more than offset the increase in vehicle traffic. For these reasons, it is unlikely that air quality impacts at local intersections would be significant. Regional Air Quality Impacts Although population and vehicle travel would increase in the study area, the increase in tailpipe emissions would be very small relative to the overall regional tailpipe emissions within the Puget Sound air basin. Photochemical smog (the regional haze produced by ozone and fine particles) is caused by regional emissions throughout the Puget Sound region, rather than localized emissions from any individual neighborhood. Photochemical smog was a serious concern in the Puget Sound region before the late 1980s, but federal tailpipe emission regulations have reduced vehicular emissions to the point that the region is currently a designated attainment area for ozone. To track the reduction of regional tailpipe emissions, Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology's) State Implementation Plan for ozone and CO set allowable emissions budgets for Puget Sound regional transportation emissions, with the understanding that as long as regional emissions are Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4,2-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures below the allowable budgets then photochemical smog impacts are unlikely to resume. Regional transportation emission budgets were set for three pollutants: CO, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Based on Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) air quality conformity analysis, forecasted regional emissions for its 2030 planning year are far below the allowable budgets: • CO: 50% of budget (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009); • NOx: 16% of budget (Puget Sound Regional Council 2007); and • VOCs: 21% of budget (Puget Sound Regional Council 2007). Population growth and daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) can be used as indicators of future transportation -related emissions. Table 4.2-1 shows the future project population and the contribution of regional VMT from the Planned Action Study Area to Puget Sound region. Alternative 1 (No Action) would produce 146,949 VMT, less than I% of the Puget Sound regional VMT forecast for 2030 for the CO maintenance area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009). The forecasted VMT from the study area is only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Additionally, forecasted regional vehicular emissions for ozone precursors (VOC and NOx) are projected to be less than 21% of the allowable emissions budgets designed to protect regional air quality. Therefore, the forecasted population growth and VMT for Alternative 1 would not appear to alter PSRC's conclusion that future Puget Sound regional emissions will be less than the allowable emissions budgets mandated by the air quality maintenance plans. The alternative would not result in a significant impact on regional air quality. Table 4.2-1.131anned Action Study Area Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Population 6,417 6,808 8,768 Planned Action Study Area daily VMT' 146,949 1.55,903 200,787 Puget Sound region daily VMT2 92,738,880 Contribution to regional VMT 0.16% 0.17% 0.22% VMT = vehicle miles traveled ' Daily VMT is calculated based on 22.9 VMT per capita, the average daily VMT in Puget Sound area. (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010). Puget Sound regional VMT totals for 2030 for the CO Maintenance Area (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009). Mobile Source Air Toxics The mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non -road mobile equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted into the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA has identified six priority MSATs: benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter/diesel exhaust organic gases, acrolein, and 1,3 -butadiene. The EPA has issued a number of regulations that will dramatically decrease MSATs by mandating the use of cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. The MSAT regulations were issued under the authority in Section 202 of the federal Clean Air Act. In its regulations, EPA examined the impacts of existing Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'2-3 1CF 593,10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Fnvircnmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including the reformulated gasoline program, national low -emission vehicle standards, Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards, gasoline sulfur -control requirements, proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards, and on - highway diesel fuel sulfur -control requirements. EPA's MSAT regulations will greatly reduce per - vehicle MSAT emissions and the reductions in per -vehicle emissions will more than offset forecast increases in regional VMT. According to a Federal Highway Administration analysis, even if nationwide VMTs increase by 64%, reductions of 57% to 87% in nationwide MSAT emissions are projected from 2000 to 2020 (Federal Highway Administration 2006). The future VMT would be higher than existing levels as population grows in the study area. However, the magnitude of the EPA -projected MSAT emissions reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future. Air Quality Attainment Status Renton is currently designated as a maintenance area for CO and an attainment area for all other criteria air pollutants (ozone, PM10, PM2.5, lead, SO2, and NO2). As described above in the "Localized Hot -Spot Air Quality Impacts" section, although vehicle traffic would increase on existing public roads under Alternative 1 (No Action), it is unlikely that the increased traffic and congestion would cause localized CO concentrations at local intersections to exceed the NAAQS limits and result in a change in CO attainment status. PSCAA operates ambient air pollution monitors at some of the most heavily congested intersections in the Puget Sound region, and none of those monitors have indicated exceedances over the past several years. Under Alternative 1, land use density would increase in the Planned Action Study Area and population would increase. However, the increase is 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 under this alternative would not cause a substantial increase in air quality concentrations that would result in a change in air quality attainment status. Greenhouse Gas Emissions For the purposes of this analysis, the GHG emissions are expressed in terms of their increase between current conditions and future proposed land use conditions in the Planned Action Study Area. Alternative 1 (No Action) represents the future no -action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate future GHG emissions from the action alternatives. The emissions estimate for future land use conditions accounts for GHG emissions reductions expected as a result of the transit -oriented development (TOD). TOD is mixed-use residential or commercial development designed to maximize access to public transportation, and often incorporates features to encourage transit ridership. The benefits of TOD are the reduction of trip generation, regional VMT, regional fuel usage, and regional GHG emissions. TOD typically has a center with a transit station, surrounded by relatively high-density development with progressively lower -density development spreading outwards from the center. TOD generally is located within a 0.25- to 0.5 -mile (0.4- to 0.8 -kilometer) radius of a transit stop, as this is considered to be an appropriate scale for pedestrians. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'�-q cF 593.10 Clty of Renton Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation Methods Chapter A. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The GHG emissions spreadsheet developed by King County was used to estimate life -cycle "business as usual" emissions, not including any special project -level emissions reductions (King County 2007). The spreadsheet estimates GHG emissions to construct a building, and estimates the life -cycle emissions generated by building occupants over the presumed life of the building. It uses statewide estimates for vehicle travel, building occupancy, and space heating, so the spreadsheet is a relevant tool for providing an approximate estimate of GHG emissions anywhere in Washington State. The spreadsheet assumes the office and commercial buildings in Washington State will be occupied for between 58 to 62 years, and estimates life -cycle emissions within that time period. Three types of life -cycle emissions are estimated by the King County spreadsheet: embodied, energy, and transportation emissions. • Embodied emissions are generated by construction of the building, including extraction, production, and eventual disposal of the building materials used to construct the structure. These do not include embodied emissions during the operating life of the facility to account for consumer productions purchased by residents and workers. Energy emissions are generated by space heating and electrical supply to the building during its lifespan. The spreadsheet incorporates energy intensity factors specific to Washington State. • Transportation emissions include tailpipe emissions generated by on -road vehicles used by building occupants after the building is constructed. The transportation emissions do not account for vehicles passing through the study area, unless they are directly associated with the buildings being evaluated. These emissions account for "upstream" emissions during extraction and refining of the fossil fuel used over the lifespan of the building. The transportation emissions do not account for vehicle travel by delivery trucks carrying goods to or from buildings, nor do they account for vehicle travel by customers at retail or commercial buildings. The spreadsheet was modified to assume a future fleet -wide fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon, consistent with EPA's newly proposed Corporate Automobile Fuel Economy vehicle mileage standard. Transit -Oriented Development TOD is expected to reduce GHG emissions compared to traditional development by reducing vehicle trips and fuel usage. For this assessment, the percent reductions in vehicle usage and the corresponding GHG emissions reductions for new development were derived based on the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (2007) document Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. The district's methodology uses a scoring system to estimate GHG emissions reduction for a new development based on the TOD mixed-use density, housing density, and proximity to existing and future bus/rail transit. The methodology estimates GHG reductions only as a result of reduced vehicle trip generation, but it does not attempt to estimate GHG reductions provided by other mitigation measures such as use of recycled building materials, improved thermal insulation, reduced electricity consumption, or reduced waste generation. Within the Planned Action Study Area, high-density mixed-use developments and high-density multifamily developments along the NE Sunset Boulevard transit corridor, in the Sunset Mixed Use and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas, respectively, are considered TOD. Details on the GHG reduction calculations are provided in Appendix H. The estimated percentage of emission reductions compared to future conditions without TOD (business as usual) are summarized in Table 4.2-2. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.2 5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Table 4.2-2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Associated with Transit -Oriented Development Subarea Percentage Reduction Compared to Business as Usual Sunset Mixed Use 18% Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment 10% Land Use Values for Greenhouse Gas Calculations Table 4.2-3 lists the projected study area land uses that were used for calculating GHG emissions for each alternative. The values listed under "existing" represent current land use. The values listed for each alternative represent the net increase compared to existing conditions. This analysis considered future land use growth and future emissions increases in two geographic regions: 1) within the Planned Action Study Area and 2) within the Puget Sound region outside the study area. The proposed square footage in the study area would be higher for most land use categories under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2. Therefore, for purposes of comparing the beneficial reductions in regional GHG emissions, it is important to balance future growth outside the study area as well as within the study area. It was assumed that the lower amount of future developed square footage in the study area under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be balanced by developers constructing equal square footage elsewhere in the Puget Sound region in response to assumed market demand for housing, office, and commercial space. Thus, the total amount of future additional regional square footage was balanced to the same values for all alternatives; however, under Alternatives 2 and 3, more of the development (TOD) would be inside the study area. Table 4.2-3.Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations— Planned Action Study Area '- These numbers are rounded compared to values in Chapter 2, accounting for slight differences. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 4.2 & ICF 543.10 Net Increase under Alternatives Compared to Existing Conditions' Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Puget Puget Puget Sound Sound Sound Region Region Region Study Outside Study Outside Study Outside Land Use Type Existing Area Study Area Area Study Area Area Study Area Single-family housing 117 11 0 10 0 10 0 (dwelling units) Multifamily housing in 783 1,446 723 1,549 620 2,169 0 large building (dwelling units) Multifamily housing in 389 33 295 99 228 327 0 small building (dwelling units) Education (1,000 223.6 30.6 26.4 57.0 0 57.0 0 square feet) Retail (other than mall) 352.3 90.7 385.6 300.2 176.1 476.3 0 (1,000 square feet) Service (1,000 square 226.3 130.4 246.4 487.1 289.7 776.8 0 feet) Population 2,978 3440 2,353 3,830 1960 5,790 0 '- These numbers are rounded compared to values in Chapter 2, accounting for slight differences. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 4.2 & ICF 543.10 City of Renton Calculated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures For this analysis, Alternative 1 (No Action) represents the future no -action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate future GHG emissions from the action alternatives. The annual GHG emissions for Alternative 1 is calculated based on the future land use listed in Table 4.2-3 and TOD reductions listed in the Table 4.2-2. Table 4.2-4 summarizes the calculated study area GHG emissions for each alternative and presents the overall emission reduction for each alternative relative to Alternative 1. GHG calculations are presented for the assumed 60 -year life cycle and as annualized emissions. As listed in Table 4.2-4, expansion of TOD in study area would reduce GHG emissions. Table 4.2-4.Comparison of GHG Emissions—Planned Action Study Area Outdoor Air Toxics As described in Section 3.2.1, Environmental Context, 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. Therefore, it is concluded that Alternative 1 would not expose existing or future residents to disproportionately high concentrations of toxic air pollutants generated by local emission sources. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although the subarea would result in smaller increases in population and development than the Planned Action Study Area, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, and outdoor air toxics and impacts on the air quality attainment status would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area above. Emissions from Vehicle Travel Table 4.2-5 shows the future projected population and the contribution of regional VMT from the subarea to Puget Sound region. The forecasted VMT from the subarea is only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Additionally, forecasted regional vehicular emissions for ozone precursors (VOC and NQx) are projected to be less than 21% of the allowable emissions budgets Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.2 ICF 593.10 Average Annual GHG Emissions Increase During 60 -Year Project 60 -Year Life Cycle GHG Emissions Lifetime (metric tons CO2 - Increase (metric tons CO2 -equivalent) equivalent per year) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 GHG Emission Estimates Planned Action Study Area 1,230,712 1,753,597 2,745,967 20,512 29,227 45,766 Regional growth outside 1,764,993 1,138,640 0 29,417 18,977 0 Planned Action Study Area Total emissions increase for 2,995,705 2,892,237 2,745,967 99,928 48,204 45,766 Planned Action Study Area plus regional growth Net change in regional — -103,469 -249,738 — -1,724 -4,162 emissions compared to Alternative 1 (No Action) Outdoor Air Toxics As described in Section 3.2.1, Environmental Context, 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. Therefore, it is concluded that Alternative 1 would not expose existing or future residents to disproportionately high concentrations of toxic air pollutants generated by local emission sources. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although the subarea would result in smaller increases in population and development than the Planned Action Study Area, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, and outdoor air toxics and impacts on the air quality attainment status would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area above. Emissions from Vehicle Travel Table 4.2-5 shows the future projected population and the contribution of regional VMT from the subarea to Puget Sound region. The forecasted VMT from the subarea is only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Additionally, forecasted regional vehicular emissions for ozone precursors (VOC and NQx) are projected to be less than 21% of the allowable emissions budgets Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures designed to protect regional air quality. Therefore, future emissions from increased population and motor vehicles in the subarea would not cause significant regional air quality impacts. Table 4.2-5.Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional VMT Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Population 658 970 1,361 Planned Action Study Area daily VMT' 15,068 22,213 31,167 Puget Sound Region daily VMT2 92,738,880 Contribution to regional VMT 0.016% 0.024% 0.034% VMT = vehicle miles traveled t Daily VMT is calculated based on 22.9 VMT per capita, the average daily VMT in Puget Sound area. (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010) 2 Puget Sound regional VMT totals for 2030 for the CO Maintenance Area. (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009) Greenhouse Gas Emissions For this analysis, Alternative 1 (No Action) represents the future no -action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate future GHG emissions from the action alternatives. The annual GHG emissions for Alternative 1 is calculated based on the future land use listed in Table 4.2-6 and TOD reduction listed in Table 4.2-2. Table 4.2-7 summarizes the calculated subarea GHG emissions for each alternative and presents the overall emission reduction for each alternative relative to Alternative 1. As listed in Table 4.2-7, expanding the TOD within the subarea would reduce regional emissions. Table 4.2-5. Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.2-8 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.14 Net Increase under Alternatives Compared to Existing Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Puget Sound Puget Sound Puget Sound Region Region Region Outside Outside Outside Land Use Type Existing Subarea Subarea Subarea Subarea Subarea Subarea Multifamily housing 100 171 204 309 166 475 0 in large building (dwelling units) Multifamily housing 10 4 0 1 3 4 0 in small building (dwelling units) Retail (other than 0 0 31.5 135 18.0 31.5 0 mall) (1,000 square feet) Service (1,000 0 19.6 7.9 38.5 -11.0 27.5 0 square feet) Population 314 344 703 656 391 1,047 0 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.2-8 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.14 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Table 4.2-7.Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Indoor Air Quality RHA development of affordable housing on two vacant properties in the subarea would he 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 (American Public Health Association 2007, Sandel 2009). Therefore, the City and RHA will explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes. 4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 2, the Planned Action Study Area is expected to experience greater population and employment growth than under Alternative 1 (No Action). Development under this alternative would result in a greater increase in localized air pollutant emissions from construction activities and commercial activities and regional tailpipe emissions from vehicle travel. Regardless, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, and outdoor air toxics, and impacts on the air quality attainment status would he similar to those described under Alternative 1 above for the Planned Action Study Area. Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 4.2-1, the forecasted population and VMT for Alternative 2 are slightly higher than the forecasted values for Alternative 1. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, regional air quality impacts caused by population growth and transportation emissions in the study area would not he significant. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'Z 9 ICF 593.10 Average Annual GHG Emissions 60 -Year Life Cycle GHG Emissions Increase During 60 -Year Project Increase (metric tons CO2- Lifetime (metric tons CO2 - equivalent) equivalent per year) GHG Emission Estimates Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Potential Sunset Terrace 144,696 266,333 396,724 2,412 4,439 6,612 Redevelopment Subarea Regional growth outside 280,020 144,877 0 4,667 2,415 0 subarea Total emissions increase For 429,717 411,210 396,724 7,079 6,854 6,612 subarea plus regional growth Net change in regional — -13,506 -27,992 — -225 -467 emissions compared to Alternative 1 (No Action) Indoor Air Quality RHA development of affordable housing on two vacant properties in the subarea would he 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 (American Public Health Association 2007, Sandel 2009). Therefore, the City and RHA will explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes. 4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 2, the Planned Action Study Area is expected to experience greater population and employment growth than under Alternative 1 (No Action). Development under this alternative would result in a greater increase in localized air pollutant emissions from construction activities and commercial activities and regional tailpipe emissions from vehicle travel. Regardless, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, and outdoor air toxics, and impacts on the air quality attainment status would he similar to those described under Alternative 1 above for the Planned Action Study Area. Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 4.2-1, the forecasted population and VMT for Alternative 2 are slightly higher than the forecasted values for Alternative 1. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, regional air quality impacts caused by population growth and transportation emissions in the study area would not he significant. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'Z 9 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Mobile Source Air Toxics Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The SR 900 highway improvement project is proposed in the Planned Action Study Area. When a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions could be higher, but this could be offset due to reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Furthermore, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations (coupled with ongoing future fleet turnover) will over time cause substantial reductions that will cause region -wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today in most cases. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The annual GHG emissions for Alternative 2 is calculated based on the future land use listed in Table 4.2-3 and TOD reduction listed in Table 4.2-2. Table 4.2-4 lists the life -cycle GHG emissions increases caused by future development in the study area under each alternative. Future development increases in the study area under Alternative 2 are balanced against corresponding non-TOD regional growth outside the study area under Alternative 1. Because Alternative 2 would provide more TOD than Alternative 1 in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (addressed in detail below) and the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea along NE Sunset Boulevard, it would reduce regional GHG emissions compared to Alternative 1. As listed in Table 4.2-4, Alternative 2 represents a net reduction of 1,724 metric tons/year of regional GHG emissions. Compared to Alternative 1, the GHG emissions reductions would beneficially contribute to the state's goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008a). Current Washington State emissions are 93 million metric tons CO2 -equivalent per year, so the state's goal is equivalent to an emissions reduction of 47 million metric tons/year. The reduction in the study area under Alternative 2 would be a relatively small fraction of the statewide reduction goal. Regardless, the reductions would incrementally assist in achieving the statewide goal. Therefore, GHG impacts caused by increased development in the study area would not be significant. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under Alternative 2, the subarea is expected to experience greater population and employment growth than under Alternative 1 (No Action). Development under this alternative would result in a greater increase in localized air pollutant emissions from construction activities and commercial activities and regional tailpipe emissions from vehicle travel. Regardless, the air quality impacts under Alternative 2 for the subarea would be similar to those impacts (constriction emissions, commercial operations, outdoor air toxics, air quality attainment status) described under Alternative 1 above for the Planned Action Study Area. Impacts on indoor air quality would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 above for the subarea. Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 4.2-5, the forecasted population and VMT for Alternative 2 are slightly higher than the forecasted values for Alternative 1. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, Alternative 2 would cause a negligible impact on regional air quality. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.2-10 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Greenhouse Gas Emissions Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The annual GHG emissions for Alternative 2 are calculated based on the future land use listed in Table 4.2-6 for the subarea and TOD reduction listed in Table 4.2-2. Table 4.2-7 lists the life -cycle GHG emissions increases caused by future development in the subarea under each alternative. Future development increases in the subarea under Alternative 2 are balanced against corresponding non-TOD regional growth outside the subarea under Alternative 1. Because Alternative 2 would provide more TOD in the subarea, it would reduce regional GHG emissions compared to Alternative 1. As listed in Table 4.2-7, Alternative 2 represents a net reduction of 225 metric tons/year of regional GHG emissions. Compared to Alternative 1, the GHG emissions reductions would beneficially contribute to the state's goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008a). Therefore, GHG impacts caused by increased development in the subarea would not be significant. 4.2.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 3, the Planned Action Study Area is expected to experience the greatest population and employment growth among the three alternatives. Development under this alternative would result in the greatest increase in localized air pollutant emissions from construction and commercial activities and regional tailpipe emissions from vehicle travel. Regardless, air quality impacts from construction activities, commercial operations, and outdoor air toxics, and impacts on the air quality attainment status would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 (No Action) above for the Planned Action Study Area. Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 4.2-1, the forecasted population and VMT for Alternative 3 are higher than the forecasted values for Alternative 1. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, regional air quality impacts caused by population growth and transportation emissions in the study area would not be significant. Mobile Source Air Toxics The potential for MSAT emissions and the likely future reductions due to reductions in congestion described for Alternative 2 also apply to Alternative 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The annual GHG emissions for Alternative 3 are calculated based on the future land use listed in Table 4.2-3 and TOD reductions listed in Table 4.2-2. Table 4.2-4 lists the life -cycle GHG emissions increases caused by future development in the study area under each alternative. Future development increases the study area under Alternative 3 are balanced against corresponding non- TOD regional growth outside the study area under Alternative 1. Because Alternative 3 would provide the highest TOD in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea along NE Sunset Boulevard, it would provide the best regional GHG emissions reductions. As listed in Table 4.2-4, Alternative 3 Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.Z 11 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures represents a net reduction of 4,164 metric tons/year of regional GHG emissions. Compared to Alternative 1, the GHG emissions reductions would beneficially contribute to the state's goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008a). Current Washington State emissions are 93 million metric tons CO2 -equivalent per year, so the state's goal is equivalent to an emissions reduction of 47 million metric tons/year. The reduction in the study area under Alternative 3 would be a relatively small fraction of the statewide reduction goal. Regardless, the reduction would incrementally assist in achieving the statewide goal. Therefore, GHG impacts caused by increased development in the study area would not be significant. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under Alternative 3, the subarea is expected to experience the greatest population and employment growth among the three alternatives. Development under this alternative would result in the greatest increase in localized air pollutant emissions from construction and commercial activities and regional tailpipe emissions from vehicle travel. Regardless, the air quality impacts under Alternative 3 for the subarea would be the similar to those impacts (constriction emissions, commercial operations, outdoor air toxics, air quality attainment status) described under Alternative 1 above for the Planned Action Study Area. Impacts on indoor air quality would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 above for the subarea. Emissions from Vehicle Travel As shown in Table 4.2-5, the forecasted population and VMT for Alternative 3 are higher than the forecasted values for Alternative 1. The net increases in VMT forecast as a result of this alternative are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. Therefore, Alternative 3 would cause a negligible impact on regional air quality. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The annual GHG emissions for Alternative 3 are calculated based on the future land use listed in Table 4.2-6 for the subarea and TOD reduction listed in Table 4.2-2. Table 4.2-7 lists the life -cycle GHG emissions increases caused by future development in the subarea under each alternative. Future development increases in the subarea under Alternative 3 are balanced against corresponding non-TOD regional growth outside the subarea under Alternative 1. Because Alternative 3 would provide the highest TOD in the subarea, it would provide the best reduction in regional GHG emissions. As listed in Table 4.2-7, Alternative 3 represents a net reduction of 467 metric tons/year of regional GHG emissions. Compared to Alternative 1, the GHG emissions reductions would beneficially contribute to the state's goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008a). Therefore, GHG impacts caused by increased development in the subarea would not be significant. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-2-12 ICF 543.10 City of Renton 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures 4.2.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Construction Emission Control Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The City should require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the study area. The air quality control plans should include BMPs to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment. The following BMPs will he used to control fugitive dust. • Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways. • Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces. • Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets. • Cover soil piles when practical. • Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical. The following mitigation measures will be used to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by tailpipe emissions. Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. • Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. If there is heavy traffic during some periods of the day, scheduling haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) would have the least effect on traffic and would minimize indirect increases in traffic related emissions. Burning of slash or demolition debris will not be permitted without express approval from PSCAA. No slash burning is anticipated for any construction projects in the Planned Action Study Area, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Neither Ecology nor EPA is likely to adopt numerical GHG emissions standards, GHG reduction requirements, or numerical GHG significance thresholds in the near future. It is the City's responsibility to implement its GHG reduction requirements for new developments. To ensure TOD measures are incorporated into new development and to offer single -purpose uses opportunities to reduce emissions, the City could require or encourage future developers to implement additional trip -reduction measures and energy conservation measures that could provide even better GHG reduction. GHG emissions reductions could be provided by using prudent building design and construction methods to use recycled construction materials, reduce space heating and electricity usage, and reduce water consumption and waste generation. Table 4.2-8 lists a variety of mitigation measures that could reduce GHG emissions caused by transportation facilities, building construction, space heating, and electricity usage (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008b). The table lists potential GHG reduction measures and indicates where the emission reductions might occur. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.2-13 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The City could require development applicants to consider the reduction measures shown in Table 4.2-5 for their projects, and explain why other measures found in the table are not included or are not applicable. The City can incorporate potential GHG reduction measures through its goals, policies, or regulations, including the proposed Planned Action Ordinance. Table 4.2-8. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Reduction Measures Comments Site Design Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and buildings. purchased electricity, and enhances carbon sinks. Minimize building footprint. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption, materials used, maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction emissions. Design water efficient landscaping. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and upstream emissions from water management. Minimize energy use through building orientation. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Building Design and Operations Construct buildings according to City of Seattle energy The City of Seattle code is more stringent than the code. current City of Renton building code. Apply Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards (or equivalent) for design and operations. Purchase F,nergy 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. Maximize interior day lighting through floor plates, increased building perimeter and use of skylights, celestories, and light wells. 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. Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and reduces purchased electrical energy 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 rainwater. Reduces water consumption with its indirect upstream electricity requirements. Use recycled building materials and products. Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly reduces transportation of materials, encourages recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.2-14 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Reduction Measures Comments Use building materials that are extracted and/or manufactured within the region. Use rapidly renewable building materials. Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Reduces transportation of purchased materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased materials. Conduct third -party building commissioning to ensure Reduces fuel combustion and purchased 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 in travel, encouraging alternative modes such as parking supply through special permits or waivers. transit, walking, and biking. Reduces direct and indirect VMT. Develop and implement a marketing/information Reduces direct and indirect VMT. program that includes posting and distribution of rid esharing/transit information. Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips Reduces employee VMT. 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. Reduces employee VMT. Use traffic signalization and coordination to improve Reduces transportation emissions and VMT. traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety. Apply advanced technology systems and management Reduces emissions from transportation by strategies to improve operational efficiency of local minimizing idling and maximizing transportation streets. routes/systems for fuel efficiency. Develop shuttle systerns around business district Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and parking garages to reduce congestion and create indirect VMT. shorter commutes. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology 2008b VMT - vehicle miles travelled. 4.2.2.2 Potentia! Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Mitigation measures for air quality applied to the subarea are the same as described under the Planned Action Study Area above. In addition, the City and RHA could explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes. For example, grant programs such as the Breath Easy Homes program could provide funding to foster construction methods that reduce dust, mold, and air toxics concentrations in the homes, such as the following: • use of low-VOC building materials and coatings, • enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration, and • installation of dust -free floor materials and low -pile carpeting to reduce dust buildup. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.2 15 ICF 593.10 Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Meas Ures 4.2.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described above are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.2 16 ICF 593.14 Chapter4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Water Resources Because there are no known water resources within the Planned Action Study Area, this impact analysis focuses on potential impacts on the quality and quantity of water in off-site resources due to stormwater runoff and recharge from the Planned Action Study Area, including Johns Creek/Lake Washington, Honey Creek, May Creek, and the underlying groundwater aquifer. 4.3.1 Impacts Impacts on surface water and stormwater would result primarily from changes in the amount and quality of runoff from impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. Similarly, impacts on groundwater would result primarily from changes in the amount of recharge from the surface area due to the change in impervious surfaces and/or stormwater infrastructure. Under predeveloped conditions, native vegetation and surficial soils generally intercept and absorb rainfall. Typically, the majority of this rainfall infiltrates into permeable soils and recharges underlying aquifers with minimal surface runoff. Under typical developed conditions, vegetative cover and topsoil are disturbed or removed, and hard, impermeable surfaces are added. This results in reduced capacity of the land surface to absorb and infiltrate runoff, and increased runoff is generated. The increased rate and volume of runoff can create erosion and degrade habitat, carrying increased pollutants that have accumulated on impervious surfaces into downstream water bodies. Apart from a few vacant parcels, the study area is already developed with mixed residential and commercial land use with a high impervious surface coverage and runoff is conveyed via storm drains to surface waters outside of the study area. Runoff from much of the study area is conveyed via piped systems to Lake Washington Boulevard North at Houser Way North, and discharges into Johns Creek, which consists of a series of culverts and an open -channel section flowing north to Lake Washington. All alternatives would result in changes in impervious surface as the study area is redeveloped. In the absence of mitigation, the stormwater runoff volume and peak discharges would change as a result of this change in impervious surface. However, Lake Washington and Johns Creek at the point of discharge are considered flow -control -exempt water bodies and, therefore, are not significantly affected by changes in runoff volume. Changes to peak flows will be analyzed during development of the stormwater master plan, and infrastructure improvements necessary to meet the 25 -year design storm capacity per the conveyance standard will be incorporated into the master plan. Overall, peak flows will match existing conditions at the discharge points for the study area. Runoff from a small portion of the northern limits of the study area is conveyed via piped systems to Honey and May creeks. Changes in impervious coverage in this portion of the study area could result in a change in the runoff volume and peak discharges to these creeks. As development increases, the utilization and traffic within the study area would increase with additional residential units, commercial/retail space, and use of public facilities. The increase in vehicular traffic would result in an approximately proportional increase in many pollutants, particularly metals and hydrocarbons. Additionally, increased runoff of nutrients can result in reduced dissolved oxygen in receiving water bodies. Finally, increased residential population can increase the fecal coliform loading to an already degraded water body, Lake Washington and Johns Creek, downstream (at Gene Coulon Park). The sources of fecal coliform include avian, wildlife, human, and pet wastes, and other unknown sources {Herrera Environmental Consultants 20061. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.3 1 CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The improved water quality and quantity controls required by the stormwater code (RMC 4-6-030) for new developments and redevelopment projects over the required thresholds will help reduce the potential impacts of increased impervious area within the study area. Impacts on potential water quality are, therefore, evaluated based on the relative change in total pollution -generating impervious surfaces that would remain untreated (e.g., not redeveloped) as a result of anticipated growth and implementation of the stormwater code. impacts on downstream flow volumes and recharge are evaluated based on the total net change in effective impervious area (e.g., impervious area not managed by Flow -control BMPs) that would result based on anticipated growth and implementation of the stormwater code under each alternative. The spill control required by the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009) for the new development and redevelopment projects over the required thresholds will provide additional protection to the water quality downstream of the study area. Construction impacts on water resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #5 for Erosion and Sediment Control in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009) and the City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2010) and compliance with Ecology's NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land -disturbing activity. Impervious surface coverage for existing conditions was estimated from existing GIS and aerial imagery. Future impervious surface coverage for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, under the alternatives was estimated based on the conceptual site plans (Figures 2.9 and 2.10). For the remainder of the Planned Action Study Area, the estimated future impervious surface coverage under the alternatives was estimated by assuming that all infill and redevelopment projects would generally build to the maximum allowable impervious coverage as defined by the zoning. Similarly, the proportion of pollution -generating impervious surfaces (e.g., roadways, driveways, and parking) versus non -pollution -generating impervious surfaces (e.g., building roofs, sidewalks, and patios) was estimated from allowable building coverage by the code and typical recent development as measured through aerial imagery. All new and redeveloped parcels were assumed to trigger all stormwater code requirements for flow control and water quality, which would result in water quality treatment of all pollution -generating impervious surfaces. Due to the density of the study area, flow -control BMPs assume that full infiltration or dispersion of impervious surfaces would be infeasible; however, the minimum percentages, based on site area, were assumed to be implemented. 4.3.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Estimates of land cover changes under the No Action Alternative are shown in Table 4.3-1 and described following the table. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement'3 2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Table 4.3-1. Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative Chapter 4. Ervironmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Total Total Total Total 'total Area Impervious Pervious PGISI llntreated Effective (acres) Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) PCIS' (acres) Impervious Planned Action Study 255.40 166.93 88.17 86.34 76.07 164,92 Area Potential Sunset Terrace 13.06 6.49 6.57 2.33 1.83 6.27 Redevelopment Subarea I Pollution -generating impervious area Table 4.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious Area PGISI Area Untreated PGIS1 Impervious Area Project Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Planned Action Study Area 5.76(6.5%) -6.97 (-7.9%) -12.49 (-14.1%) 3.75 (2.3%) Potential Sunset Terrace 1.76 (96.2%) 0.5(27.3%) 0(0%) 1.54 (32.6%) Redevelopment Subarea 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. 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 be 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 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 7.0 acres (7.9%) from existing conditions due to non -roadway -related projects. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 3.75 acres (2.3%) 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. This analysis assumes that all associated redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area would be required to comply with the stormwater requirements specified in RMC 4-6-030; therefore, no additional cumulative impacts are anticipated. Sunset Area Community Planner! Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 4.3 3 icF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The Edmonds -Glenwood site and the senior enriched housing and services on the northeast portions of the subarea would trigger compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water aeslgn Manual (King County 2009) and the City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2009), which would require flow control to match peak flows from the existing undeveloped site and provide enhance basic water quality treatment. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change in the total area of pollution generating surfaces remaining untreated. Presuming that the two projects cannot fully infiltrate or disperse runoff, the estimated change in effective impervious area would result in an increase of approximately 1.5 acres (33%) over existing conditions. 4.3.1.2 Alternative 2 Estimates of land cover changes under Alternative 2 are shown in Tables 4.3-3 and 4.3.4. Table 4.3-3. Land Cover Summary—Alternative 2 I Pollution -generating impervious area Total Total Total Total Total Effective Area Impervious Pervious PGISI Untreated Impervious Impervious Area (acres) Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) PGIS'(acres) (acres) Planned Action Study 255.40 168.13 87.27 79.01 48.01 162.12 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. Potential Sunset Terrace 13.06 6.61 6.45 1.96 0 5.29 Redevelopment Subarea I Pollution -generating impervious area Table 4.3-4. Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 2 Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious Area PG1St Area Untreated PCIS' Impervious Area Project Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Planned Action Study 6.96(7.9%) -14.3 (-16.2%) -40.54 (-45.8%) 0,95(0.6%) Area Potential Sunset Terrace 1.88 (102.7%) 0.13(7.1%) Redevelopment Subarea -1.83 (-100%) 0.56 (11.8%) .r 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. Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 2, new and redevelopment projects are anticipated at an increased growth rate over the No Action Alternative. 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 stormwater code. All redevelopment projects would still be required to provide flow -control BMPs to the minimum levels of site or impervious area, as required by the code, where feasible. NE Sunset Boulevard would be reconstructed largely within the existing right-of-way; however, accommodating some pedestrian and landscaping improvements would require up to 5 feet of acquisition. Under this alternative, the reconstructed roadway is assumed to result in no change in Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.3-4 December 2014 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures pollution -generating impervious surface or in a slight reduction. The project would require compliance with the code and would, therefore, likely include Low Impact Development (LID) practices, including bioretention planters, rain gardens within planted medians, increased street trees, and permeable sidewalks to provide water quality treatment. As the proposed roadway would decrease the total impervious footprint within the right-of-way, no additional flow control would be necessary. However, preliminary modeling of LID practices that are sized for water quality treatment indicates that they also provide some flow control that is roughly equivalent to a reduction of 10% of the tributary impervious area, that is, reducing the net resulting effective impervious area by 10%. Alternative 2 would also include construction of green connections within portions of the right-of- way. These projects would include retrofitting the edge of the roadways to add bioretention planters and replaced or improved sidewalks constructed of permeable pavement. The assumed design level for this analysis is to provide for water quality treatment of the full roadway surface within the green connection. It is assumed, based on preliminary sizing, that the implementation of these practices would replace all non -pollution -generating impervious surfaces with permeable concrete and up to 10% pollution -generating impervious surfaces (e.g., parking lanes) with bioretention planters or rain gardens. implementation of the green connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project under Alternative 2 is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7 acres of untreated pollution -generating impervious area and approximately 4.1 acres of effective impervious area. The impacts of increased runoff resulting from the increase in effect impervious area would be self mitigated by the required additional flow control by private developers. The effective reduction in recharge due to the slight increase in effective impervious area is considered to be insignificant. Considering the conservative assumptions in this analysis, the net effective impervious area could be further reduced through a decrease in actual impervious area on redevelopment projects or through increased implementation of flow -control BMPS due to suitable soils that exist within the north and south portions of the study area. 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 40.5 acres (46%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 1.0 acre (0.6%) from existing conditions. This analysis assumes that all associated redevelopment within the study area would be required to comply with the stormwater requirements specified in RMC 4-6-030, therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The redeveloped Sunset Terrace properties would include LID techniques, including pervious sidewalks, rain gardens, and cisterns, to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces. The assumed level of control under this analysis would provide water quality treatment of all pollution -generating impervious surfaces plus flow reduction from an area equivalent to 20/0 of the site impervious area, as required by the stormwater code for large sites with less than 65% impervious coverage. Under this alternative, all untreated pollution -generating impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.$3 acres of untreated pollution -generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in an increase of approximately 0.56 acre (12%) over existing conditions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.3-5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.3.1.3 Alternative 3 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation measures Estimates of land cover changes under Alternative 3 are shown in Tables 4.3-5 and 4.3-6 and described following the tables. Table 4.3-5. Land Cover Summary—Alternative 3 Total Total Total Total Total Effective Area Impervious Pervious PGISI Untreated Impervious (acres) Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) PCIS' (acres) (acres) Planned Action Study 255.40 169.92 85.48 76.40 48.01 162.44 Area Potential Sunset Terrace 13.06 7.04 6.02 2.43 0 4.22 Redevelopment Subarea I Pollution -generating impervious area Table 4.3-6. Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 3 Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGISi Area Untreated PGIS' Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Planned Action Study Area 8.75(9.9%) -16.91 (-19.1%) -40.54 (45.8%) 1.26(0.8%) Potential Sunset Terrace 2.31 (126.2%) 0.6(32.8%) -1.83 (-100%) -0.51 (-10.7%) Redevelopment Subarea 1 Pollution -generating impervious area 2 Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. s 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 Alternative 3, new and redevelopment projects are anticipated at an increased growth rate over the No Action Alternative. Although the overall anticipated growth pattern for Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, the number of redeveloped properties is assumed to be greater. This greater growth increase would likely result in larger roof areas as compared to Alternative 2 but with a potential reduction in total surface parking as a result of a shift to structured parking to accommodate parking needs with the reduced available space, particularly within the areas zoned Center Village (CV). All new and redevelopment projects would be required to provide "enhanced basic water quality treatment" or "basic water quality treatment," if single family, per the stormwater code. All redevelopment projects would still be required to provide flow -control BMPs to the minimum levels of site or impervious area as required by the code, where feasible. NE Sunset Boulevard would be reconstructed with potential additional right-of-way of up to 13 feet. Under this alternative, the reconstructed roadway is still assumed to result in no change in pollution -generating impervious surface or in a slight reduction. The project would require compliance with the code and would, therefore, likely include LID practices, including bioretention planters, rain gardens within planted medians, increased street trees and permeable sidewalks to provide water quality treatment. As the proposed roadway would decrease the total impervious footprint within the right-of-way, no additional flow control would be necessary. However, due to the increased available area under this alternative, the extent of LID practices within the NE Sunset Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Boulevard right-of-way is assumed to increase to a level that would provide double the flow reduction of Alternative 2 or equal to an effective reduction of 20% of the impervious area. Alternative 3 would also include construction of green connections within portions of the right-of- way. These projects would include retrofitting the edge of the roadways to add a combination of bioretention planters, permeable pavement parking stalls, and replaced or improved sidewalks constructed of permeable pavement. The assumed design level for this analysis is to provide for water quality treatment of the full roadway surface as well as flow reduction equal to a 20% reduction in the flow from the tributary impervious area. It is assumed that the implementation of these practices would result in an effective 24 -foot -width travel way that would remain pollution - generating impervious surfaces with the remaining right-of-way area occupied with permeable pavements (e.g., parking lanes), bioretention planters or rain gardens, landscaped planters and trees, and permeable sidewalks. Implementation of the green connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project under Alternative 3 is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7 acres of untreated pollution -generating impervious area (similar to Alternative 2) and approximately 6.6 acres of effective impervious area. The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40.5 acres (46%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 1.3 acres (0.8%) from existing conditions. Under Alternative 3, the City proposes to invest in the public stormwater infrastructure by constructing regional stormwater facilities within publicly owned space (Figure 4.3-1). These facilities would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space through distribution of small integrated rain gardens in parks or other passive open space or constructing underground infiltration facilities beneath open space areas or parking lots on publicly own property. Another approach may include public-private partnership opportunities whereby the City implements or reimburses private developments (e.g., large parking lots) to retrofit existing impervious surfaces or implement flow - control BMPs beyond code requirements to meet the target deficit in net effective impervious area (Figure 4.3-2). Again, the City may share the cost burden for the additional off-site mitigation with private developers through a fee system or may obtain grants to build the infrastructure as an economic development strategy. These measures that are included in Alternative 3 would be self - mitigating for the minor impacts due to the slight increase in effective impervious area estimated through this analysis. This analysis assumes that all associated redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area would be required to comply with the stormwater code; therefore, no additional cumulative impacts are anticipated. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.3-7 ICF 593.10 City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Parcels Potential Regional Stormwater Facilities Green Connections Drainage Facility Sub -Basins 16TH ST EDMONDS HARRINGTON NA - HONEY NA -JOHNS NA - MAY SUNSET TERRACE N A C 560 1.000 Feet • a Source: City of Rento n; King County 3 t:111111111111- INTERNATIONAL NA - MAY NA - HONEY 16TH ST I� NA - JOHNS HARRINGTON N SUNSET TERRACE N HARRIN NSET TERRACE S ONDS Figure 4.3-1 Potential Regional Stormwater Facilities and Green Connections Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City Limits Q Planned Action Study Area Public -Private Partnership Parcels N A 0 560 1,660 Feel W a NE 21ST ST NE 20TH ST NE 19TH ST NE 18TH ST IM W z a a CIO a m W z W a 2 NE 9TH PL h z O NE 9TH ST W z D Ui a NE 14TH ST NE 8rN Sr NE 13TH PL v NE 13TH ST W z x w Gw d H Q W z W a UjQ LU w D0 S NE pA a w z z w W S� W 0 cc NE 17TH ST W m a Q NE LOTH ST NE 10TH PL Z NE 14TH ST LUa 0 2 NE 9TH PL h NE 9TH ST W z NE STH PL Ui a z NE 8rN Sr z v g IVE 6rk PL 7YE 67110711 Source: City of Renton; King County z NE 21ST ST NE 12TH ST 2 yJ�y�, jorys T W W z w z W z °C a � u o a Q O 0 0 z z W W 1L W Z UA a z z 0 xLIJ C7 p 7E z Nta�HS� z D b C I'M z r m M z NE 21ST ST LUa 0 O z z g x Gw x W z W a UjQ 1M m S NE 17TH PL a w z S� W W NE 17TH ST z Q NE LOTH ST W a y� a NE 15TH ST x NE 9TH ST W z W z Uj LU NE 15TH PL ton 4 z z a z NE 14TH ST iu _. LL LIJ W NE13�NSt z 0 E NE 12TH ST 2 yJ�y�, jorys T W W z w z W z °C a � u o a Q O 0 0 z z W W 1L W Z UA a z z 0 xLIJ C7 p 7E z Nta�HS� z D b C I'M z r m M z LUa 0 NE 11TH PL z NE 11TH ST NE 10TH PL W z UjQ a a w z � � W W z Q NE LOTH ST W a y� a O0 x NE 9TH ST z z J NE 8TH ST'. NE 7TH ST NE 7TH PL sonnowr ICF Figure 4.3-2 Potential Parcels for Public -Private Partnerships INTtANA11ONFL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The redeveloped Sunset Terrace properties would include LID techniques, including pervious sidewalks, rain gardens, and cisterns, to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces. The assumed level of control under this analysis would provide water quality treatment of all pollution -generating impervious surfaces plus flow reduction from an area equivalent to 40% of the site impervious area, twice as much as required by the stormwater code for large site with less than 65% impervious coverage. Under this alternative all untreated pollution -generating impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution - generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11%) compared to existing conditions. 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures 4.3.2.1 Planned Action Study Area All of the alternatives would involve redevelopment and reduction of existing pollution -generating impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, per the requirements of the stormwater code, the redeveloped properties would be required to provide water quality treatment for all remaining pollution -generating impervious surfaces. The net reduction in untreated pollution -generating impervious surfaces throughout the study area is, therefore, considered to result in a net benefit to surface water quality. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are proposed. Each of the alternatives would result in a slight increase in the effective impervious area of the Planned Action Study Area. Under the No Action Alternative, mitigation for increased impervious area would be provided through implementation of on-site flow control incrementally with the new and redevelopment projects. The new and some existing impervious surface will be mitigated as individual redevelopment occurs. Under Alternative 2, mitigation would be provided in advance of development through public infrastructure investments in the green connections or would be provided incrementally through the new developments and redevelopment projects. Conceptual design and planning of the green connections would be developed under a drainage master plan for the Planned Action Study Area and could be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the green connections in conjunction with additional improvements (e.g., frontage improvements associated with redevelopment, roadway or pedestrian improvements, utility infrastructure improvements). The extent and form of the green connections would be refined through the drainage master plan development and further design. At such a time as the green connections and other associated decreases in effective impervious area due to redevelopment of highly impervious parcels, mitigation responsibility would shift back to individual projects to provide on-site flow control, or additional public investment could be directed to restoring the mitigation. The total amount of impervious surface mitigated would increase as redevelopment occurs in the Planned Action Study Area. Under Alternative 3, mitigation would be provided in advance or incrementally through the self - mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater now control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �'� 10 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures retrofits. Similar to Alternative 2, conceptual design and planning of the public stormwater infrastructure would be developed under a drainage master plan for the Planned Action Study Area. It could be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the improvements. The extent and form of the public infrastructure projects would be refined through the drainage master plan development and further design. However, as opposed to Alternative 2, the goal under Alternative 3 would be to provide sufficient advance public infrastructure improvements to balance the anticipated increase in effective impervious area. This strategy would only require that future developments implement flow -control BMPs, but could eliminate on-site flow control through a development fee or similar funding structure to compensate for the off-site mitigation provided by the public infrastructure investment. Similar to Alternative 2, the total mitigated impervious surface mitigated would increase as redevelopment occurs in the study area. Since more redevelopment is expected under this alternative, more impervious surface will be mitigated compared to Alternative 2. If grant funding or City funding is not obtained to implement the green connections or regional stormwater flow -control facilities needed to provide required mitigation for stormwater quantity and quality impacts associated with the land use changes that will occur under Alternatives 2 and 3, then the stormwater mitigation will be implemented incrementally with the new and redevelopment projects. Phasing and funding are anticipated to be addressed in the Master Drainage Plan. 4.3.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea No additional mitigation measures are proposed for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The improvements under the action alternatives are anticipated to improve the quality of runoff and recharge water. Although Alternative 2 would result in a slight increase in net effective impervious area, the increase in effective impervious area would be mitigated by the additional public stormwater infrastructure improvements (green connections and NE Sunset Boulevard improvements) provided elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. The City may require cost - reimbursement from RHA to provide the off-site mitigation, or as a catalyst for economic development, the Sunset Terrace redevelopment may be considered to be exempt from reimbursement. Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in the net effective impervious area through the incorporation of flow -control BMPs such as permeable pavements, rain gardens, and cisterns. 4.3.3 Significant 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 action alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described under Section 4.3.2. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.3 11 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4,4 Plants and Animals 4.4.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. As noted in Section 3.4, there is very little potential plant or wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area, and public data sources have not identified any use of the Planned Action Study Area by sensitive fish, wildlife, or plant species. There is no aquatic habitat in the study area, but stormwater generated from the northernmost portions of the Planned Action Study Area would be routed to May and Honey creeks, which support salmon and steelhead; thus, there is a potential for all alternatives to affect these protected fish species. Stormwater generated from the remainder of the Planned Action Study Area would be conveyed by the City stormwater system to Johns Creek, which is primarily culverted and contains no aquatic species of concern. 4.4.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 1 (No Action) would have a small effect on plant or wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area given the already developed character and little vegetation. Alternative 1 assumes that about 16% of the 213 acres of study area parcels could infill or redevelop. These changes could result in a reduction in plant cover and a shift toward more intensive use of vegetated areas. As discussed in the water resources analysis (Section 4.3), redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area would be compliant with existing stormwater regulations that call for LID practices, such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping, which are likely to increase shrub and tree cover and thereby support slightly improved wildlife habitat function. Redevelopment would also be compliant with the Renton Urban and Community Forestry Redevelopment Plan (Worthy and Associates 2009). Although implementation of the plan (adopted 2009) is still in the early stages, it is foreseeable that it would ensure that redevelopment occurs in a manner compatible with urban forestry goals such as healthy urban forest vegetation, preserving public safety, planting tree species appropriate to site constraints, and meeting local wildlife needs. The expected small reduction in habitat combined with a small improvement in habitat quality is likely to result in no measurable change in the variety or population sizes of wildlife species occurring in the Planned Action Study Area. Besides these net changes, individual redevelopment projects would result in short-term loss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Because these impacts would be temporary and localized, and would not occur simultaneously across the Planned Action Study Area, their effects would be very minor. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4,4-1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Following construction, projects in the May and Honey creek watersheds would he required to comply with City regulations requiring all stormwater detention and treatment to he consistent with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County 2009). With this compliance, the projects would match the forested discharge duration for the discharge rates between 50% of the 2 -year peak flow through the 50 -year peak flow and match the 2 -year and 10 -year peak discharge assuming forested site conditions. Projects in the Planned Action Study Area would be required to comply with existing stormwater regulations that require "enhanced basic water quality treatment" or "basic water quality treatment," if single family, per the stormwater code. Compliance with these regulations would produce a decline in the area of untreated pollutant -generating impervious surface, resulting in beneficial effects on water quality. These protections are sufficient to ensure that redevelopment actions under Alternative 1 would not cause adverse impacts on fish and their habitat in the Planned Action Study Area or in waters receiving runoff from the Planned Action Study Area. An indirect impact on plants and wildlife would result due to the increased residential density within the Planned Action Study Area. This can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. These types of changes would not result in increased impacts on aquatic habitats and fish, beyond those discussed above. Redevelopment work of this kind often also results in an increase in the incidence of invasive plant species. This is not expected to occur under Alternative 1, because: 1) the Planned Action Study Area has negligible areas of ruderal vegetation, which are typically core habitat for invasive species in developed areas, and 2) the Planned Action Study Area has negligible areas of native vegetation cover types, which are vulnerable to colonization by invasive species. Rather, the entire area has actively managed vegetation (i.e., landscaping), a condition expected to persist in the future. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 1. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Potential impacts on plant and wildlife habitat in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be substantially the same as those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Since redevelopment would include current vacant lots and would include development of housing and a senior health facility, it is likely that a net loss of vegetation would occur, even if it were partially compensated by the construction of LID practices such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping. Nonetheless, in the absence of sensitive wildlife species, these effects would be very minor and would not be expected to substantially alter levels of diversity of plant and animal life now found in the subarea. Under Alternative 1, there would be no change in the total area of untreated pollutant -generating surfaces, and the estimated change in effective impervious area would result in an increase of approximately 33% over existing conditions. This represents a functional impairment relative to existing conditions. However, because all runoff from the subarea is conveyed to the City stormwater system, and would be subject to the same regulations described above for the Planned Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.4-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Ervironmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Action Study Area, the runoff increases would have no impact on aquatic habitat or sensitive fish species. No indirect or cumulative impacts have been identified in association with Sunset Terrace redevelopment under Alternative 1. 4.4.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment activities that would he facilitated under the planned action ordinance would have a limited effect on plant or wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area. Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This change would likely result in a proportional reduction in plant cover and a shift toward more intensive use of vegetated areas. However, redevelopment in the study area would use LID practices such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping measures. These approaches emphasize vegetation enhancement and, as currently practiced in the region, commonly result in a shift to vegetation that requires less watering and chemical (fertilizer/pesticide) application than typical landscaping, and which entails less grass with more trees and shrubs. These changes are likely to result in improved wildlife habitat function in the affected areas. Also, as under the No Action Alternative, redevelopment would be consistent with the goals of the Renton Urban and Community Forestry Redevelopment Plan (Worthy and Associates 2009). The net result is likely to be a measurable decline in total vegetated area, accompanied by a measurable improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. There would also be some restructuring of wildlife habitat continuity compared to Alternative 1. The green connections could enhance habitat connectivity, while areas of density increase would tend to fragment habitat. The net effect would be restricted to minor and local changes in habitat connectivity. Thus, effects on wildlife habitat would be less than significant. Besides these net changes, individual redevelopment projects would result in short-term loss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Because these impacts would be temporary and localized and would not occur simultaneously across the Planned Action Study Area, their effects would be very minor. Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Following construction, projects in the May and Honey creek watersheds would be required to comply with City regulations requiring all stormwater detention and treatment to be consistent with the 2009 King County stormwater manual. With this compliance, the projects would match the forested discharge duration for the discharge rates between 50% of the 2 -year peak flow through the 50 -year peak flow and match the 2 -year and 10 - year peak discharge assuming forested site conditions. Additionally, the stormwater commitments made under Alternative 2, summarized in Section 2.7.2.4, would result in a net reduction in untreated pollutant -generating impervious surface, with commensurate improvements in stormwater quality, as described in the water resources analysis (Section 4.3.1.2]. 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 Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.4 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Alternative 2 would result in an indirect impact on plants and wildlife by contributing to a substantial increase in the human population within the Planned Action Study Area (compared to Alternative 1, a 11% increase in number of dwelling units, and a 137% increase in number of jobs). This can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to road kill and predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. The stormwater commitments incorporated in Alternative 2, discussed above, would be sufficient to avoid indirect impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. The low potential for invasive plant species is the same under Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 2. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Potential impacts on plant and wildlife habitat in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be substantially the same as those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Since redevelopment would include a substantial density increase (77% dwelling unit increase relative to Alternative 1), a net loss of vegetation would occur, despite the compensating effects of installing LID practices such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping, and the proposed creation of community garden spaces within the subarea. Nonetheless, in view of the absence of sensitive wildlife species, these effects would not be expected to substantially alter levels of diversity of plant and animal life now found in the subarea. All runoff from the subarea is conveyed to the City stormwater system and is subject to existing regulation as described above. All but 0.13 acre of the pollutant -generating impervious surfaces in the subarea would be treated, representing a substantial improvement compared to existing conditions, under which the subarea has 1.88 acres of untreated pollutant -generating impervious surfaces. Thus, there would be no impact on aquatic habitat or sensitive fish species. An indirect impact on plants and wildlife would result due to the increased residential density within the subarea. This can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. The stormwater commitments incorporated in Alternative 2, discussed above, would be sufficient to avoid indirect impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with Sunset Terrace redevelopment under Alternative 2. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'4-q ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.4.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts on plants, wildlife and fish under Alternative 3 would be very similar to those described under Alternative 2, but would be substantially greater due to the greater projected density increase (68% dwelling unit increase relative to Alternative 1). The LID practices that would be implemented under Alternative 3 are substantially the same as those proposed under Alternative 2, so the increase in density would be expected to result in a proportional decrease in wildlife habitat. Also, as under the No Action Alternative, redevelopment would be consistent with the goals of the Renton Urban and Community Forestry Redevelopment Plan (Worthy and Associates 2009). The green connections could enhance wildlife habitat connectivity, but density increases would tend to reduce connectivity. 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 impacts on plants and wildlife would also be very similar to those described under Alternative 2, but again, the adverse impacts on plants and wildlife would be greater in proportion to the greater density proposed under Alternative 3. Largely due to the absence of impacts on special -status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant. As under Alternative 2, stormwater commitments proposed under Alternative 3, coupled with existing regulations, would be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 3. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Potential impacts on plant and wildlife habitat in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would he substantially the same as those described for Alternative 2. Since redevelopment would include a substantial density increase (compared to Alternative 1, a 173% increase in dwelling units and a 271% increase in jobs), a net loss of vegetation would occur, despite the compensating effects of installing LID practices such as rain gardens and hydraulically functional landscaping, and the proposed creation of community garden spaces within the subarea. Nonetheless, in the absence of sensitive wildlife species, these effects would not be expected to result in significant impacts on plants or wildlife. As under Alternative 2, runoff from the subarea is conveyed to the City stormwater system and is subject to existing regulation. All but 0.6 acre of pollutant -generating impervious surfaces in the subarea would be treated, representing a reduction of 1.83 acres in untreated pollutant -generating impervious surfaces. Thus, there would be no impact on aquatic habitat or sensitive fish species. Indirect effects on plants, wildlife, and fish would very similar to those described under Alternative 2, but the adverse impacts on plants and wildlife would be somewhat greater due to density -related effects. Again, largely due to the absence of impacts on special -status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.4 5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The stormwater commitments incorporated in Alternative 3 would be sufficient to avoid indirect impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. No cumulative impacts have been identified in association with activities that would be expected to occur in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 3. 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures 4.4.2.1 Planned Action Study Area With implementation of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. 4.4.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea With implementation of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. 4.4.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur under any alternative. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.4 6 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.5 Energy 4.5.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction impacts are addressed as well as long-term local energy use. In addition, indirect and cumulative impacts of the alternatives' contribution to regional energy use are addressed. 4.5.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action Alternative, new development and redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would be constructed to meet the state and City building and energy code requirements. Although the growth would result in increased energy demand in the study area and subarea, the utility service agencies have planned for future service demands, as required by state law. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Planned Action Study Area Under the No Action Alternative, the Planned Action Study Area would experience a low level of growth. Development under this alternative would lead to increases in population and employment throughout the study area and would increase energy consumption from construction activities, buildings, and vehicles. Construction Impacts During construction, energy would be consumed by demolition and reconstruction activities. These activities would include the manufacture of construction materials, transport of construction materials to and from the construction site, and operation of machinery during demolition and construction. Operation Impacts As the Planned Action Study Area continues to develop, new development and redevelopment would increase the number and density of housing units and commercial and service buildings in the study area compared to current conditions, which would increase the energy usage for household uses, commercial services, and vehicle travel. As described in Section 3.5, buildings would be constructed to meet building and energy code requirements. Similar to the GHG emissions impact discussed in the air quality analysis (Section 4.2), energy usage is expressed in terms of its increase between current conditions and future proposed land use conditions in the Planned Action Study Area. Alternative 1 (No Action) represents the future no - action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate the future energy usage from the action alternatives. The energy estimate for future conditions accounts for energy reductions expected as a result of TOD. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.5 1 ICF 593.14 City of Renton Energy Usage Calculation Methods Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Building energy use For projected future land use under the No Action Alternative is estimated using King County's GHG emissions worksheet (King County 2007), which, as listed in the Table 3.5-1, provides regional average energy usage by different types of land uses. In addition to building energy usage, vehicle energy usage is estimated from the projected population of the Planned Action Study Area, VMT per capita, and the fuel economy per vehicle. The average values used to calculate the future annual energy usage from vehicles are listed below. • Average daily VMT per capita in Puget Sound is 22.9 miles (Puget Sound Regional Council 2010). Future average fuel economy of a light-duty vehicle is 35 miles per gallon' (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009). • One gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 124,238 Btu. Future annual vehicle energy usage under the No Action Alternative is estimated to be 29.67 million Btu per capita. Transit -Oriented Development TOD is expected to reduce energy usage compared to traditional development by reducing vehicle trips and fuel usage. Within the Planned Action Study Area, high-density mixed-use developments and high-density multifamily developments along the NE Sunset Boulevard transit corridor, in the Sunset Mixed Use and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas, respectively, are considered TOD. The estimated percentage of emission reductions compared to future conditions without TOD (business as usual) are summarized in Table 4.2-2. [and Use Values for Energy Usage Calculations Similar to GHG emission calculations, Table 4.2-3 was used for calculating energy usage for each alternative. The values listed for each alternative represent the net increase compared to existing conditions. This analysis considered future land use growth in two geographic regions: 1) within the Planned Action Study Area and 2) within the Puget Sound region outside the study area. The proposed square footage in the study area would be higher for most land use categories under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2. Therefore, for purposes of comparing the beneficial reductions in regional energy usage, it is important to balance future growth outside the study area as well as within the study area. It was assumed that the lower amount of future developed square footage in the study area under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would he balanced by developers constructing equal square footage elsewhere in the Puget Sound region in response to assumed market demand for housing, office, and commercial space. Thus, the total amount of future additional regional square footage was balanced to the same values for all alternatives; however, under Alternatives 2 and 3, more of the TOD development would be inside the study area. Calculated Energy Usage For this analysis, Alternative 1 (No Action) represents the future no -action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate future energy usage from the action alternatives. The annual ' Based on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard for new light duty vehicles by year 2020. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �'S 2 ICF 593.10 City of Rentor Chapter 4. Ervironmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures energy usage for Alternative 1 is calculated based on the future land use and TOD reductions presented in Section 4.2. Table 4.5-1 summarizes the calculated study area energy usage for each alternative and presents the overall regional energy reduction for each alternative relative to Alternative 1. As listed in Table 4.5-1, expansion of TOD in study area would reduce energy usage. Table 4.5-1.Comparison of Annual Energy Usage—Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although population and development increases under Alternative 1 (No Action) in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be smaller than in the Planned Action Study Area, energy impacts would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area above. Under Alternative 1, redevelopment of the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) sites would increase the energy usage from the additional residences and buildings and associated vehicle trips. For this analysis, Alternative 1 represents the future no -action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate future energy usage from the action alternatives. The annual energy usage for Alternative 1 is calculated based on the future land use and TOD reductions presented in Section 4.2. Table 4.5-2 summarizes the calculated study area energy usage for each alternative and presents the overall regional energy reduction for each alternative relative to Alternative 1. As listed in Table 4.5-2, expansion of TOD in study area would reduce energy usage. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Envirormental Impact Statement 4'S 3 1CF 593.10 Annual Energy Usage Increase (million Btu) Energy Usage Estimates Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Annual building energy usage 70,483 116,260 184,500 Annual vehicle energy usage 31,180 39,804 91,029 Total annual energy usage for planned action study 101,663 156,063 275,529 area Regional growth outside planned action study area Annual building energy usage 133,304 78,649 0 Annual vehicle energy usage 69,755 58,156 0 Total annual energy usage for regional growth 203,509 136,806 0 Total annual energy usage increase for planned action 304,722 292,869 275,529 Study area plus regional growth Net change in regional annual energy usage compared 0 -11,853 -29,194 to Alternative 1 (No Action) Btu = British thermal unit Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although population and development increases under Alternative 1 (No Action) in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be smaller than in the Planned Action Study Area, energy impacts would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area above. Under Alternative 1, redevelopment of the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) sites would increase the energy usage from the additional residences and buildings and associated vehicle trips. For this analysis, Alternative 1 represents the future no -action scenario that is used as the basis of comparison to evaluate future energy usage from the action alternatives. The annual energy usage for Alternative 1 is calculated based on the future land use and TOD reductions presented in Section 4.2. Table 4.5-2 summarizes the calculated study area energy usage for each alternative and presents the overall regional energy reduction for each alternative relative to Alternative 1. As listed in Table 4.5-2, expansion of TOD in study area would reduce energy usage. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Envirormental Impact Statement 4'S 3 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Table 4.5-2.Comparison of Annual Energy Usage—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Annual Energy Usage Increase (million Btu) Energy Usage Estimates Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative.3 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Annual building energy usage 7,953 15,048 21,821 Annual vehicle energy usage 3,081 11,408 21,833 Total annual energy usage for subarea 11,034 26,457 43,654 Regional Growth Outside Subarea Annual building energy usage 15,409 7,525 0 Annual vehicle energy usage 20,835 11,583 0 Total annual energy usage for regional growth 36,245 19,108 0 Total annual energy usage increase for subarea 47,278 45,564 43,654 plus regional growth Net change in regional annual energy usage 0 -1,714 -3,624 compared to Alternative 1 (No Action) Btu = British thermal unit Although the growth would result in increased energy demand, new buildings would be constructed to meet the state and City building and energy code requirements, and the utility service agencies have planned for future service demands, as required by state law. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. 4.5.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Energy impacts due to construction and operation resulting from Alternative 2 would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 CNo Action) above for the Planned Action Study Area. Under Alternative 2, the Planned Action Study Area would experience a higher level of growth and development than under the No Action Alternative, and would undergo infrastructure and public service improvements, the resulting greater increases in population and employment throughout the study area would increase energy consumption. However, future development increases in the study area under Alternative 2 are balanced against corresponding non -TDD and lower -density development outside the study area under Alternative 1. Because Alternative 2 would provide more TOD and high-density development than Alternative 1 along NE Sunset Boulevard, in the Sunset Mixed Use and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas, it would reduce regional energy usage compared to Alternative 1. Table 4.5-1 summarizes the calculated study area energy usage for Alternative 2 and presents the overall regional energy reduction relative to Alternative 1. Although the growth would result in increased energy demand in the study area, the energy impact would not be significant for the following reasons. • More TOD and mixed-use development would reduce regional fuel usage from vehicle trips. Higher -density multifamily development would consume less energy per unit than a low-density housing unit, because of its smaller floor area per unit, and would, therefore, reduce regional housing energy. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.5 4 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Meawres New buildings would he constructed to meet the state and City building and energy code requirements, which are more energy efficient that old buildings. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Energy impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 1 (No Action) for the subarea. Under Alternative 3, energy usage for household uses and vehicle travel would be greater in the subarea as a result of the higher intensity of development, and additional energy usage would occur from the development of retail uses and more public service facilities. However, future development increases in the subarea under Alternative 2 are balanced against corresponding non-TOD and lower -density development outside the subarea under Alternative 1. Because Alternative 2 would provide more TOD and high-density housing development than Alternative 1 in the subarea, it would reduce regional energy usage compared to Alternative 1. Table 4.5-2 summarizes the calculated subarea energy usage for Alternative 2 and presents the overall regional energy reduction relative to Alternative 1. Although the growth would result in increased energy demand in the subarea, the energy impact would not be significant for the following reasons. More TOD and mixed-use development would reduce regional fuel usage from vehicle trips. The development of community services and limited neighborhood -scale retail uses in the subarea would provide convenient access to residents that could reduce vehicle trips to such services elsewhere and thereby reduce vehicle energy usage. Higher -density multifamily development would consume less energy per unit than a low-density housing unit, because of its smaller floor area per unit and would, therefore, reduce regional housing energy usage. New buildings would be constructed to meet the state and City building and energy code requirements, which are more energy efficient that old buildings. 4.5.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Energy impacts during construction and operation resulting from Alternative 3 would he similar to those described under Alternative 1 (No Action) above for the Planned Action Study Area, Under Alternative 3, the Planned Action Study Area would experience the most growth, development, and public service and infrastructure improvements. Development under this alternative would lead to the greatest increases in population and employment throughout the study area, resulting in the greatest increase in energy consumption. However, future development increases in the study area under Alternative 3 are balanced against corresponding non-TOD and lower -density development outside the study area under Alternative 1. Because Alternative 3 would provide the highest amount of TOD and high-density development along NE Sunset Boulevard, in the Sunset Mixed Use and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas, it would provide the largest regional energy usage reduction. Table 4.5-1 summarizes the calculated study area energy usage for Alternative 3 and presents the overall regional energy reduction relative to Alternative 1. Although the growth would result in increased energy demand in Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.5-5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures the study area, the energy impact would not be significant for the same reasons described under Alternative 2. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Energy impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 (No Action). Under Alternative 3, increased building and vehicle energy usage would be the highest in the subarea as a result of the highest number of housing units, public service facilities, and retail uses, and from the addition of commercial development. However, future development increases in the subarea under Alternative 3 are balanced against corresponding non-TOD and lower -density development outside the subarea under Alternative 1. Because Alternative 3 would provide the highest amount of TOD and high-density development in the subarea, it would provide the largest regional energy usage reduction. Table 4.5-1 summarizes the calculated subarea energy usage for Alternative 3 and presents the overall regional energy reduction relative to Alternative 1. Although the growth would result in increased energy demand in the subarea, the energy impact would not be significant for the same reasons described under Alternative 2. 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures 4.5.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Although the growth and development would result in increased energy demand in the Planned Action Study Area under all of the alternatives, as described in Section 4.5.1, expanding the beneficial TOD and high-density housing development within the study area would reduce regional energy usage. Therefore, all alternatives would provide a net benefit rather than adverse impact with regards to energy usage. However, to further reduce energy consumption, the City could require or encourage future developers to implement additional trip -reduction measures and energy conservation measures. As described in the Section 4.2, GHG emissions can be reduced through a variety of energy conservation measures. Table 4.2-8 lists a variety of mitigation measures that could reduce energy usage caused by transportation facilities, building construction, space heating, and electricity usage (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008b). The City could adopt more restrictive energy codes established by the City of Seattle (WAC 51-11, plus Seattle amendments) or the EPA (2010) Energy Star program and require future developments to be constructed with energy conservation measures shown in Table 4.2-8. According to the King County proposed GHG reduction regulation, the energy and GHG reductions can be achieved through implementation of the following energy conservation techniques or equivalent approaches. An energy reduction of 12% can be achieved by implementing sufficient strategies established by the Northwest Energy Star Homes program for multifamily residential buildings. The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010) is designed to help builders construct energy-efficient homes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to meet energy -efficiency guidelines set forth by the EPA. An energy reduction of 10% would comply with Seattle Energy Code for non-residential buildings. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 4.5-6 1CF 593.10 Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures 4.5.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In addition to the mitigation measures described above for the Planned Action Study Area, according to the King County proposed GHG reduction regulation, energy reductions can be provided with the implementation of the following basic requirements of the American Society of Heoting, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide for residential and non- residential building in the subarea: • 30% energy reduction for residential dwelling that are 50% of average size; and 15% energy reduction for residential dwelling that are 75% of average size; and • 12% energy reduction for office, school, retail, and public assembly buildings that are smaller than 100,000 square feet in floor area. 4.5.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Additional energy would be consumed and would contribute to increases in demand associated with the growth and development of the region. As described in the Utilities Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that existing and planned infrastructure of affected energy utilities could accommodate growth (City of Renton 2009). Energy conservation features would be incorporated into building design as required by the current City building codes. For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 45 7 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement . ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.6 Noise 4.6.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Ervironrnental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each geographic level, temporary construction noise impacts are addressed as well as long-term operational noise impacts of land use activities. in addition, the increase in noise from traffic is addressed as a cumulative impact including each alternative's contribution of vehicular trips to total trips on NE Sunset Boulevard. 4.6.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the Planned Action Study Area would experience growth, but to a lesser extent than under Alternatives 2 and 3. Development under this alternative would still lead to increases in population and employment throughout the study area and could increase ambient noise levels generated by construction activities, commercial facilities, and traffic. Construction Noise Development in the Planned Action Study Area would require demolition and construction activity, which would temporarily increase noise levels at residences close to the development site. Temporary daytime construction activity is exempt from the City noise ordinance limits. This type of activity could cause annoyance and speech interference at outdoor locations adjacent to the construction sites, and could cause discernible noise For several blocks away from the development site. Nighttime construction activity, if required at all, would be required to comply with the nighttime limits specified by the City noise ordinance, which are described in Section 3.6. Compliance with these limits would ensure this potential impact would not be significant. Noise from New Commercial Operations Land use development would mostly be concentrated in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and Sunset Mixed Use Subarea along NE Sunset Boulevard and would consist of a mix of high-density housing and retail, office, and commercial buildings. It is likely that new commercial development would occur near either current or future residences. Unless properly controlled, mechanical equipment (e.g., rooftop air conditioning units) and trucks at loading docks of office and retail buildings could cause ambient noise levels at nearby residences to exceed the City noise ordinance limits. Noise from Increased Traffic As described in Section 414, Transportation, future traffic volumes would increase under each alternative as a result of increased population and development in the Planned Action Study Area. For most residents adjacent to roadways, increased traffic would result in the greatest increase in ambient noise levels, caused by moving traffic and vehicles idling at intersections. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement -6 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Increased population and development could lead to the following types of events, which could result in future traffic noise impacts: • increases in traffic volumes along existing roadways, with resulting impacts on existing homes near the roadways; • increases in traffic volumes and traffic speeds caused by improvements to existing roads, with resulting impacts on existing homes near the roadways, widening of existing roadways, thereby moving traffic closer to existing homes near the roadways; construction of new roadways through lightly developed land; and • construction of new homes close to existing highways or arterials with high traffic volumes and high speed limits. Traffic noise typically exceeds the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement criteria for homes within 200 feet of a freeway or within 50 to 100 feet of an arterial roadway. The magnitude of the traffic noise impact near any given roadway would depend on the traffic volume, traffic speed, and number of lanes. For this assessment, traffic noise impacts caused by increased traffic on NE Sunset Boulevard were evaluated for existing homes and proposed developments, because it is a major arterial road in the study area. Peak -hour traffic volumes along NE Sunset Boulevard in the study area under the existing conditions and each alternative are listed in Table 4.6-1. Table 4.6-1. NE Sunset Boulevard Traffic Volumes in Planned Action Study Area Peak -Hour Traffic Volume Average Daily Traffic Volume Alternative (vehicles/hour) (vehicles/day) Existing (2009) 2,020 20,200 Alternative 1 (2030) 2,420 24,200 Alternative 2 (2030) 2,530 2S,300 Alternative 3 (2030) 2,660 26,600 The FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 was used to predict existing and future noise levels during the peak hour. The model was configured as follows for NE Sunset Boulevard within the Planned Action Study Area. 0 Medium trucks and heavy trucks' were assumed to represent 1.5% and 0.5% of traffic, respectively2. Traffic was assumed to operate at 35 miles per hour. • The surface between the roadway and nearby residences consists mainly of asphalt and packed soil. Therefore, the ground surface type was defined as "hard surface" for the model. ' The truck percentage is based on the existing traffic count data that the City provided for the project's traffic analysis, which show a general 2% for all trucks. 2 The model requires traffic information by motor vehicle (two -axle, four -tire vehicles), medium trucks (two -axle, six -tire vehicles), and heavy trucks (three or more axles). Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.6-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The analysis distance from the center of the road to existing homes was assumed to he 75 feet under existing conditions. Future distance between the center of the road and average allowable setbacks (for new developments) was assumed to he 60 feet3. The modeled peak -hour traffic noise increase (2030 noise levels compared to existing noise) caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is shown in Table4.6-2; the increase is less than the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) "substantial increase" impact threshold of 10 A -weighted decibels (dBA). Therefore, Alternative 1 would not affect typical residences along NE Sunset Boulevard. Table 4.6-2. Modeled Peak -Hour Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area Increased Noise Level from Outdoor Noise Level Existing Alternative Leq (dBA) Leq (dBA) Existing (2009) 67.4 — Alternative 1 (2030) 69.5 2.1 Alternative 2 (2030) 69.6 2.2 Alternative 3 (2030) 69.9 2.5 Leq = equivalent sound level; dBA = A -weighted decibel As shown in Table 4.6-2, the modeled peak -hour exterior noise levels for Alternative 1 are greater than 66 dBA, high enough to interfere with normal speech at outdoor use areas (e.g., exterior balconies) and cause excessive indoor noise levels for buildings adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard. Although traffic noise is exempt from the City noise ordinance, based on site-specific considerations, the City may at its discretion, require new development to install double -pane glass windows or other building insulation measures based on the City's adoption of the State Energy Code (RMC 4-5- 040). This could change if the City uses state or federal funding for future roadway widening on NE Sunset Boulevard, because WSDOT's 66-dBA impact criterion applies to exterior noise levels, regardless of the City's acoustical building code requirements. The City would be required to consider traffic noise abatement measures and to provide noise abatement if it were shown to be acoustically feasible and constructible at a reasonable cost. However, if the roadway improvements were constructed using only local funding, then the City would not be required to consider noise abatement. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although the increases in population and development in the subarea would be smaller than in the Planned Action Study Area, impacts on noise would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area above. Traffic noise impacts caused by increased traffic on NE Sunset Boulevard were evaluated for the existing housing development in the subarea using the HUD site noise level calculator (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2010a); under Alternative 1 the Sunset Terrace public housing community would not be redeveloped and only vacant properties further from NE 3 The 60 -foot distance is calculated based on the maximum front -yard setback of 15 feet of the Center Village (CV) zone plus the average right-of-way width of 90 Meet for NE Sunset Boulevard under future conditions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4"� 3 CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Sunset Boulevard would be developed. Average daily traffic volumes along NE Sunset Boulevard in the subarea for each alternative are listed in Table 4.6-1. HUD's site noise level calculator was configured as follows to predict future day -night noise levels at the first row buildings abutting NE Sunset Boulevard in the subarea. • Medium trucks and heavy trucks were assumed to represent 1.5% and 0.5% of traffic, respectively. • Traffic was assumed to operate at 35 miles per hour. • Night fraction of average daily traffic was assumed to be 15% for all types of vehicles based on the HUD noise model default value. • Road gradient was assumed to be 2% based on the HUD default value. • The analysis distance from the center of the road to the existing homes is assumed to be 75 feet under the existing conditions. Future distance between the center of the road and average allowable setbacks (for new developments) is assumed to be 60 feet • The analysis distance from the center of the road to the existing and proposed homes was assumed to be 60 feet for Alternative 1, based on existing conditions. For Alternatives 2 and 3, the analysis distance from the center of the road to the existing and proposed homes is assumed to be 70 feet west of Harrington Avenue NE and 50 feet east of Harrington Avenue NE, based on conceptual site plans show in Figures 2-9 and 2-10. Table 4.6-3 shows the estimated day -night noise levels from NE Sunset Boulevard at the adjacent buildings and indicates that they would be exposed to "normally unacceptable" noise levels exceeding HUD's outdoor day -night noise criterion of 65 dBA day -night level (Ldn). The noise levels at these first row residences also currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed it under Alternative 1. Table 4.6-3. Modeled Day -Night Noise Levels of NE Sunset Boulevard in Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Outdoor Noise Level Outdoor Noise Level West of Harrington Avenue NE East of Harrington Avenue NE Alternative Ldn (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Existing (2009) 68.1 68.1 Alternative 1 (2030) 68.9 6B.9 Alternative 2 (2030) 68.0 70.2 Alternative 3 (2030) 68.3 70.4 Ldn = day -night noise level, dBA = A -weighted decibel 4.6.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 21 the Planned Action Study Area is expected to experience greater population and employment growth than under Alternative 1. Development under this alternative would result in greater noise impacts from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets. Regardless, noise impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, above, for the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Adfon December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4-fi 4 ICE 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures As shown in Table 4.6-1, the forecasted traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard for Alternative 2 are slightly higher than the forecasted values for Alternative 1, which would result in a slightly higher peak -hour noise level at adjacent }tomes. However, as shown in Table 4.6-2, the modeled peak -hour traffic noise increase (2030 noise levels compared to existing noise) is less than WSDOT's "substantial increase" impact threshold of 10 dBA. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not affect typical residences along NE Sunset Boulevard. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under Alternative 2, this subarea is expected to experience greater population and employment growth than under Alternative 1. Development under this alternative would result in greater noise impacts from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard. Regardless, the noise impacts under Alternative 2 for the subarea would be similar to those impacts described for the subarea under Alternative 1. As shown in Table 4.6-1, the forecasted daily traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard for Alternative 2 are slightly higher than the forecasted values for Alternative 1; this would generate slightly higher day -night noise levels at adjacent residences in the subarea. However, on the west side of Harrington Avenue NE, the proposed residential buildings would be farther from NE Sunset Boulevard than existing conditions; therefore, the estimated day -night noise level at these residences is slightly lower than the noise levels for Alternative 1. Regardless, as shown in Table 4.6- 3, the first row residential dwellings in Figure 2-9 abutting NE Sunset Boulevard would be exposed to "normally unacceptable" noise levels, based on HUD criterion of 6S dBA Ldn. The noise levels at these first row residential dwellings also currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed it under Alternative 2. 4.6.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 3, the Planned Action Study Area is expected to experience the greatest population and employment growth among the three alternatives. Development under this alternative would result in the greatest noise increase from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets. Regardless, noise impacts resulting from Alternative 3 would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 for the Planned Action Study Area. As shown in Table 4.6-1, Alternative 3 would generate the highest traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard, resulting in the highest peak -hour noise level at adjacent homes. However, as shown in Table 4.6-2, the modeled peak -hour traffic noise increase (2030 noise levels compared to existing noise) is less than WSDOT's "substantial increase" impact threshold of 10 dBA. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not affect typical residences along NE Sunset Boulevard, Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under Alternative 3, the subarea is expected to experience the greatest population and employment growth among the three alternatives. Development under this alternative would result in the greatest noise increase from construction activities, commercial activities, and vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard. Regardless, the air quality impacts under Alternative 3 for the subarea would be the similar to those described under Alternative 1 above for the subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.6-5 ICF 59310 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and mitigation Measures As shown in Table 4.6-1, Alternative 3 would generate the highest daily traffic volumes on NE Sunset Boulevard, which would result in the highest day -night noise level at adjacent residences in the subarea. However, on the west side of Harrington Avenue NE, the proposed residential buildings would be farther from NE Sunset Boulevard than the existing conditions; therefore, the estimated day -night noise level at these residences is slightly lower than under Alternative 1. Regardless, as shown in Table 4.6-3, the first row residential dwellings abutting NE Sunset Boulevard in Figure 2- 10 would be exposed to "normally unacceptable" noise levels, based on HUD criterion of 65 dBA Ldn. The noise levels at these first row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed it under Alternative 3. 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures 4.6.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Construction Noise Abatement If nighttime construction operations are required, then noise abatement will be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure that noise levels at the nearest residences are within the City's nighttime noise limits. According to the City noise ordinance (discussed in Section 3.6.2), temporary daytime construction activities are exempt. Regardless, based on site-specific considerations at the time of construction permit review, the City may at its discretion require all construction contractors to implement noise control plans for construction activities in the study area for daytime activities. Construction noise could be reduced by using enclosures or walls to surround noisy stationary equipment, installing mufflers on engines, substituting quieter equipment or construction methods, minimizing time of operation, and locating equipment as far as practical from sensitive receivers. To reduce construction noise at nearby receivers, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications. • Locate stationary equipment away from receiving properties. • Erect portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near sensitive receivers. • Limit construction activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to avoid sensitive nighttime hours. • Turn off idling construction equipment. • Require contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment. • Train construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement) near noise -sensitive areas. New Commercial Operation Noise The City may require all prospective future developers to use low -noise mechanical equipment adequate to ensure compliance with the City's daytime and nighttime noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City may require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control measures. Compliance with the noise ordinance would ensure this potential impact would not be significant. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.6-6 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Traffic Noise Mitigation Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 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 (4-5-040). 4.6.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Mitigation measures described above for the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this subarea. In addition, outdoor noise levels at the residential dwellings abutting NE Sunset Boulevard are expected to exceed HUD's noise criterion of 65 dBA Ldn under all alternatives. Therefore, mitigation measures determined feasible will be required to reduce traffic noise from NE Sunset Boulevard so that day -night sound levels at outdoor use locations and inside residences in the subarea would be within the levels considered "acceptable" by HUD or would otherwise meet HUD requirements for attenuation. The following options of mitigation measures were considered for the subarea. Noise Barrier Noise barriers could be designed to reduce traffic noise from NE Sunset Boulevard at residences west of Harrington Avenue NE. To provide the maximum outdoor use area between NE Sunset Boulevard and the residences, the noise harrier could be installed along the NE Sunset Boulevard right-of-way. Table 4.6-4 shows the estimated day -night noise with an 8 -foot -tall noise barrier for all alternatives. The 8 -foot -tall barrier provides just enough noise reduction at ground -level locations to meet the HUD outdoor noise criterion of 65 dBA Ldn and the minimum noise reduction requirement of 5 dBA Ldn. The noise reduction is estimated using HUD's barrier performance module (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2010h) by assuming flat terrain4 between the roadway and the receivers. Because the elevation of this portion of the subarea is between about 3 and 10 feet higher than NE Sunset Boulevard, the noise barrier along the NE Sunset Boulevard right-of-way will need to be between at least 11 and 18 feet tall for the outdoor use area and ground -floor residential units to meet the HUD acceptability criterion. 4 HUD's site noise level calculator does not include inputs to account for terrain. Therefore, although the subarea is higher than NE Sunset Boulevard, for comparison purposed, terrain is also not accounted when using HUD's barrier performance module to evaluate the effects of a noise barrier. Based on the FHWA TNM analysis, the average noise level with terrain is only less than 1 dBA quieter than the average noise level without terrain. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Fnvironmental Impact Statement 4'6 7 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Table 4.6-4. Modeled Day -Night Noise Levels in Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with Noise Barrier Outdoor Noise Level with 8 -Foot - Tall Barrier West of Harrington Avenue NE Noise Reduction with Barrier Alternative Ldn (dBA) Ldn (dBA) Alternative 1 (2030) 63.3 5.6 Alternative 2 (2030) 62.6 5.4 Alternative 3 (2030) 62.8 5.4 Ldn = day -night noise level; dBA = A -weighted decibel The noise barrier would create conflicts with the project goals and objectives as described in the Chapter 2, with security and maintenance of the site, and with other environmental values (i.e., aesthetics). Noise barriers along the perimeter of the site would create substantial physical, psychological, and social barriers, which could reinforce the historical separation of the site from the surrounding community. Such a result would conflict with the explicit goals of the subarea to maximize its visibility and location as the heart of the Sunset Area Community. Noise barriers would create security issues by blocking views between the subarea and the street. Blocking the community's "eyes on the street" could compromise residents' sense of safety. Noise barriers would also create places to hide. Even the most well-designed noise barriers are not commonly perceived to be attractive. The location of barriers along NE Sunset Boulevard would present a strong visual image to the neighborhood, one that would conflict with the aesthetic values incorporated into the design of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment. In urban areas, solid walls are also frequent targets of graffiti; such vandalism could create an ongoing eyesore and/or maintenance burden for RHA. Because of these numerous conflicts, it is appropriate to consider balancing achievement of the noise criterion with other planning, environmental, and social goals, as permitted by HUD's noise rules (24 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 51.105). Furthermore, such barriers would not reduce noise levels at the upper level dwellings in these buildings, so traffic noise levels would still exceed the HUD acceptability criterion at these residences. Noise barriers would not be feasible for mixed-use buildings and the community service building planned at the intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard and the portion east of Harrington Avenue NE, because the barriers would restrict access to these buildings and conflict the project goals and objectives. Acoustical Construction Technique For the affected upper-level residential units and locations where noise barriers are not feasible, acoustical construction techniques and materials should be incorporated into building designs to reduce noise impacts for interior uses. To meet the HUD interior noise criterion of 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses, it will be necessary to provide 23 to 26 dBA of reduction in projected exterior noise levels to achieve 45 dBA Ldn in the interior. Normal construction materials and techniques can provide between about 15 and 25 dBA reductions in exterior to interior sound levels if there are no openings like windows, doors, or ventilation ports on the noise -affected sides of the buildings. Open windows reduce the sound -blocking properties of a wall by at least 50%. Thus, it will be necessary Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.6-8 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 553.10 City of Renton Ch3pter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures to employ special designs, materials, and construction techniques to insure that interior noise levels in the residences fronting on NE Sunset Boulevard comply with the HUD suitability criterion. Based on building code construction requirements, indoor sound levels in most of the subarea would likely he reduced to the point they would not exceed the HUD suitability criterion. However, in areas fronting NE Sunset Boulevard, additional noise reduction using special building techniques and materials will he necessary. A variety of methods and materials could be used to provide the required noise reduction. Construction techniques that could ensue that noise levels inside these units remain below the HUD criterion include, but are not limited: • building wall designs that include dense sheeting materials, • tightly sealed acoustic windows and doors to limit sound penetration, and sound -absorbing insulation material for the west and south side of units adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard. Specially designed ventilation ports or ducts, and/or some form of active mechanical ventilation system, so that it would not be necessary to open windows or doors to provide ventilation, could also be considered. Although HUD considers the use of acoustical construction techniques without also taking steps to reduce outdoor sound levels as the least desirable mitigation option, protecting interior levels to provide a suitable indoor living environment is the most important aspect of the HUD noise control program. Both Noise Barrier and Acoustical Construction Technique To optimize the noise mitigation result, noise barriers should be considered, where feasible, to reduce noise levels at affected outdoor use areas and the affected ground -floor residential units fronting NE Sunset Boulevard, and acoustical construction techniques should be applied to other affected residential uses that cannot be mitigated by noise barriers. Site Design Site design approaches that could reduce potential noise impacts include the following. Park and open space uses are concentrated away from NE Sunset Boulevard. However, a plaza and setback areas remain adjacent to the roadway. Planned uses of the plaza and setbacks should not include activities that require easily understood conversation {e.g., instructional classes) or other uses where quiet conditions are required for the primary function of the activity. The City and RHA could allow for balconies on exterior -facing units only if they do not open to a bedroom. The City and RHA could reorient publicly funded residential dwellings to locations away from NE Sunset Boulevard. However, care would he needed to ensure that site design measures do not concentrate low-income residents into one area of the site. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'�_g ICF 593.10 City of Renton Other Measures Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The City could consider the exception at 24 CFR 51.105 to approve raising the allowable exterior noise threshold from 65dB to 70dB. This is allowed for proposals that meet goals such as providing housing in proximity to employment, public facilities, and transportation and that maintain the character of the neighborhood. 4.6.3 Significant 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 above. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT "substantial increase" impact threshold. Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed normally unacceptable under the HUD noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the adjacent street {NE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated in this subarea, if the noise control measures noted above are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria. Sunset Area Community Planned Actian December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.6 10 1CF 593.10 City of Renton 4.7 Environmental Health 4.7.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. While all of the impacts listed below could occur during construction and Operation of the project, elements included under each alternative being evaluated would need to be addressed at a project -specific level through permitting and demonstrate compliance with federal, state, and local laws that address hazardous materials (see Section 3.7). The relative impacts listed below are based on general anticipated areas of construction, along with general land use development type and proximity to sites identified in the regulatory agency database search (also see Section 3.7). The hazardous material sites identified in the regulatory agency database search are not expected to affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of future developments. 4.7.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action The low level of redevelopment under this alternative would translate into a low potential for releasing hazardous materials into the environment during construction and operation. Construction and operation impacts would be similar to other projects with similar level of development, as described below. Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts Potential construction impacts under this alternative include releasing existing contaminants to the environment by ground -disturbing or dewatering activities, encountering underground storage tanks (USTs) or leaking USTs, generating hazardous building materials that require special disposal, and accidentally releasing hazardous substances. Hazardous sites in the Planned Action Study Area (identified on Figure 3.7-1 and discussed in Section 3.7)—those that generated hazardous wastes, operated businesses that have higher potential for having previous releases that may not have been discovered, or have a documented release—could contain petroleum -contaminated soil and groundwater that would be encountered during ground penetration activities. Other contaminants associated with fuels, such as volatile organic compounds, if not managed properly in accordance with existing regulations, could have an impact on human health and ecological receptors. USTs generally contain petroleum products or residues of such products, which might in some cases have contaminated nearby soil or groundwater. Even where USTs have been cleaned up and/or removed, residual contamination could possibly be encountered when the site is disturbed during construction. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.7 1 ICF 59110 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures During demolition, hazardous building materials such as lead-based paint and asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) could be encountered. If this material is not managed properly in accordance with existing regulations, a potential impact on human health and ecological receptors could occur. In addition, some buildings could have old fluorescent lighting that contains mercury or ballasts that contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If not managed properly to avoid damage and disposed of in accordance with existing regulations, these materials could release contaminants to the environment. If electrical utility poles or transformers are relocated during construction, transformer fluid containing PCBs or other dielectric fluid could be released. Any development project has the potential for accidental release of a hazardous substance (e.g., fuels and oils needed for heavy equipment operation and maintenance) during construction. Cleaning the spilled material and disposing of wastes from the clean-up, including contaminated soil, could add additional time and costs to construction operations. Large spills of hazardous materials during construction could also require emergency response agency intervention. Demolition and construction would disturb the land surface, potentially causing soil and other materials to contaminate stormwater and be carried in stormwater away from the site. Compliance with the construction stormwater permit required by Ecology and the associated stormwater BMPs would minimize the impact of construction on stormwater. Operational Impacts 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. In addition, acquiring an easement or title to properties with potential environmental contamination could create significant long-term environmental liability or management concerns. Longer-term environmental liabilities might include financial responsibility for cleaning on-site contamination or for remediation activities necessitated by off-site migration of hazardous substances. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts No observable indirect or cumulative impacts have been identified under the No Action Alternative because of the low level of development proposed. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In this subarea, the RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties and eliminate one duplex, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Existing subsurface contaminations have not been identified on the vacant properties and, therefore, are not expected to be encountered during construction. Hazardous building materials such as lead-based paint and ACMs would not be generated from the demolition of the existing Sunset Terrace buildings. If there are lead based paints or ACMs at the duplex, appropriate permits and precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects. No operational, indirect, or cumulative impacts have been identified under the No Action Alternative because of the low level of development proposed. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement 4'� 2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.7.1.2 Alternative 2 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts under Alternative 2 would he the same as those described for the No Action Alternative; however, because of the moderate level of growth and redevelopment under this alternative, the potential that these impacts would occur is considered higher relative to the No Action Alternative. Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts The primary potential construction impact under Alternative 2 is encountering or releasing hazardous substances into the environment during construction, as described for Alternative 1. With increasing level of development, the likelihood of encountering substances at sites with past releases increases. Contamination from hazardous building materials, USTs, and PCBs would also increase due to increased demolition activities. Accidental releases of hazardous substances as a result of construction activities could also increase. Operation Impacts As described under Alternative 1, 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. In addition, acquiring an easement or title to properties with potential environmental contamination could create significant long-term environmental liability or management concerns. Longer-term environmental liabilities might include financial responsibility for cleaning on-site contamination or for remediation activities necessitated by off-site migration of hazardous substances. The potential for hazardous material releases could also increase relative to Alternative 1 because of the increased level of commercial development and roadway/transit improvements. Increased commercial development, such as addition of new fuel stations or dry cleaners, could increase the potential for release of hazardous substances into the environment as a result of accidental spills during transport and operation of these facilities. In addition, hazardous substances, such as oil and other lubricants, are used or transported during routine operation and maintenance of transit facilities or roadways. With increased level of development, increased traffic is expected. If an accident occurs, then these substances could be released to the environment in the form of spills. All other things being equal, the risk of a spill occurring is proportional to the vehicle miles traveled. Thus, an increase in traffic as a result of roadway and/or transit improvements would increase the risk of incidental spills of hazardous materials. Indirect Impacts The removal of contaminated groundwater, hazardous building materials, or USTs would result in an overall cleaner environment and reduced risk to human health and the environment. By removing contaminated groundwater and USTs from hazardous materials sites, the potential for the contaminants to migrate to an otherwise uncontaminated area is reduced and the potential for the hazardous materials to harm human health and the environment is also reduced. This beneficial effect would he observed in the immediate vicinity of the area where contaminated media is present and removed as a result of redevelopment. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4 3 ICF 543.10 City of Renton Cumulative Impacts Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures As development occurs within the Planned Study Area and the surrounding region, the population and activity level will rise and the number of people exposed to hazards related to the transport of hazardous materials will increase. However, the incremental impact of the project is so small it would make only a negligible contribution to the cumulative impact within the region. Enforcement of federal, state, county, and local hazardous material regulations will reduce public health hazards to a less -than -significant level. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Impacts [None of the sites with identified use or documented releases of hazardous substances are present within this subarea. Therefore, the potential to encounter uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances in the environment during construction is relatively low. Contamination from hazardous building materials, USTs, and PCBs during demolition activities, and accidental spills during construction would be the same as described for the Planned Action Study Area. Operational Impacts No operation impacts have been identified because none of the sites with identified use or documented releases of hazardous substances are present within this subarea. Therefore, the potential for acquiring long-term environmental liability or management concerns are low. Indirect Impacts The removal of hazardous building materials or USTs would result in an overall cleaner environment and reduced risk to human health and the environment. Cumulative Impacts The hazardous materials impact of the potential development in the subarea is so small it would matte only a negligible contribution to the cumulative impact within the region. 4.7.1.3 Alternative 3 Impacts under Alternative 3 would be the same as those described for Alternative 2; however, because of the high level of growth and redevelopment under this alternative, the potential that these impacts would occur is considered high relative to Alternatives 1 and 2. Planned Action Study Area The construction, operation, and indirect impacts described under Alternatives 1 and 2 are also applicable to Alternative 3; however, the potential for these impacts to occur would be higher because of the higher level of development proposed. For example, increased ground -disturbing activities would lead to a higher potential for encountering existing subsurface contamination. Increased development would lead to increased generation of hazardous building materials. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.7 4 ICF 543.10 Chapter4. Envirormertal Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The construction, operation, and indirect impacts described under Alternative 2 would also he applicable to Alternative 3; however, the potential for these impacts to occur would be higher. 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate the impacts discussed above are described below and apply to all alternatives. As noted in Section 4.7.1, the hazardous material sites identified in the regulatory agency database search are not expected to affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of the future development, the mitigation measures described below are largely precautionary and are designed to minimize or eliminate impacts of the alternatives should hazardous materials he encountered during project implementation. 4.7.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Construction Mitigation Measures The following general mitigation measures would minimize or eliminate construction impacts within the Planned Action Study Area. Since encountering unreported spills or unreported underground fuel tanks is a risk when performing construction, contractors will be required to provide hazardous materials awareness training to all grading and excavation crews on how to identify any suspected contaminated soil or groundwater, and how to alert supervisors in the event of suspected contaminated material. Signs of potential contaminated soil include stained soil, odors, oily sheen, or the presence of debris. • Contractors will be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). • Contractors will be required to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, best management practices (BMPs), and other permit conditions to minimize the potential for a release of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, or surface water during construction. Contractors will be required to follow careful construction practices to protect against hazardous materials spills from routine equipment operation during construction; prepare and maintain a current spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, and have an individual on site designated as an emergency coordinator; and understand and use proper hazardous materials storage and handling procedures and emergency procedures, including proper spill notification and response requirements. All ACM and lead-based paint will be identified in structures prior to demolition activities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35. If ACM or lead-based paint is identified, appropriately trained and licensed personnel will contain, remove, and properly dispose of the ACM and/or lead-based paint material according to federal and state regulations prior to demolition of the affected area. • If warranted, contractors will conduct additional studies to locate undocumented USTs and fuel lines before construction of specific development projects (areas of concern include current and former commercial and residential structures) and will permanently decommission and properly remove USTs from project sites before commencing general construction activities. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.7-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Operation Mitigation Measures Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The following general mitigation measure would minimize or eliminate operational impacts within the Planned Action Study Area. Prior to acquisition of known or potentially contaminated property (see Section 3.7, Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-3), the City will require appropriate due diligence be performed to identify the presence and extent of soil or groundwater contamination. This can help to prevent or manage liabilities for any long-term clean-up activities that might be ongoing during project operations. If contamination is discovered, the project proponent will comply with all state and federal regulations for contaminated sites. 4.7.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Similar construction and operation mitigation measures identified for the Planned Action Study Area would be applicable to this subarea. 4.7.3 Significant 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 above would minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'7.6 ICF 593.10 Cltv of Renton 4.8 Land Use 4.5.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 4.8.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Under the No Action Alternative, a lesser amount of redevelopment would occur in the Planned Action Study Area compared to the action alternatives. Thus, temporary impacts on adjacent land uses, including dust emissions, noise, construction traffic, and sporadic interference with access to adjacent residences and businesses, would be fewer. The incremental development occurring under this alternative would minimize the number of nearby residents exposed to such temporary construction impacts. Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, such as dust control and construction traffic management, would ensure that construction would not cause significant adverse impacts. Development under the No Action Alternative would implement the City's Comprehensive Plan designations for the Planned Action Study Area, only in a more incremental and piecemeal manner than under the action alternatives. Development would more than double the number of residential units within the study area, as property owners redeveloped their properties using zoning designations, including the CV designation that allows for taller buildings and more intense mixed- use development than currently exist in the study area. However, there would be fewer mixed-use multistory buildings than under the action alternatives. Whereas other alternatives have a larger increase in employees than residents, the No Action Alternative includes a larger increase in residents, because the current single -use development patterns would continue. The majority of new development under this alternative occurs in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea, where the CV designation is predominantly applied. Fewer infrastructure improvements are anticipated under this alternative; however, partial or total property acquisitions for public infrastructure projects, such as streetscapes and drainage improvements, would occur. Generally speaking, the No Action Alternative implements the City's land use and zoning designations within the Planned Action Study Area, according to the development types envisioned in policies LU -237 through LU -239, and is otherwise consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and policies shown in Appendix E. In general, all alternatives reviewed are consistent with Land Use Element goals and policies that encourage a wide mix of uses, higher -intensity development that supports transit, and new employment opportunities and economic development in areas with the CV designation (Objectives LU -NN and XX, and Policies LU -189, 190, 191, 192, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, and 246). However, the alternatives vary in the level of consistency. The No Action Alternative provides the lowest level of consistency with these objectives and policies. However, the No Action Alternative is consistent with Policy LU -4 addressing the City's growth targets for the 2001-2022 timeframe. As such, the No Action Alternative also provides the least Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.8 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures consistency with the 2006-2031 growth targets ratified through a regional process in May 2010, which call for 14,835 dwelling units and 29,000 jobs to be accommodated over that 25 -year planning period. The City has 3 years from ratification of new growth targets in which to amend its Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the revised targets. In addition, the No Action Alternative provides the least consistency with housing, transportation, and economic development goals and policies outlined in Appendix E. 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 along the center of the study area and least along its boundaries with single-family residential land use patterns and is unlikely to alter land use 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. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Temporary impacts on adjacent land uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under the No Action Alternative would be related to development of affordable housing on two vacant properties and a property with an existing duplex on it within the subarea. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, incremental redevelopment within the subarea would minimize the number or residents exposed to temporary construction impacts at any one time. In addition, sporadic interference with access for adjacent residents and businesses would similarly be short- term, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, as described under the Planned Action Study Area above, would ensure that construction would not cause significant adverse impacts. Redevelopment within the subarea would result in less vacant land and more developed properties. This represents an intensification of land uses within the subarea as approximately 175 new housing units are built. However, with the exception of one duplex associated with the Edmonds - Glenwood site, existing buildings in the subarea would remain, and the limited new development would not provide as much of an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the subarea as under the action alternatives. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, development in the subarea would be generally consistent with City goals and policies, but to a lesser extent than the action alternatives. In particular, the No Action Alternative provides infill of new residential development in areas with the CV designation consistent with Policy LU -191, and provides affordable housing consistent with objectives H -E and H -G. However, the alternative does not disperse low-income housing as called for in Policy H-29, nor does it discourage the creation of socioeconomic enclaves as called for in Policy LU -149. 4.8.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Targeted public investment within the Planned Action Study Area, under Alternative 2, is expected to produce a greater amount of redevelopment than would occur under the No Action Alternative, but not as much as under Alternative 3. Construction impacts would be similar to those described under the No Action Alternative, but the greater amount of development would affect more residents and land uses. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.8-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/$EPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Development under Alternative 2 would implement the City's Comprehensive Plan designations within the Planned Action Study Area to a greater extent than the No Action Alternative, but not to the extent of Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would provide approximately 390 more dwellings than the No Action Alternative, most of which would occur within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Compared to the No Action Alternative, more development would occur as intense mixed-use development in buildings up to 60 feet in height and more development would be influenced by targeted public investments, including high visibility redevelopment of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (discussed in detail below) into a mixed-use area at a key central location within the study area. However, less of this type of development would occur compared to Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would add about 1,660 dwellings and 790,000 square feet of commercial space above existing conditions. Alternative 2 would provide a larger increase in employees than residents, similar to Alternative 3, but different from the No Action Alternative, in which more development occurs as residential. The majority of new commercial development under Alternative 2 would be in the form of service uses (62%), including office development and civic/community space, financial institutions and similar types of uses; the remainder (38%) would be retail. Given that existing commercial development is predominantly retail (roughly 61%), the mix resulting from Alternative 2 would be fairly balanced. Similar to other alternatives, a large percentage of new development under this alternative occurs in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea, where the CV designation is predominantly applied and where higher visibility public infrastructure investments are planned under Alternative 2. Infrastructure improvements, including upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and nearby streets would mostly occur within existing rights-of-way. However, based on review of conceptual street design, it is assumed that partial acquisitions would occur along edges of properties, particularly in areas where the right- of-way is constrained. In most cases, this would not affect the function of properties; however, in instances where existing residential buildings are located close to existing rights-of-way— particularly along the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE, the eastside of Harrington Avenue NE between NE 10th Street and NE 12th Street, and the south side of NE 12th Street between Harrington Avenue NE and Jefferson Avenue NE—acquisition of one or more properties could be required. Alternative 2 provides a greater degree of consistency with the City Land Use Element goals and policies described under the No Action Alternative, because it goes further in implementing the development types envisioned in the City's land use and zoning designations within the study area. In particular, the targeted public investments made in Alternative 2 provide more of a phased implementation of development within the Center Village consistent with Policy LU -184 and does more to develop the Center Village as envisioned in Objective LU -XX. Planned improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard and nearby streets to comply with the City's Complete Streets standards, and improvements to transit facilities in the study area, would be more consistent with Transportation Element goals that contribute to a balanced multimodal transportation system and maximize transit and person -carrying capacity of the City's transportation infrastructure (Goals, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 found in Appendix E). Though not necessary to help the City in meeting growth targets found in Policy LU -4 for the year 2022, growth anticipated within the Planned Action Study Area under this alternative would help the City in meeting its 2031 housing and employment targets. It also provides greater consistency with selected Economic Development Element objectives and policies relating to targeted use of public resources to fund infrastructure improvements that encourage redevelopment, including expansion of retail and office base within the city (Appendix E, Objectives Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'8-3 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ED -A and ED -B, and Policy ED -1). In addition, public investments anticipated under this alternative would need to be accounted for in amendments to the City's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements, consistent with Goal 8 of the Transportation Element and Policy CFP -3 of the Capital Facilities Element. Similar to Alternative 1, no indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the study area due to the City's planned density pattern and regular comprehensive plan review and amendment updates, which control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment process. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Temporary impacts on adjacent land uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be related to development of affordable housing on two vacant properties as well as redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex. Construction -related impacts are similar to those described under the Planned Action Study Area. The phasing plan described in Chapter 2 would minimize construction -related disruption to local residents. Assuming phasing of redevelopment and the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, described under the No Action for the Planned Action Study Area, adverse impacts would be minimized. Alternative 2 would triple the amount of housing provided in the subarea, with more than 300 dwellings and 38,000 square feet of retail and service uses beyond that provided under the No Action Alternative. A larger part of the subarea would be transformed by redevelopment and it would be more in keeping with the City's vision of mixed-use development than the No Action Alternative, and would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the subarea. Infrastructure improvements planned for the subarea include renovating streets within and adjacent to the subarea to be consistent with the City's Complete Streets standards. Streetscape improvements would generally occur within the existing public rights-of-way, but may acquire up to S feet of right-of-way. In limited instances, where the conceptual design shows potential for street improvements to encroach on private properties and/or buildings that are located close to the right- of-way (e.g., the northwest corner of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE) the property in question would be slated for redevelopment anyway. Conceptual design of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment under Alternative 2 (Figure 2-9) does not appear to show buildings close enough to be affected by right-of-way acquisition. Therefore, impacts from partial property acquisition for Streetscape improvements would not be significant in the subarea. Alternative 2 provides a greater degree of consistency with the City's Land Use Element goals and policies (described under the No Action Alternative) than the No Action Alternative. In particular, Alternative 2 provides redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex with a mixed - income development that is consistent with Policies LU -149 and H-29, which discourage the creation of socioeconomic enclaves and encourage dispersion of low-income housing. Alternative 2 also does more to develop the Center Village as envisioned in Objective LU -XX than the No Action Alternative. The subarea has a similar consistency as the Planned Action Study Area for other City goals and policies. 4.8.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Alternative 3 would provide similar construction -related impacts as Alternative 2, but to a greater extent because of the larger amount of redevelopment. However, the implementation of appropriate Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.8-q 1CF 593.10 Chapter4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures mitigation measures, such as dust control and construction traffic management, would ensure that construction would not cause significant adverse impacts. Development under Alternative 3 would implement the City's Comprehensive Plan designations within the study area to a greater extent than the other alternatives, by providing more of a mixed- use, pedestrian -oriented community center. Targeted public investment within the study area is expected to produce a greater amount of redevelopment, particularly redevelopment associated with and benefiting from the larger -scale redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex into a mixed-use development and associated infrastructure improvements at a key, high - visibility location within the study area. Alternative 3 would provide more than 2,500 dwelling units and 1.3 million square feet of commercial space compared to existing conditions. Redevelopment would provide more commercial development than residential development. Alternative 3 provides more commercial growth, of which about 62% would be service (e.g., office and financial institution uses) and 38% retail, than Alternatives 1 or 2. This alternative would also provide almost more than two times as many residential dwellings as currently exist in the study area, and a larger amount of this new residential development would occur outside of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Similar to other alternatives, the most intense development would occur along and near the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor in the Sunset Mixed Use and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas. Development would be more intense here and would include more development influenced by the public investments than under the other alternatives. Alternative 3 would also have more development in multistory buildings up to 60 feet in height than the other alternatives. There would be a greater amount of public infrastructure and civic improvements under Alternative 3 than under the other alternatives. Although most streetscape upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and nearby streets would occur within existing rights-of-way, in some instance partial right-of-way acquisitions of up to 13 feet would affect existing buildings within the study area. A review of conceptual street design indicates that a greater amount of partial acquisitions would be necessary to provide the full complement of streetscape improvements anticipated under this alternative. In addition, there is a greater likelihood that one or more properties would be acquired because of existing buildings proximate to existing right-of-way lines. These instances occur at the following locations: • the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE, • both sides of Harrington Avenue NE between NE 10th Street and NE 12th Street, • the south side of NE 12th Street between Harrington Avenue NE and Jefferson Avenue NE, and • Glenwood Avenue NE (particularly on the west/south side). In addition, civic investments under Alternative 3 would close a portion of Harrington Avenue NE between Glenwood Avenue NE and Sunset Lane NE in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea to provide a public space. Although this change to the circulation system would not affect nonmotorized traffic, vehicular traffic would need to alter travel patterns to nearby streets in order to proceed south to NE Sunset Boulevard or north to NE 12th Street and beyond. Alternative 3 provides the greatest degree of consistency among the alternatives with the following City Comprehensive goals, objectives, and policies. Alternative 3 goes the furthest in implementing the development types envisioned in the City's land use and zoning designations within the study Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.8-5 iCF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures area. In particular, the targeted public investments under Alternative 3 provide a greater degree of phased implementation of the Center Village designation, consistent with Policy LU -184, and do more to development the Center Village envisioned in Objective LU -XX. Planned improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard and nearby streets, and improvements to transit facilities in the study area would do more to comply with City Transportation Element goals that contribute to a balanced multimodal transportation system, and maximize transit and person -carrying capacity of the City's transportation infrastructure (Goals, 1, 2, 3, 4, and S found in Appendix E). Though not necessary to help the City in meeting growth targets found in Policy LU -4 for the year 2022, growth anticipated within the study area under Alternative 3 does the most to help the City in meeting its 2031 housing and employment targets. Alternative 3 also provides greater consistency with selected Economic Development Element objectives and policies relating to targeted use of public resources to fund infrastructure improvements to encourage redevelopment, including expansion of retail and office base within the city (Appendix E, Objectives ED -A and ED -B, and Policy ED -1). In addition, public investments anticipated under this alternative would need to be accounted for in amendments to the City's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements, consistent with Goal 8 of the Transportation Element and Policy CFP -3 of the Capital Facilities Element. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, no indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the study area due to the City's planned density pattern and regular comprehensive plan review and amendment updates, which control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment process. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Temporary impacts on adjacent land uses in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be related to redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, development of affordable housing on vacant properties, and completion of civic investments including a public gathering space on Harrington Avenue NE between Glenwood Avenue NE and Sunset Lane NE. Construction related impacts are similar to those described under Alternative 2. The phasing plan described in Chapter 2 would minimize construction -related disruption to local residents related to redevelopment under this alternative. Assuming phasing of redevelopment and the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, as described under the No Action Alternative for the Planned Action Study Area above, construction would not cause significant adverse impacts. Redevelopment within the subarea under the Alternative 3 would be similar to but more extensive than Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would provide about 479 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. This alternative would provide roughly between 170 and 300 more dwelling units and roughly between 7,000 and 39,000 square feet more commercial space than Alternatives 2 and 1, respectively. Linder Alternative 3, a larger part of the subarea would be transformed by redevelopment and it would be more in keeping with the City's vision of mixed-use development than other alternatives. Further, this redevelopment of the subarea would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Infrastructure improvements planned for the subarea include streetscape improvements within and adjacent to the subarea to create a more pedestrian- and transit -friendly environment, and the closure of Harrington Avenue NE between Glenwood Avenue and Sunset Lane to create a public gathering space. As described under the Planned Action Study Area above, the closure of a portion of Harrington Avenue would have an impact on vehicular traffic within the subarea. However, nearby streets provide alternate routes for access and circulation, and the street closure in conjunction with Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'$ ICF 59310 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures redevelopment plans for Sunset Terrace are riot anticipated to have significant land use impacts. Similar to discussion of streetscape improvements under Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, the greater degree of improvements anticipated under this alternative would involve larger amounts of partial property acquisitions (up to 13 feet) within and adjacent to the subarea. Streetscape improvements could potentially impact both existing structures and proposed structures identified in conceptual plans for the Sunset Terrace housing development along the following street frontages where smaller building setbacks exist or are proposed; Sunset Lane NE; • Glenwood Avenue NE (fewer impacts on existing buildings than proposed buildings); • NE 10th Street; and • Harrington Avenue NE between Sunset Boulevard and Sunset Lane NE. Refinements to the Sunset Terrace development design and the streetscape design will be coordinated to minimize impacts of the streetscape design on future redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. Alternative 3 provides the greatest degree of consistency with the City's land use element goals and policies of all alternatives. In particular, redevelopment of the public housing community with a larger mixed -income development is consistent with Policies LU -149 and H-29, which discourage the creation of socioeconomic enclaves and encourage dispersion of low-income housing. Alternative 3 also does more to develop the Center Village as envisioned in Objective LU -XX. Development in the subarea under this alternative has a similar consistency as the Planned Action Study Area for other City goals and policies, providing a greater degree of consistency with those goals and policies than other alternatives. 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures 4.8.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Under all alternatives, the City will require developers to implement appropriate construction mitigation measures, including but not limited to dust control and construction traffic management. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the City will make efforts to minimize property acquisition that affects buildings as part of its refinement of study area streetscape designs while balancing Complete Streets standards. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the City will need to amend its Comprehensive Plan's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements to ensure that planned public investments and their funding sources are accounted for and programmed. There are no other specific mitigation measures required to address identified land use impacts. All alternatives implement the City's plans and zoning for the study area to varying degrees. 4.8.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction mitigation would be the same as described under the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'$ 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the City and RHA will coordinate on future Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affects buildings is minimized. The following measures are components of RHA's conceptual designs for Alternatives 2 and 3 and address land use issues. • Locate the majority of the most intensive non-residential development along or near NE Sunset Boulevard, where possible. • Implement proposed open space and landscape features to offset the proposed intensification of land uses on the site, • Provide new opportunities for public open space area through the proposed street vacation in Alternative 3. • As part of site design, emphasize transitions in density, with less intense densities where abutting lower -intensity zones. 4.8.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Although intensification of land uses in the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would occur and density would increase, this change would be consistent with applicable plans, zoning, and land use character. Plan consistency can be addressed by comprehensive plan amendments using the City's legislative process. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement '$ $ ECF 593.14 City of Renton 4.9 Socioeconomics 4.9.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts on socioeconomics, both beneficial and adverse, are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 4.9.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts Construction activities are not anticipated to result in any changes in the population characteristics of the Planned Action Study Area. Construction in the study area would result in beneficial impacts related to the creation of jobs and increased spending; however, with limited civic investment redevelopment would likely occur at a slower rate than the other alternatives, and the benefits associated with new employment and income would be more limited. Some products used during construction of a project would be purchased locally and some local firms and workers would likely be involved in construction. The number of jobs created would depend on type and size of buildings being constructed. Construction employment would be temporary and the workers could come from anywhere in the region. Construction activities could temporarily increase congestion and reduce parking, local access for businesses and residents, and access near the construction activities, which could negatively affect businesses, but businesses located close to construction activities could experience an increase in revenue from spending by construction workers. Operation Impacts The Planned Action Study Area would likely continue to develop and grow assuming realization of population and job forecasts. However, the study area would not be designated a Planned Action Area; public investment in civic uses would be limited (e.g., only community space such as for a relocated library; and elder day -health services); and no major infrastructure improvements would be made to NE Sunset Boulevard, drainage, or other facilities. This would result in a relatively lower level of private investment compared to Alternatives 2 or 3. Change would occur more slowly and to a lesser degree, and any changes in the study area's population characteristics would likely remain similar to existing conditions. Across the study area, most land is privately held, and it is likely that many of the new units on vacant or redevelopable sites would be market -rate and would be a combination of rental and ownership. Alternative 1 would not result in any improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard; existing access across the roadway as well as existing sidewalks on both sides of the roadway would be maintained. Therefore, no barriers to interaction or access are anticipated. 5unset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'g 1 icF 553.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures In terms of relocation or loss of access to community institutions, the library is anticipated to move from its current location to a new location within the Planned Action Study Area and increase in size. It is anticipated that the library would be relocated to a more prominent and larger site with adequate access consistent with King County Library System plans. Another beneficial change in community services would be the addition of elder day -health services in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (described below). For further discussions of community institutions and potential impacts during operation, refer to the parks and recreation analysis (Section 4.15) and public services analysis (4.16). Alternative 1 would likely improve commercial uses by providing new space and new potential customers/employees with the denser area and the addition of new dwelling units. No adverse impacts are anticipated under this alternative. Table 4.9-1 provides information on the number of dwelling units and permanent jobs that are anticipated under each alternative, based on a land capacity analysis. Alternative 1 would add between 1,483 and 1,490 dwelling units (1,308 and 1,315 units outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), which (based on an average household size of 2.31) would increase the population between 3,430 and 3,442 persons (3,021 and 3,037 outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea). With the limited redevelopment, the Planned Action Study Area is estimated to add another 611 to 914 jobs (562 to 865 jobs outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), based on an estimated increase of approximately 250,000 square feet of new commercial and civic/educational space. Most of the increase in employment is expected in service and retail categories (88%) and less in education (12%). Although the specific types of jobs that would be created are currently unknown, new retail and service businesses (e.g., restaurants, coffee shops, dentists, dry cleaners) are anticipated. It is likely that new jobs would be similar to those already existing (i.e., retail, services, and education). The new jobs would be available to all residents in the Planned Action Study Area and the surrounding region. Table 4.9-1. New Dwelling Units and Jobs by Alternative Area Dwelling Units/lobs Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Dwelling units' 1,308-1315 1,348 2,027 (excluding Potential Sunset jobs 562-8652 2,001 3,148 Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) Potential Sunset Terrace Dwelling units 168-1753 310 479 Redevelopment Jobs 494 164 182 Totals Dwelling units 1,483-1,490 1,658 2,506 Jobs 611-914 2,165 3,330 ' Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square constructed in Summer 2010. z The lower figure shown is based on an employment rate of 400 square feet per employee for retail and service jobs. If applying an 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. 3 The lower range represents proposed concepts on two vacant sites based on funding applications currently in process. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 4 The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example developments prepared for RHA's two vacant sites in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement's 2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Displacements would occur during redevelopment as properties are acquired and redeveloped. If residents or businesses are renting or leasing the space, they would be required to relocate. As described in Section 3.9, the majority of the Planned Action Study Area is non -minority, in smaller households, and with incomes lower than the surrounding region, and these are the populations most likely to be affected. If rental properties are acquired and redeveloped, those renting would be displaced. In general, no mitigation is required as long as the tenants are provided adequate notice. Many of the renters, both residential and business, likely entered into rent or lease agreements for a specified length of time, and the property owner would not have to renew the terms once the agreed upon timeframe has expired. Relocation assistance would be required where persons are displaced as a result of a federal action or an undertaking involving federal funds. Indirect Impacts Construction spending would result in positive indirect effects on employment and income in the Planned Action Study Area and in the broader regional economy. Businesses that support the construction effort with building materials (e.g., cement, lumber, flooring) and equipment would likely see increased revenue. The benefits associated with new retail and commercial space as well as a mixture of affordable and market -rate dwelling units would be smaller compared to the other alternatives. It would also take longer for housing to he redeveloped or new housing constructed in the Planned Action Study Area, and the study area would maintain existing housing characteristics for a longer duration, because of the slower growth under this alternative. Exact types of businesses that would move to the study area or the new businesses that would be started are not known at this time. It is likely that many of the unemployed residents in the study area could apply for the new jobs. As the study area redevelops, existing businesses could see an increase in business as more people move to the study area and new jobs are created. Redevelopment is anticipated to make the study area a more attractive place to live and work, and, consequently, could result in increases in rents for both residents and businesses. Some residents and businesses could be unable to afford the rent increases and could need to relocate elsewhere. It is assumed that new development on private properties would be market -rate; thus, the owners would be able to set the rate and any increase would be dependent on the local economy and vacancy rate in the surrounding area. In addition, if any occupied businesses or residential units are acquired for redevelopment, tenants would receive proper notice and would likely remain until their current lease expires. For non-federal actions or undertakings, these businesses or residents would not he compensated and would be required to cover their own expenses for relocating either within the study area or elsewhere. Cumulative Impacts If the study area is not designated as a Planned Action Area, all individual future development projects would be subject to threshold determinations under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which could result in slower permitting and development compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Combined with a lower level of growth, a lower level of civic and infrastructure investment, and lack of a strong catalyst for redevelopment, Alternative 1 would likely realize smaller economic benefits related to employment, spending, and property value. The existing socioeconomic conditions would be maintained for a longer period of time. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Impacts for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 1 would be similar to those described above for the study area as a whole; however, there would be some short- term economic benefits related to the construction of new affordable housing on the vacant land adjacent to the Sunset Terrace public housing complex. It is anticipated that between 16B to 175 new affordable dwelling units would be added, increasing population by 388 to 404 persons and creating 49 new jobs. The additional dwelling units would be affordable units based on income levels; income characteristics described for this subarea would not change substantially compared to existing conditions, because the units would be affordable and not market -rate. A greater number of senior citizens would reside in the subarea with the construction of the senior housing; daytime use for non-resident seniors would also increase with the addition of the day -health program. The elder day -health proposal would provide a beneficial service beyond the subarea to the Planned Action Study Area and the broader Renton community. One RHA -owned duplex on the Edmonds -Glenwood site would be removed and replaced with townhouse -style units; residents have already been notified regarding relocation assistance. Housing conditions would not change for the tenants within the existing Sunset Terrace complex. The existing units would likely continue to degrade incrementally over time and require additional maintenance. The subarea would not be physically integrated with the surrounding community and it is likely that the goals and objectives stated in Chapter 2 for the Sunset Terrace public housing community would not he achieved. Residents of the subarea would not receive any benefits associated with the new community facilities or the improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard that would be incorporated under Alternatives 2 and 3, all of which would help to improve the cohesion in the neighborhood. 4.9.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts Construction impacts would be similar to those described above under Alternative 1, but the intensity would be greater due to the adoption of the Planned Action, and the greater public investment in civic and infrastructure uses, which would lead to increased, but still moderate private investment. Roadway improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard could result in access issues that require mitigation measures prior to construction to ensure that business access is maintained during construction. If the construction of improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard results in any changes to access to current businesses that do not allow the businesses to remain in their current location, or if any required acquisition would negatively affect the business, compensation would be provided under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and state law. The roadway improvements would result in additional temporary construction jobs beyond those related to redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. Operation Impacts Future dwelling estimates for Alternative 2 are about 11% greater than Alternative 1 (only 3% higher without the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), and there is a greater Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'g -q ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures emphasis on jobs at a 137% increase over Alternative 1 (131% increase without the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea). The types of effects on jobs and residents in the Planned Action Study Area would be similar to those described above under Alternative 1, but the extent would be greater. In addition, Alternative 2 would improve NE Sunset Boulevard and would include a new trail and wider sidewalks, but all access points would be maintained. The addition of new Community facilities including parks and open space would also benefit the study area and provide new opportunities for residents to gather and interact. Many of the population characteristics in Table 3.9-1 would likely continue to mirror Renton as a whole, but median household income would likely increase with the greater number of affordable and market -rate units attracting residents of all ages and incomes. As described for Alternative 1, the addition of new market -rate units could result in the study area becoming less affordable to current residents. It is likely that many of the new units would be a combination of rental and ownership. The new dwelling units would increase the percentage of newer housing and the housing densities in the study area, including apartments, condominiums, and townhome units, and would decrease the percentage of lower -density forms of housing (e.g., duplexes). Although the number of dwelling units is similar to Alternative 1, the number of new jobs would be much greater. The increase in employment would result from new public and private investment in the study area, and the estimated growth and land use capacity anticipated under Alternative 2; as described in Chapter 2, Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in a total of approximately 845,000 square feet of new commercial and educational space (93% and 7%, respectively), approximately 600,000 square feet of additional space beyond the amount estimated for Alternative 1. The addition of new jobs could decrease the unemployment rate. The study area would be revitalized to a greater degree and likely sooner than under Alternative 1, resulting in greater related benefits of the updated infrastructure and civic improvements as well as the Planned Action. Improvements in the streetscape along NE Sunset Boulevard and the other infrastructure improvements would make the study area more desirable to investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. Impacts on community institutions related to the library relocation and senior health services would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. Indirect Impacts Indirect construction impacts would generally be the same as those described for Alternative 1. However, additional public and private investment would increase spending and the degree of economic benefits. More diverse housing stock would lead to positive changes in the community and interaction of the residents. The new development would improve the cohesion of the Planned Action Study Area with the planned housing and employment growth as well as the planned amenities, which would act as a gathering place. These improvements in cohesion would act as additional draws for the study area, attracting new residents and visitors, thereby improving the economics by generating additional sales and sales tax revenues. Due to added market -rate units, some new households may have higher incomes and would likely increase spending in the study area; the improvements would likely contribute to an increase in property values in the study area. In addition, the infrastructure improvements and new development would attract more investment and may extend beyond the boundaries of the Planned Action Study Area. The increased Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.9-5 1CF 59110 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures attractiveness of the study area would likely result in increases in real estate and market -rate dwelling units, making the study area unaffordable for some and resulting in unwanted relocations. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative construction impacts would depend on when construction activities occur over the life of the 20 -year planning period. If projects overlap or development continues at an even pace, the economic benefits would occur over a longer duration. If construction occurs quickly and a number of projects overlapped, issues related to skilled labor shortages could result. During operation, cumulative effects would be positive with the addition of new development that would continue to enhance the study area and improve its vitality. Civic investment would result in ongoing improvements in community cohesion and spur the growth of the study area as it becomes a more desirable place to live and work. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would realize many of the construction and operation impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area. Specific differences are discussed below. Construction Impacts The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex to allow for redevelopment would require relocation of the tenants. Some local businesses could lose sales during construction, if the tenants are relocated outside of the immediate area. Since the total number of relocations represents a small portion of the overall population, any impact would likely be small in scale. As described under Alternative 1, it is likely that construction workers would frequent businesses, reducing potential negative impacts on local businesses. The relocation of the tenants would have short-term impacts on the cohesion of the subarea and the social interactions of the tenants depending on where residents are located. Depending on the reconstruction timeframe of NE Sunset Boulevard, tenants could experience noise, dust, visual, and congestion impacts. Access points across NE Sunset Boulevard would be maintained during construction, avoiding negative access impacts for the tenants. Tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be relocated prior to demolition of the complex and, as described in Section 3.9, the majority of the tenants (based on 2010 RHA data) are minority and lower income, and have larger household sizes. With federal funds being used to redevelop Sunset Terrace, the tenants will be offered relocation assistance in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that those affected by property acquisitions acquired by a project funded by the federal government are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably, and that they do not suffer disproportionate injuries. Tenants will be provide certain relocation services and payments, which can include moving costs reimbursement, assistance finding comparable housing, and other assistance needed to minimize impacts associated with moving. Section S vouchers will be used for the relocation of tenants. Once the reconstruction is complete, relocated tenants would be offered spaces in the new development. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.9-6 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.14 Chapter4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Operation Impacts It is anticipated that an additional 310 dwelling units, beyond the 102 replacement units, and 164 new jobs would be created. The new dwelling units would be a combination of public, affordable, and market -rate units, and would include senior housing. The added population within the subarea is estimated to be 716 persons, based on an average household size of 2.31. Population characteristics of the subarea would change to a greater degree than in the Planned Action Study Area, because additional affordable and market -rate units would be available. It is likely the average household size would slightly decrease as smaller families and seniors relocate to the subarea and that the median household income would increase with the addition of market -rate housing and lower the percentage of individuals below the poverty level. The addition of townhomes, which could create ownership opportunities, could slightly increase the percentage of owners; however, the percentage of renters is likely to continue to dominate. Housing characteristics in the subarea would he similar to those in the Planned Action Study Area, and these subarea improvements would improve cohesion and catalyze private reinvestment in the Planned Action Study Area. The new dwellings would substantially increase the percentage of newer housing stock in the subarea making it more attractive for renters and owners. The new community facilities would improve cohesion for the residents, as tenants may feel more a part of the redeveloped community, and provide new locations for residents to gather and interact. Under Alternative 2, the library could be relocated and expanded within community service space in the subarea. If located in the subarea, the library would be situated in a more prominent visual location than its current site, serving the subarea as well as the Planned Action Study Area and the broader Renton community. Similar to Alternative 1, another beneficial service would be the addition of elder day -health services serving the subarea, Planned Action Study Area, and broader Renton community. The reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard would include a number of benefits for the residents by improving access along and across the roadway. Indirect Impacts Increased spending is anticipated with the mixture of affordable and market -rate units, which would result in positive impacts on the businesses in the subarea and on local tax revenues. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative construction impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, but would be greater with the increased level of development. As the subarea changes and new housing is provided, no existing public units would be lost and improvements in the neighborhood would likely continue as new developments are constructed. 4.9.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Construction, operation, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those described above for Alternative 2. The higher number of dwelling units and jobs under Alternative 3 would result in Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact statement 4.9-7 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures greater intensities in development and economic benefits. There would be a 68% dwelling unit increase and 264% job increase relative to Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would include just over 2,500 dwelling units and approximately 1,310,000 square feet of commercial space (a difference of approximately 460,000 square feet compared to Alternative 2 and 1,060,000 square feet compared to Alternative 1). The additional dwelling units would result in a total population of 5,789, based on an average household size of 2.3 1, within the Planned Action Study Area. (Exclusive of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, this alternative would result in 2,027 dwellings, 3,148 jobs, and 4,684 persons.) In addition to the facilities that would be added under Alternative 2, Alternative 3 includes a family village and a wider reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard. The family village would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services that would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. The family village would likely result in improved cohesion of the surrounding area, by providing areas for the residents to gather and interact. The addition of the family village would likely attract families, resulting in a change in demographics in the study area; consequently, this could increase the average household size. The reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard would include wider sidewalks, similar to Alternative 2, and bicycle lanes in both directions. Similar to Alternative 2, these improvements would revitalize the study area and improve the overall cohesion. Although Alternative 3 would widen the roadway, the access points would be maintained and no new barriers to access would be created. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction, operation, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be similar to those described for the subarea under Alternative 2. Increased densities under this alternative would provide the greatest number of dwelling units and jobs of the alternatives considered. Under Alternative 3, 479 net dwelling units would be constructed, resulting for an estimated population of 1,106 (based on an average household size of 2.31); an additional 18 jobs would be created compared to Alternative 2. The redevelopment would be phased and the vacant sites developed first, followed by the Sunset Terrace redevelopment. For the relocation of tenants, Section 8 vouchers would be used and the relocated tenants would be offered spaces in the new development after construction, as described under Alternative 2. 4.9.2 Mitigation Measures 4.9.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Mitigation measures to minimize dust, noise, aesthetics, and transportation impacts during construction are identified in Sections 4.2, 4.6, 4.12, and 4.14, respectively. These measures would address many of the construction -related impacts that could negatively affect study area businesses. In addition, with the reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard or with any of the new development, if access to businesses is affected, the following measures may be included to minimize the impacts. • Provide detour, open for business, and other signage, as appropriate. • Provide business cleaning services on a case-by-case basis, as needed. • Establish promotions or marketing measures to help affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'� $ ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures • Maintain access, as much as possible, to each business and, if access needs to be limited, coordinate with the affected businesses. No mitigation measures for operation are identified, because operation would result in beneficial impacts. Mitigation measures to address indirect impacts on housing affordability are addressed in Section 4.10. 4.9,2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Mitigation measures would be the same as described for the Planned Action Study Area. As described above under Alternative 2, public housing tenants would be provided relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. In addition, mitigation measures could he developed to address the demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex, including the phased demolition and reconstruction to minimize the need to relocate all the residents at the same time and/or the new affordable housing development could be constructed prior to demolition to provide opportunities to relocate tenants within the subarea. No mitigation measures for operation are identified, because operation would result in beneficial impacts. 4.9.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated under Alternatives 2 and 3. Both of these 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 in socioeconomic conditions. Under Alternative 1, the study area would not benefit from the changes identified for the action alternatives. Instead, the study area would redevelop more slowly, and, in turn, economic conditions would improve more slowly. Connectivity would not be improved along NE Sunset Boulevard and the Sunset Terrace tenants would remain in the existing structures that would continue to degrade. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'g_g ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.10 Housing 4.10.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For the purposes of this section, these terms are defined as follows: Public Housing denotes replacement Sunset Terrace public housing units, managed by the RHA and subject to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) restrictions. Rent is based on household income, and units typically serve 0% to 30% Area Median Income (AMI). Affordable denotes housing which requires some type of public sector subsidy. Rents are typically set lower than market rate, units typically serve 30% to 60% AMI and eligibility includes income restrictions. + Market denotes housing developed completely with private sector funds, with no restrictions on pricing or income eligibility. 4.10.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts Construction of commercial, residential, and civic uses in the Planned Action Study Area would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents. Through City permit review and mitigation (e.g., traffic control plans, construction site erosion control, and enforcement of City noise regulations), coordinated construction plans can be developed to minimize effects. Operation Impacts There are 1,289 current dwelling units in the study area, The City's plans and zoning in effect allow for residential, commercial, and mixed uses at higher densities than presently exist. Under Alternative 1, it is possible that current properties would redevelop. Some properties are more likely to change in the future than others. Multiplexes or single-family dwellings that are in higher intensity zones (e.g. Center Village) would be more likely to redevelop given their location in higher traffic areas and with incentives in zoning for greater density. Multifamily complexes are less likely to change due to the greater level of investment in the site and the greater cost to redevelop. Single- family dwellings in the R-8 zone are more likely to remain. To estimate the potential for redevelopment under Alternative 1, a land capacity analysis (Appendix 6) was completed, and it is estimated that about 16% of the parcels could redevelop over the next 20 years due to the relationship of the land value and building value, the low floor area of structures, etc. It is estimated that on these buildable land parcels about 54 dwellings could be replaced with Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement �'1� 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures other development, principally new dwellings, about five dwellings are located along NE Sunset Boulevard and may change to commercial uses. Most properties in the study area are relatively more low cost than in other parts of Renton, and new dwellings could be built at market rates, though some are planned to be affordable and public, particularly in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (addressed in more detail below). It is expected that most of the 54 dwellings would be replaced on site with the redevelopment of the properties, except for about five single-family homes that are located on NE Sunset Boulevard that have the potential to convert to commercial uses. There are some vacant properties and the redevelopment is expected to be at densities more closely aligned with zoning, allowing a net increase in units that could serve as replacement units. The No Action Alternative would add up to approximately 1,489 new dwellings, which would more than double present dwellings. As with existing conditions, most new units would be multifamily. About 175 units would be built for affordable units. See Table 4.10-1. Table 4.10-1. Current and Proposed Dwellings'—No Action Alternative ' Due to formulas and rounding, totals may slightly differ from estimates in Chapter 2. Indirect Impacts As noted in Chapter 2, a 2005 economic study indicated that businesses could be more viable if there was more housing and population that could increase demand and spending for local goods and services. Thus, increased housing could increase local resident spending at businesses in the study area. Increased housing could also create an increased demand for parks and recreation, public services, and utilities. Those topics are addressed in individual sections of Chapter 4. Cumulative Impacts Growth in the study area would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and its growth targets for the year 2022. It would contribute to meeting growth targets for the City's next Comprehensive Plan Update for the year 2031. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.10-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 Existing Land use 2030 Alt 1 (No Action) 2030 Alt 1 (No Action): Net Potential Sunset Potential Sunset Potential Sunset Terrace Terrace Terrace Redevelopment Redevelopment Redevelopment Dwelling Type (total) (total) (net) Single-family 0 0 0 home Multifamily 10 14 4 unit in small building (1-4) Multifamily 100 271 171 unit in large building (> 5) Total 110 285 175 ' Due to formulas and rounding, totals may slightly differ from estimates in Chapter 2. Indirect Impacts As noted in Chapter 2, a 2005 economic study indicated that businesses could be more viable if there was more housing and population that could increase demand and spending for local goods and services. Thus, increased housing could increase local resident spending at businesses in the study area. Increased housing could also create an increased demand for parks and recreation, public services, and utilities. Those topics are addressed in individual sections of Chapter 4. Cumulative Impacts Growth in the study area would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and its growth targets for the year 2022. It would contribute to meeting growth targets for the City's next Comprehensive Plan Update for the year 2031. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.10-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Envirormertal Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Impacts Construction of residential and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect adjacent residents to the north, east, and south of the subject properties. As noted for the study area as a whole, through City permit review and mitigation (e.g., traffic control plans, construction site erosion control, and enforcement of City noise regulations), coordinated construction plans can be developed to minimize effects. Operation Impacts As the proposed dwellings in the subarea would largely occur on vacant sites there would be minimal displacement; only one duplex would be demolished and replaced with townhomes on the Edmonds -Glenwood site owned by RHA. RHA has notified the residents of the pending proposal and has offered relocation assistance. (Gropper pers. comm.) Under the No Action Alternative, 175 dwellings would be added (Table 4.10-1). All dwellings added would be affordable, either to families (Edmonds -Glenwood site) or to seniors (Piha site). Indirect Impacts The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is as noted for the study area as a whole. Cumulative Impacts The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the study area as a whole. 4.10.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts The potential for construction impacts in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1, except that there would be a greater amount of construction and a greater potential for impacts on surrounding land owners. Operation Impacts Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% of the Planned Action Study Area acreage would infill or redevelop, and this would lead to replacement of about 231 dwellings, half of which are located in the North, Central, and South subareas (combined total of 103), followed by the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (102), and lastly the Sunset Mixed Use subarea (about 26). As described under Alternative 1, most properties in the study area are relatively more low cost than other parts of Renton, and new dwellings could be built at market rates, though some are planned to be affordable and public, particularly in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (addressed in more detail below). It is expected that most of the 231 dwellings would be replaced on site with the redevelopment of the properties, with the same exception noted under Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.1�-3 ICF S93110 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Alternative 1 for about five single-family dwellings along NE Sunset Boulevard that are likely to be converted to commercial uses. Also similar to Alternative 1, there are some vacant properties and the redevelopment is expected to be at densities more closely aligned with zoning, allowing a net increase in units that could serve as replacement units. Alternative 2 would add up to approximately 1,658 new dwellings, about 11% more than Alternative 1 and 129% more than current dwellings. See Table 4.10-2. Mast new units would be multifamily. While future dwellings on private sites would potentially be built as affordable, the only probable proposal is in the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment where about 326 units would be built as public or affordable units (occurring in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea except for 12 units likely to be built in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea). Table 4.10-2. Current and Proposed Dwellings—Alternative 2 Dwelling Type Single-family home Multifamily unit in small building (1-4) Multifamily unit in large building [>- 5) Total Indirect Impacts Existing Land use Potential Sunset k Terrace Redevelopment (total) 10 100 110 2030 Alternative 2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment (total) 409 11 420 2030 Alternative 2: Net Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment (net) 309 310 The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to but greater than under the No Action Alternative, due to the increased number of dwellings under Alternative 2. Depending on the success of public and private reinvestment, another indirect impact could be additional pressure on existing housing to redevelop, beyond what's indicated in land capacity analysis and projections. However, the City monitors growth regularly through its Comprehensive Plan that is required to be reviewed every seven to 10 years. Over the 20 -year period of the Planned Action, the City would review trends at least two to three Limes. Cumulative Impacts Growth in the study area would be slightly greater than previously planned under the No Action Alternative, but this slight increase of 11 % would contribute to meeting the City's higher growth targets for the year 2031, to be addressed in the City's next Comprehensive Plan Update. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impart Statement 4.10-4 ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Rerton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Impacts As noted in Section 2.72.2, the redevelopment of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be accomplished in two phases. Construction of residential, commercial, and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents, particularly those residents that remain during the construction of the first phase. As noted for the study area as a whole, through City permit review and mitigation (e.g., traffic control plans, construction site erosion control, and enforcement of City noise regulations), coordinated construction plans can be developed to minimize effects. Operation Impacts The number of units eliminated would include 102 public housing and duplex dwellings. However, all public housing units would be replaced with about 88 redeveloped in the subarea and 12 developed in the study area, likely on a site in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea where RHA owns three vacant parcels, or in the North Subarea where RHA also owns additional residential land. The number of units added would be 310 above existing dwellings, for a total of 420 units. Of these about 75% would be public or affordable, and 24% would be market rate. Indirect Impacts The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is as noted for the study area as a whole. Cumulative Impacts The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the study area as a whole. 4.10.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts The potential for construction impacts in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternatives 1 and 2, except that there would be a greater amount of construction and a greater potential for impacts on surrounding land owners. Operation Impacts Alternative 3 assumes 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings replaced at 299 located in: the [North, Central and South subareas (combined total of 163), followed by the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (110), and lastly the Sunset Mixed Use subarea (about 26). The higher number of dwellings compared to Alternative 2 are due largely to the inclusion of the family village concept in the North Subarea. As described under Alternatives 1 and 2, most properties in the study area are relatively more low cost than in other parts of Renton, and new dwellings could be built at market rates, though some Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.10-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures are planned to be affordable or public, such as with the family village in the North Subarea as well as in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea (addressed in more detail below). It is expected that most of the 299 dwellings would be replaced on site with the redevelopment of the properties. There is a similar exception, noted under Alternative 1, for about five single-family dwellings along NE Sunset Boulevard that would likely be converted to commercial uses. Also similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, there are some vacant properties and the redevelopment at higher densities could serve as replacement units. Alternative 3 would add up to approximately 2,507 new dwellings, about 194% more than current dwellings, 68% more than Alternative 1, and 51% more than Alternative 2 (Table 4.10-3). Most new units would be multifamily. Some units, as described under Construction Impacts, would be public or affordable. Table 4.10-3. Current and Proposed Dwellings'—Alternative 3 Existing Land use 2030 Alt 3 2030 Alt 3: Net Indirect Impacts The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to but greater than Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, due to the increased number of dwellings in Alternative 3 (the greatest of all the studied alternatives). Depending on the success of public and private reinvestment, which is anticipated to be greatest under Alternative 3, another indirect impact could be additional pressure on existing housing to redevelop, beyond what is indicated in land capacity analysis and projections. However, as noted for Alternative 2, the City monitors growth regularly through its Comprehensive Plan, and over the 20 -year period of the Planned Action, the City would review trends at least two to three times. Cumulative Impacts Growth in the study area would be greater than previously planned in the No Action Alternative, but this increase of 68% would contribute to meeting the City's higher growth targets for the year 2031, to be addressed in the City's next Comprehensive Plan Update. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.10-6 ICF 593.10 Potential Potential Sunset Potential Sunset Sunset Terrace Terrace Terrace Redevelopment Redevelopment Redevelopment Dwelling Type (total) (total) (net) Single-family home 0 0 0 Multifamily unit in small building (1-4) 10 S75 475 Multifamily unit in large building (? 5} 100 14 4 Total 110 589 9.79 1 Due to formulas and rounding, totals may slightly differ from estimates in Chapter 2. Indirect Impacts The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to but greater than Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, due to the increased number of dwellings in Alternative 3 (the greatest of all the studied alternatives). Depending on the success of public and private reinvestment, which is anticipated to be greatest under Alternative 3, another indirect impact could be additional pressure on existing housing to redevelop, beyond what is indicated in land capacity analysis and projections. However, as noted for Alternative 2, the City monitors growth regularly through its Comprehensive Plan, and over the 20 -year period of the Planned Action, the City would review trends at least two to three times. Cumulative Impacts Growth in the study area would be greater than previously planned in the No Action Alternative, but this increase of 68% would contribute to meeting the City's higher growth targets for the year 2031, to be addressed in the City's next Comprehensive Plan Update. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.10-6 ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Impacts The redevelopment of the subarea would likely occur in phases as described in Section 2.7.2.2. Construction of residential, commercial, and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents, particularly those residents that remain during the construction of an earlier phase(s). Mitigation would be required to minimize effects as noted for Alternatives 1 and 2 (e.g., traffic control plans, construction site erosion control, and enforcement of City noise regulations). Operation Impacts In this subarea, 110 public housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. All public housing units would be replaced, although the percentage replaced on site versus elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area is not defined. It may be similar to Alternative 2, which replaces 88 units on site and 12 offsite. The number of units added would be 479 above existing dwellings, for a total of 589 units. Of these, approximately 74% would be either affordable or public and 26% would be market -rate dwelling units. Indirect Impacts The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is as noted for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole. Cumulative Impacts The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the study area as a whole. 4.10.2 Mitigation Measures 4.10.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-030(C) identifies construction hours intended to address noise in sensitive time periods. See Section 4. 6, Noise, regarding other noise mitigation measures for construction periods. When federal funds are being used for a proposal, displaced tenants will be offered relocation assistance in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The City and RHA could apply for federal, state, and local funding programs described in Section 3.10 to promote new housing opportunities for low and very low-income housing in the Planned Action Study Area. RHA could establish a local preference for rental assistance. For example, RHA could establish a priority list for Section 8 vouchers for displaced low-income tenants in the in the Planned Action Study Area (in addition to the relocation assistance to be provided by RHA to the Sunset Terrace residents). Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPAfSEPA Environmental Impact Statement x'10 IGF 593A0 City of Renton Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures It is expected that, under Alternative 3, unit replacement and relocation assistance for the family village would be the same as described for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea below. 4.10.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction mitigation would be as described for the Planned Action Study Area. For Alternatives 2 and 3, RHA has committed to replacement housing at a 1:1 ratio for the Sunset Terrace public housing units, 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. During the time replacement housing is under construction, Section 8 vouchers would be used to relocate tenants. Relocation assistance would only be needed for two units in association with Alternative 1. 4.10.3 Significant 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.10 8 ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Environmental Justice This section analyzes the impacts (beneficial and adverse) of the proposal alternatives on environmental justice populations in the Planned Action Study Area, generally, and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, specifically, to determine if they would result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on environmental justice populations. Please see Appendix I regarding a review of public health in land use planning and community design for additional analysis. 4.11.1 Impacts Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. In the Planned Action Study Area growth consistent with City plans and zones is expected, but the exact types of development are not known. Thus, the impact analysis is based generally on the types of impacts that would be expected with construction and operation. However, for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea conceptual plans have been prepared (See Figures 2-9 and 2-10) and are evaluated. 4.11.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts Because public investment in the Planned Action Study Area would be low under the No Action Alternative, private redevelopment and related construction activities would be limited and dispersed. Residents near construction activities would likely be affected by temporary noise, dust, and visual impacts due to construction; these impacts would he short-term in nature and would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures. In addition, the population of the Planned Action 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. Operation Impacts The exact extent and timing of any project development that would be included under Alternative 1 is not known, but it is anticipated that approximately 1,490 dwelling units and between 611 to 914 jobs would be added to the Planned Action Study Area. Without the pedestrian- and transit -oriented improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard under this alternative, the benefits to low-income populations, who may rely on these forms of travel, would not occur. This would not result in any adverse impacts since the existing roadway contains sidewalks and access points to cross. In addition, no new park facilities would be added under this alternative. Consequently, residents would not realize any related benefits in improved community cohesion and improved aesthetics, or potential health benefits from increases in physical activity from the new parks or from the added Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.11-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures bike lanes along NE Sunset Boulevard for bicycles. However, this is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts that could be disproportionately high and adverse. Indirect Impacts With limited investment in the Planned Action Study Area under the No Action Alternative, any indirect benefits of redevelopment and associated growth (e.g., new housing, increased employment opportunities, and improved aesthetics] would be low. The new dwellings that would be constructed outside of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea may not include any affordable housing for low-income populations. Temporary increases in employment related to construction would occur within the Planned Action Study Area, but these jobs may or may not directly benefit residences of the Planned Action Study Area, because of necessary skills related to construction jobs (i.e., electrician, plumber, truck driver, and equipment operator). The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the Planned Action Study Area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities would benefit all study area populations, but could benefit minority and low-income populations to a greater degree. Also, minority and low- income populations would have access to the jobs to the same degree as the non -minority and non - low -income populations. However, because the types of jobs and wages are not known, it cannot be determined if these would be living -wage jobs or if they would be lower -wage jobs that would not improve household incomes, especially for lower-income households. This is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts that could be disproportionately high and adverse. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would depend on the type of development planned in the Planned Action Study Area. There would be beneficial effects on all populations with the addition of new housing and jobs. The type of housing is not known for most of the study area (i.e., affordable or market rate), but if the majority is market rate, there would be no beneficial impact on the lower-income populations; as described above, if the jobs do not provide a living wage they would not likely result in any positive impacts on lower-income households or in their household income. This is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts that could be disproportionately high and adverse. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Impacts Because the existing Sunset Terrace complex would not be redeveloped under the No Action Alternative, relocation of existing Sunset Terrace public housing tenants would not occur. However, the RHA -owned duplex at the Edmonds -Glenwood site would redevelop, and relocation services for tenants of the two units would be provided. Residents in close proximity to NE Sunset Boulevard could be affected by construction. Impacts would be the same as those described above under the Planned Action Study Area. Construction of new affordable housing adjacent to the Sunset Terrace complex including the northwestern and eastern vacant sites would result in short-term impacts related to noise and dust on nearby residents. Because the subarea population is predominately minority and low-income, the construction impacts would affect this population to a greater degree. However, these impacts would be short-term in nature and would be minimized through implementation of mitigation Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.11-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures measures, so they are not considered to be adverse and, therefore, would not result in any disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. Operation Impacts Development of additional affordable housing on vacant properties in this subarea would be beneficial to lower-income populations; however, development of public housing, which would be beneficial for the low-income populations, would not occur under this alternative. The existing tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex, however, would not benefit from the new housing directly; they would remain living in the current housing complex that is antiquated and dilapidated. Residents would not benefit from the public amenities proposed under the action alternatives: community gathering space or a community center, senior center, public library, new park/open space, and additional retail shopping and commercial space. Alternative 1 does not result in the creation of any barriers to access for any populations including_ minority and low-income populations. Even without improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard, residents would still have access across the roadway. Impacts described above under the Planned Action Study Area would be the same for subarea residents, related to community cohesion, improved aesthetics, and potential health benefits. Indirect Impacts New retail and commercial space would be outside of the subarea, but the new employment opportunities could be seen as more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or not have their own vehicle and would, therefore, benefit more from the proximity. Because the types of businesses that would be located in the subarea and the corresponding wages of the jobs they would provide are unknown, the extent of benefits to low-income individuals cannot be determined. The new job opportunities could provide health-care benefits for those who were formerly unemployed; however, if newly employed individuals were not offered health benefits or decided not to participate due to the costs associated with the health care plan, they would lose access to public assistance. In this case, the potential loss of access to health care would he an adverse impact. Cumulative Impacts New housing would consist of affordable family and senior housing; this could benefit environmental justice populations. 4.11.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts Linder Alternative 2, mixed-use development at strategic nodes in addition to residential uses and local -serving commercial development throughout the Planned Action Study Area would result in dust, noise, and visual impacts on nearby residents from construction activities. Residents in close proximity to construction on NE Sunset Boulevard would also be affected by dust, noise, visual, and traffic impacts. Because the Planned Action Study Area population is predominately non -minority and non -low-income, these impacts would not be considered disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.11 3 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Operation Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Residential, commercial, and recreational development and civic and infrastructure improvements under Alternative 2 would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live. Residents would have new areas to interact, and the redevelopment would improve the overall visual quality of the Planned Action Study Area with the addition of new development. This would benefit all populations within the Planned Action Study Area, including minority and low-income populations. The improvements on NE Sunset Boulevard would improve access across the roadway and would include a trail resulting in improvements for those who walk or bicycle. The addition of new park facilities and the improvements on NE Sunset Boulevard could provide health benefits. This benefit would apply to all populations within the Planned Action Study Area. Indirect Impacts Although additional development would occur in the Planned Action Study Area, the indirect impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 1. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would primarily be beneficial. As the Planned Action Study Area continues to redevelop with new investments, public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and would continue to create new jobs. The new development and addition of more market -rate units could cause the Planned Action Study Area to become less affordable to lower- income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the Planned Action Study Area. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea This section discusses the impacts on environmental justice populations that are specific to the Sunset Terrace redevelopment. Construction Impacts Residents in close proximity to NE Sunset Boulevard could be affected by construction. Impacts would be the same as those described above for the Planned Action Study Area. The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the proposed Alternative 2 conceptual plans would require the relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex likely through Section 8 vouchers. Because the tenants are low-income and predominately minority, this would constitute a greater impact on these populations than other populations. The relocation of the tenants potentially outside of the immediate area could also result in additional temporary impacts related to being further from their jobs, social services, transit, and community. Relocated tenants would be compensated through the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This act establishes uniform, fair, and equitable treatment of displaced individuals and businesses. With this compensation, these impacts are not considered disproportionately high and adverse on minority or low-income populations. Tenants would be relocated prior to construction of each new housing phase; those tenants remaining during the construction of early redevelopment phases would be subject to impacts related to noise and dust anticipated during demolition. However, no adverse impacts are Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.11-4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Fnvironmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures anticipated as demolition activities would need to comply with all local, state, federal regulations, which could include removal of lead-based paint and ACMs. During construction, there are no impacts that would be considered disproportionately high and adverse impacts, because the relocated tenants would be provided assistance, as described above. In addition, impacts associated with construction activities would be temporary and mitigation measures would be included to minimize any impacts. Operational Impacts Under Alternative 2, the 100 existing Sunset Terrace public housing units would be replaced at a 1 - to -1 ratio. Of these, 88 units would be replaced on the existing Sunset Terrace complex site and 12 units would be located on vacant or redevelopable lots currently owned by RHA elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area. Current tenants would be offered the opportunity to move into these new units, which would occur in a rebuilt setting with new landscaping and pedestrian facilities, and a new library and/or community service facility. There would be beneficial health effects associated with the new housing, especially if the old housing [constructed in 1959) contains any lead-based paint or ACMs. Alternative 2 would have a number of beneficial effects for minority and low-income populations in the subarea, including the redevelopment of the existing dwelling units, construction of additional units, transportation improvements, and the addition of other community facilities (i.e., senior center, parks). These changes would result in improvements to public health and to the aesthetics of the subarea. These would all improve community cohesion for subarea residents. Since no adverse impacts are anticipated, there are no impacts that would be considered disproportionately high and adverse impacts. In addition, subarea residents would realize the beneficial effects associated with the improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. These beneficial effects would accrue to all populations including minority and low-income populations, in particular, the improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard related to wider sidewalks, the eastbound bicycle facilities, and transit for those who rely on other modes of travel, and the addition of new parks and open space. Additionally civic facilities would be a benefit for the entire Renton community including those outside of the subarea and would serve as gathering places that would enhance community cohesion. Indirect Impacts Although additional development would occur in the subarea, the indirect impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 1. Increasing the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area are not anticipated within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area as the new dwelling units would be affordable and public units. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area would be similar. Sunset Area community Planned Action 4.11-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.11.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Construction Impacts Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts related to the construction NE Sunset Boulevard improvements would he the same as those described above under Alternative 2. The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the proposed Alternative 3 conceptual plans would require the relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex likely through Section 8 vouchers. Under Alternative 3, a higher level of growth and major public investment in infrastructure and public services throughout the Planned Action Study Area would result in construction impacts similar to but more widespread than the other alternatives. Operation Impacts Residential, commercial, and recreational development and civic and infrastructure improvements under Alternative 3 would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, including minority and low-income populations. Alternative 3 includes similar improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard, but would provide eastbound and westbound bicycle lanes on the roadway. These additions would be beneficial for those who rely on nonmotorized modes of travel. Alternative 3 also includes the addition of new parks and open space, where residents could gather and interact thereby strengthening community cohesion. Beyond benefits described in Alternative 2, the creation of a family village in the North Subarea would provide opportunities for housing, education, recreation, and supportive services. The family village would improve cohesion for all residents as well by providing a new gathering location. The family village would be beneficial for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, but these benefits could accrue to a greater degree for minority and low-income populations due to the close proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle. In addition, depending on the supportive services provided, these benefits would accrue to the minority and low-income populations in the Planned Action Study Area, especially if the services are focused on providing support to environmental justice populations. Similar to Alternative 2, the addition of the new civic facilities would be a benefit for the entire community and act as a gathering place that would enhance community cohesion. In addition, the subarea residents would realize the beneficial effects associated with the improvements in the Planned Action Study Area. The roadway improvements would also be beneficial to all populations. Overall, the changes would improve community cohesion for the same reasons identified above under Alternative 2. Since the improvements would result in beneficial effects, no adverse impacts and, therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts are anticipated during operation. Indirect Impacts Although additional development would occur in the Planned Action Study Area beyond what is planned for in Alternative 2, the indirect impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4'ZY 6 ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts would primarily be beneficial as noted for Alternative 2. As the Planned Action Study Area continues to redevelop with new investments, public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and would continue to create new jobs. Also, similar to Alternative 2, but with a greater potential due to greater growth, the new development and addition of more market - rate units could cause the Planned Action Study Area to become less affordable to lower-income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the Planned Action Study Area. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Impacts Construction impacts on minority and low-income populations would be similar to those described for Alternative 2. Construction impacts could occur for a longer duration due to the additional amount of development associated with Alternative 3, but it is not anticipated any relocations of the tenants would be for a longer duration and impacts associated with relocation would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2. Operational Impacts Under Alternative 3, the 100 existing Sunset Terrace public housing units would be replaced at a one-to-one ratio on site or in the surrounding neighborhood. Current tenants would be offered the opportunity to move into these new units which would occur in a rebuilt mixed-use setting with additional public facilities beyond those described for Alternative 2, including a new park/open space as well as retail shopping and commercial space. Similar to Alternative 2, there would be beneficial health effects associated with the new housing especially if the old housing (constructed in 1959) contains any lead-based paint or ACMs. These changes would all be considered, beneficial to the minority and low-income populations of this subarea. These changes would result in the same benefit as discussed above in Alternative 2, including improvements in community cohesion as a result of new public gathering places, the improvements in aesthetics associated with the new buildings, and the improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard that would also improve cohesion. Since the improvements would result in beneficial effects, no adverse impacts and, therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts are anticipated during operation. Indirect Impacts Although additional development would occur in the subarea beyond what is planned for in Alternative 2, the indirect impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1. Also, similar to Alternative 2, increasing the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.11-7 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Cumulative Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The cumulative impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area are not anticipated within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, because the public housing units would be replaced and other affordable, public, and market -rate units would be developed. Public units would be administered by RHA. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified above under the Planned Action Study Area would be similar. 4.11.2 Mitigation Measures 4.11.2.1 Planned Action Study Area There are no specific mitigation measures related to environmental justice during construction or operation. During construction, mitigation measures related to noise, dust, traffic congestion, and visual quality would be applicable to all populations. These measures are described in Draft EIS sections 4.2, 4.6, 4.12, and 4.14. Since the implementation of a planned action is anticipated to result in beneficial effects on all populations, no mitigation measures are required. 4.11.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Mitigation measures during construction would include the need for replacement housing for the residents of Sunset Terrace. It is likely that the tenants would be relocated under a potential Section 8 voucher strategy during construction. Additional information on the likely sequence of events implemented for the relocation of the Sunset Terrace tenants is provided in Section 4.9, Socioeconomics. Mitigation measures during operation would not be required as the build alternatives would result in positive and beneficial impacts on all populations including minority and low-income populations through improvements in housing, civic amenities, and economic climate. 4.11.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to environmental justice as the action alternatives would result in primarily beneficial impacts associated with new dwelling units, new civic facilities and parks, improvements in nonmotorized transportation, and new employment opportunities in the surrounding area. During construction and in the short-term residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, construction mitigation and relocation assistance mitigation measures (for the RHA units) would minimize impacts. Sunset Area community Pianned Action 4.11-8 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.12 Aesthetics 4.12.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts that are common to all alternatives are described First, followed by a description of impacts under each alternative. Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 4.12.1.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives Construction Impacts Under all alternatives, demolition of existing structures and construction of new buildings would expose nearby residents to visual impacts, including dust, the presence of construction equipment, stockpiles of construction materials, localized increases in vehicular traffic, and on-site construction activities. For each alternative, these activities would occur sporadically at various locations throughout the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would be localized to the construction site, and would be temporary in nature. Due to the low level of catalyzing public investment, the No Action Alternative would result in the lowest levels of temporary construction impacts, whereas Alternative 3 would result in the highest. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Approval of any of the alternatives for redevelopment of the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would result in cumulative changes to the overall aesthetic character of these areas. As described in Chapter 2, the No Action Alternative would feature the least public investment, while Alternative 3 would include the most. Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing facility would be a localized action under Alternatives 2 and 3, but additional private development is anticipated to occur in response to this public investment, and each private development project would contribute to the overall transformation of the Planned Action Study Area's aesthetic character. In contrast, under Alternative 1, development in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would occur on largely vacant properties but is not anticipated to change the Sunset Terrace public housing community itself and would be less of catalyst for change in the broader Planned Action Study Area. While redevelopment of the public facilities discussed under the various alternatives would be a coherent effort, private development throughout the study area would occur piecemeal, and these individual private developments, which are likely to be of higher density, greater height, and a different architectural style than existing development, have the potential to create temporary aesthetic conflicts where they are located adjacent to older structures. Over time, as more properties redevelop, the temporary conflicts would be less frequent and less noticeable. This effect would be least pronounced under the No Action Alternative and most pronounced under Alternative 3. The introduction of higher -density development to the Planned Action Study Area under any of the alternatives also has the potential to increase levels of ambient light and glare, particularly along Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPAEnvironmental Impact Statement 4.12-1 1CF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures major roadways and at nodes of commercial development. Commercial and mixed -used development would contrihute more heavily to increased light and glare through increased need for exterior building illumination, lighting for parking areas, and the potential for increased usage of illuminated signs. Higher -density development also has the potential to generate higher levels of vehicular traffic, which would increase light and glare levels during nighttime hours. As described previously, private development throughout the Planned Action Study Area would occur piecemeal, and each additional development would potentially contribute to a cumulative increase in levels of ambient light and glare. This effect would be least pronounced under the No Action Alternative and most pronounced under Alternative 3. While allowed maximum building heights would not increase under any of the alternatives, redevelopment of the Planned Action Study Area would result in taller building heights compared to existing conditions. These localized increases in heights would potentially interfere with the territorial views available at various points throughout the study area. As described in Section 3.12, these views are mostly available at the western and southern edges of the Planned Action Study Area, and along NE Sunset Boulevard, west of Harrington Avenue NE. While redevelopment of properties south of NE Sunset Boulevard would potentially affect southern territorial views, the general increase in building height is likely to create additional upper -story views that are not currently available. This is particularly true in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Redevelopment in this subarea would increase the availability of territorial views to the south, as well as create new views to the west, which are currently blocked by the presence of vegetation and other development. 4.12.1.2 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Visual Character Because public investment in the Planned Action Study Area would be lower under the No Action Alternative, private redevelopment would be limited, and occasional changes would occur to the visual character of the study area compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. While some residential and mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented development may occur as infill or redevelopment on 16% of the parcel acreage, most of the existing older housing stock would not be replaced by new construction. Most of the projected change would occur along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Sunset Mixed Use Corridor with less change in all other subareas (See section 2.7.2.1, Figures 2-7 and 2-8). There would be small areas of residential redevelopment in the north, central, and south subareas, with the addition of educational space at McKnight Middle School in the north subarea. Thus, the Planned Action Study Area as a whole would retain more of its current low-density, auto - oriented character than with Alternatives 2 and 3. Height and Bulk Under the No Action Alternative, private redevelopment would occur more sporadically, and building heights would change at fewer locations in the Planned Action Study Area, with more change anticipated in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea. In areas where redevelopment does occur, building heights would remain limited to 50 feet for residential -only development and 60 feet for buildings with ground -floor retail. Mixed-use development fronting NE Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE would likely reach 60 feet, because the requirement of residential buildings Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.12-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures in this area to include ground -floor retail uses (RMC 4-2-08OA731 comes with the allowance for this height increase. While height or bulk impacts are not anticipated to be significant for the majority of the Planned Action Study Area, localized conflicts of scale could result where new development occurs adjacent to existing development. Differences in height, particularly in the CV zone, could require the application of design standards, such as increased setbacks adjacent to residential zoning. Shade and Shadow Because large increases in building height would not occur in the Planned Action Study Area under the No Action Alternative, shading impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Isolated shading impacts could occur where new development is located adjacent to older buildings of lower height, though environmental and design review of such projects would occur at the time of permit application. Public areas, such as parks and plazas, are particularly sensitive to shading effects. CV zone development on the south side of NE 12th Street would potentially shade the southern edge of the McKnight Middle School playfields, though the effect would be relatively minor, given the width of the street separating them. Sunset Court Park, located north of Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea on Harrington Avenue NE, is currently surrounded by parcels zoned CV, though existing heights are low. Redevelopment at the allowed 50 to 60 feet on these adjacent parcels could produce adverse shading effects on the park property. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Visual Character Under the No Action Alternative, the visual character of this subarea would undergo limited change. RHA would construct a new affordable family housing facility on the two vacant parcels in the northwest corner of the subarea, and a senior housing and day health center on a vacant parcel to the northeast, but the existing Sunset Terrace public housing property would not be redeveloped. Overall, the visual character of the subarea from NE Sunset Boulevard would remain very similar to existing conditions, but there would be some change along interior streets such as Sunset Lane NE. Townhomes proposed along Glenwood Avenue NE se would serve as a buffer between the lower - density duplexes immediately to the east and south and higher -density development to the west and north. Two new multifamily buildings would be located along Edmonds Avenue NE just north of an office development and south of a multifamily complex, and the intervening townhomes would provide a transitional area between this development and the duplexes to the east. The senior housing development would abut commercial development and a multifamily condominium development. Generally, with the intensity of the adjacent uses and with the application of City design standards, compatibility is expected. Height and Bulk Under the No Action Alternative, heights in the subarea would remain similar to current conditions along NE Sunset Boulevard, with some changes along interior streets up to four stories on two vacant parcels to the northwest and one vacant parcel to the northeast. RHA would construct a new affordable housing facility on the two vacant parcels in the northwest corner of the subarea, which would be approximately four stories in height. While taller than the nearby duplex homes along Glenwood Avenue NE, the building would be of similar height to the apartment buildings located Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.12 3 ICF 553.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Enviranmentai Consequences and Mitigation Measures immediately to the north at the intersection of Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street. Townhomes would be proposed closest to the duplexes, which is anticipated to result in a transitional height of three stories near abutting duplex units. A four-story senior housing and day health center would abut single -story commercial to the south and a three-story condominium development to the north. With the intensity of nearby commercial and multifamily uses, as well as application of City design standards, significant height and bulk impacts are not anticipated. Shade and Shadow Under the No Action Alternative, height increases in the subarea would be limited to the new RHA housing facilities, which would have the potential to increase shading of adjacent properties to the north, though the effect would be minor due to similarity in height. Shading impacts could be minimized through the application of buffers or upper -story setbacks adjacent to existing development. 4.12.1.3 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Visual Character Under Alternative 2, visual character in the Planned Action Study Area would undergo some changes, concentrated at strategic nodes of mixed-use development, primarily in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with less growth planned for the North, Central, and South subareas, Overall, about 32% of the Planned Action Study Area acreage would infill or redevelop, which would lead to a greater change in character to a mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented community. Redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area would also replace aging housing stock with newer, higher -quality construction. Institutional changes in the north subarea would include an expanded early childhood educational center and an addition to McKnight Middle School. Joint use of recreational facilities is anticipated at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and North Highlands Park, thus rearranging the location of these uses on two-thirds of the superblock and allow for greater connectivity. Improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard would create a more pedestrian -oriented character, in keeping with the City's Complete Streets standards. The incorporation of natural stormwater infrastructure into street improvements would also add vegetation and green space to the study area, though this would primarily be limited to public properties and rights-of-way. While these changes in visual character would occur in limited locations, they would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. Height and Bulk Height and bulk in the Planned Action Study Area would moderately increase under Alternative 2. Private redevelopment would be concentrated near areas of public reinvestment, such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and along NE Sunset Boulevard. The height of new development would be limited by current zoning at 50 feet, or 60 feet for mixed-use buildings with ground -floor retail, which is taller than the one to two stories typically seen throughout much of the Planned Action Study Area. It is anticipated that mixed-use development fronting NE Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE would reach 60 feet, as residential buildings in this area Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.1� 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures are required to include ground -floor retail uses (RMC 4-2-080A73), as described for Alternative 1. Localized conflicts of scale could occur between new and existing development, particularly at transitions between the CV zone, which allows heights of 50 to 60 feet, and the R-14 zone, which limits heights to between 20 and 30 feet, The application of mitigation measures, such as adopted standards for increased setbacks adjacent to residential zoning (RMC 4-2-120A), would be necessary where new development is located adjacent to existing development to reduce visual impacts on existing residents. Shade and Shadow As described above under "Height and Bulk," Alternative 2 has the potential to result in localized height increases. Also, shading impacts could occur where new structures are adjacent to existing development of two stories or lower, such as along Glenwood Avenue NE, requiring the application of mitigation measures, such as upper -story setbacks or ground -level buffers, to minimize shading effects. Effects on parks would be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Visual Character Under Alternative 2, the visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian -oriented community with a mix of residential, ground -floor commercial, and community uses surrounding an approximately 0.89 -acre park. As depicted in Figure 2-9, the eastern end of the subarea would contain several mixed-use buildings containing civic/community facilities, as well as a mix of retail and residential development. The application of currently adopted development regulations, as well as the replacement of aging housing stock with newer, higher -duality construction, would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in this subarea. Height and Bulk Under Alternative 2, this subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories. While this would make buildings more visually prominent for pedestrians in the subarea, the conceptual redevelopment plan calls for an increase in public open space in the subarea in the form of a park, with townhome development located around it and residential buildings containing flats beyond (Figure 2-9]. No changes would be made to the height limits contained in the existing zoning code; development would remain limited to 50 feet for residential -only buildings and 60 feet for buildings with ground -floor commercial uses. As a result, visual bulk in the subarea would change moderately from the present two-story scale. Shade and Shadow Under Alternative 2, increases in building heights in the subarea would be likely to affect shading conditions. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE at various times of the clay. Additional landscaping, such as street trees, also has the potential to increase shading of pedestrian areas, though the effect would be seasonal. Shading effects on adjacent development are anticipated to be limited, due to buffers in the form of open areas and streets. The proposed interior park, shown in Figure 2-9, could be partially shaded by adjacent townhome development on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.12-5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures north side of Sunset Lane NE. These interior shading effects could be minimized through the application of design standards, such as upper -story setbacks and roof form modulation. 4.12.1.4 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Visual Character The extensive public investment under Alternative 3 would result in widespread changes to the visual character of the Planned Action Study Area affecting about 40% of parcel acres. Private development would take full advantage of the current development regulations, resulting in a transition to a mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood. In addition to the greater development in the Sunset Mixed Use and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subareas, development would greatly increase in the North Subarea with the family village, containing an expanded early childhood education center, new parks facilities, and a townhome development. The right-of-way for NE Sunset Boulevard would be expanded to make room for additional pedestrian amenities such as bike lanes, planted medians, and enlarged sidewalks, all of which would provide increased aesthetic appeal to the area. While the urban density anticipated to result from Alternative 3 would be a substantial increase over existing conditions, the application of adopted design standards, as well as the replacement of aging housing stock with newer, higher - quality construction, would result in the overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. Height and Bulk Alternative 3 would result in redevelopment of the Planned Action Study Area to take greater advantage of currently allowed uses and heights. In most areas zoned CV, this would result in building heights of four to five stories, which is a moderate increase over current conditions, which range from 1 to 3 stories. In particular, heights along NE Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE are very likely reach 60 feet, because residential buildings in this area are required to include ground -floor retail uses (RMC 4-2-080A73), as described for Alternative 1. This would make buildings more visually prominent to both pedestrians and motorists in the area and generally increase the visual bulk of development. The increased landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and green infrastructure created by public investment in the study area would help reduce visual hulk, but the application of mitigation measures would be necessary to ensure that private development is conducted in a manner that maintains a human scale, such as facade modulation, upper -story setbacks, inclusion of ground -level details to generate visual interest, and variety of roofline forms. Unlike under Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 would include the family village—a mixed housing and services redevelopment—north of 16th Street NE, which would introduce multistory townhomes to the area as well as larger square footages of institutional uses. Shade and Shadow Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase under Alternative 3, shading effects would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2410 Draft NEPA/SlEnvironmental Impact Statement 4.12 6 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures some of the most intense commercial and mixed-use development. Highlands Park, North highlands Park, and McKnight Middle School, where there are large tracts of public open space, could also potentially he shaded by increased nearby development heights, though land adjacent to these parks is primarily zoned R -S and R-14; heights would remain limited to 30 feet for residential and commercial uses and 20 feet for commercial development. One exception is Sunset Court Park, located north of Sunset Terrace on Harrington Avenue NE, which is currently surrounded by parcels zoned CV, though existing heights are low. Redevelopment at the allowed 50-60 feet on these adjacent parcels could produce adverse shading effects on the park property similar to other studied alternatives. The application of development regulations and mitigation measures, such as upper - story setbacks and roof -form modulation, will be necessary to minimize shading impacts at these locations. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Visual Character Under Alternative 3, the visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian -oriented community with a mix of residential, ground -floor commercial, and community uses linked by public spaces and landscaped pedestrian pathways. The eastern end of the subarea, where the commercial and community uses would be located, would undergo the greatest change from current conditions. As depicted in Figure 2-10, lot coverage near the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and NE 10th Street would increase, making the development more publicly oriented and more closely connected to the sidewalk. The application of currently adopted development regulations, as well as the replacement of aging housing stock with newer, higher -quality construction, would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the subarea. Height and Bulk Under Alternative 3, the subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. As shown in Figure 2-1.0, heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than under current conditions. While this would make buildings more visually prominent for pedestrians in the subarea, the conceptual redevelopment plan calls for an increase in public open space in the subarea, as well as more extensive landscaping throughout the subarea. No changes would be made to the height limits contained in the existing zoning code, so development would remain limited to 50 feet for residential -only buildings and 60 feet for buildings with ground -Floor commercial uses, so visual bulk in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would remain relatively low. Shade and Shadow Due to the anticipated increases in building height and lot coverage in the subarea, shading conditions are also likely to change. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times of the day. The central park proposed in the Harrington Avenue NE right-of-way could potentially be shaded in the early morning and late afternoon hours by the adjacent residential buildings and community center, but the effects are anticipated to be minor, given the north -south orientation of the park and the low height of the Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.12-7 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures adjacent buildings. Interior shading effects could be minimized through the application of design standards, such as upper -story setbacks and roof form modulation. Additional landscaping, such as street trees, also has the potential to increase shading of pedestrian areas, though the effect would be seasonal. Shading effects on adjacent development are anticipated to he limited, as the conceptual redevelopment plan provides generous buffer areas along the north edge of the subarea. 4.12.2 Mitigation Measures 4.12.2.1 Adopted Regulations In both the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, mitigation measures will be necessary to minimize impacts associated with increased height, bulk, and shading. Future development occurring under any of the alternatives should conform to the following sections of the Renton Municipal Code, as applicable. • RMC 4-2-115F1. Site Design: o Lot Configuration o Garages • RMC 4-2-115172. Open Space • RMC 4-2-115173. Residential Design: o Primary hntry o Facade Modulation o Windows and Doors o Scale, Bulk, and Character o Roofs o Eaves a Architectural Detailing a Materials and Color • RMC 4-3-1 HE 1. Site Design and Building Location: a Building Location and Orientation o Transition to Surrounding Development • RMC 4-3-100E3. Pedestrian Environment: o Pedestrian Circulation o Pedestrian Amenities r RMC 4-3-100ES. Building Architectural Design: o Building Character and Massing o Ground Level Details Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.12-8 iCF 553.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures a Building Roof Lines RMC 4-4-075. Lighting, Exterior On -Site 4.12.2.2 Other Potential Mitigation Measures As described in RMC 4-3-10063, portions of the Planned Action Study Area do not currently lie within an established urban Design District, most notably those properties north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE, where the family village proposed under Alternative 3 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. 4.12.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement x'12 9 iCF 593.10 Chapter 4. Envirormertal Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Historic and Cultural Resources 4.13.1 Impacts Impacts on cultural resources are discussed at two levels for each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. This historic and cultural resources analysis is based on records and field review intended to determine the presence or lack of cultural resources. Efforts to identify cultural resources in the Planned Action Study Area consisted of: conducting a review of records at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), the City, and RHA to identify properties previously listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Washington Heritage Register (WHR); conducting archaeological investigations of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, including a pedestrian survey of the ground surface and, in areas where project -related ground -disturbance is expected, excavation of a series of shovel test pits to reveal the nature of the subsurface deposits and whether or not buried cultural materials are present; and conducting a reconnaissance -level historic resources survey of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and parcels with frontage on NE Sunset Boulevard focusing on resources 45 years of age or older. A review of the development proposed within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under the three alternatives was conducted in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and consultation initiated with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and affected tribes. The Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Cultural Resources Survey Report (Appendix J) describes field methods, results, and findings of this review in more detail. Appendix J also includes correspondence, including the SHPO's concurrence with the determinations of eligibility and findings of no adverse effect. The Section 106 review focused on locations in the Planned Action Study Area that likely would receive federal funding and that would be under construction in the near term (the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and parcels with frontage on NE Sunset Boulevard). Given the life of the proposed Planned Action over 20 years, this Draft EIS assumes the Planned Action Study Area may contain additional archaeological resources and historic resources that have not been identified at this time. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.13-1 ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures 4.13.1.1 Research and Analysis Planned Action Study Area Record Search and Literature Review A record search was conducted using the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database (WISAARD) to identify previously documented archaeological, ethnographic, and historic resources within 1 mile of the Planned Action Study Area. WISAARD contains all records and reports on file with the DAHP recorded since 1995. No previously completed cultural resources studies and no previously documented archaeological sites are located in the study area. Only one historic resource, the building at 2615 NE Sunset Boulevard, was previously recorded in the Planned Action Study Area. However, the building's NRHP eligibility was not previously evaluated, and is evaluated in this Draft EIS. Ten previously completed cultural resources surveys and one archaeological site were identified outside the study area, but within a 1 - mile radius of its boundary. A summary of these cultural resources studies and the archaeological site is provided in Table 4.13-1. Table 4.13-1. Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Sites within 1 Mile of the Planned Action Study Area NADH # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources 1339887 Juell 2001 Cultural Resources Literature search and None Inventory of the proposed windshield survey of Washington Light Lanes 1-405 corridor Project 1352447 Bundy 2008 Interstate 405 Corridor Survey of 1-405 None Survey: Phase IInterstate corridor and shovel 5 to State Route 169 testing Improvements Project 1351994 Goetz 2008 Archaeological Excavation of six None Assessment, Dayton shovel probes Avenue NE/NE 22nd Street Stormwater System Project 1353126 Chatters Recovery of Two Early Exhumation of Site 45K1686; NRHP 2009 20th Century Graves from remains of young eligible, but site Renton, WA male and older completely removed probable female from through excavation residential area 1348842 Hodges Cultural Resources Monitoring of 20, None 2007a Assessment for the 4 -inch bore holes Proposed Lowes of through fill Renton 1349666 Stipe 2007 Verizon Wireless SEA Records search and None Renton Voc-Tech Cellular pedestrian Tower Cultural Resources archaeological Review survey 1349929 Miss 2007 Archaeological Monitoring of None Monitoring for the South excavated trenches Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4-13-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementCF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures NADB # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources Project 1349789 Hodges Archaeological Resource Excavation of 29 None 2007b Assessment for the South backhoe trenches Lake Washington through fill Roadway Improvement Project 1340681 Cooper 2001 Antennae on an Existing Survey around None Transmission Tower footprint of 22611 Southeast 96th transmission tower Street and one shovel test Historic Resources Survey A historic resources survey was completed for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and parcels with frontage on NE Sunset Boulevard, which involved examining and photographing buildings and structures in these areas determined to be 45 years of age or older. Properties identified as 45 years of age or older were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRHP and recorded in the Washington State Historic Property Inventory Database, per DAHP reporting standards. One resource, in the Sunset Mixed Use Subarea, the building at 2825 NE Boulevard Sunset, was identified as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Archaeological Investigation Archaeologists conducted an archaeological survey of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, using standard DAHP-accepted methods appropriate for finding and recording cultural resources. The field survey included walking transects across the subarea and excavating shovel tests. The purpose of this survey was to identify any visible archaeological materials and to characterize the subsurface portion of the subarea. Shovel test pits (50 centimeters in diameter) were excavated in areas not covered in asphalt, concrete, buildings, or other features. The pits were excavated to the depth of Pleistocene sediments or dense gravel deposits of obstructing rocks, when encountered. All shovel test pits were excavated by hand and sediments were screened through 6 - millimeter (0.25 -inch) mesh hardware cloth. Each shovel test pit was photographed using a digital camera, mapped using a Trimble GeoXM global positioning system (GPS) unit, then backfilled. No archaeological materials were identified in the subarea. Historic Resources Survey A historic resources survey was completed for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea using methods as described in the Planned Action Study Area. No resources were identified as potentially NRHP eligible due to lack of integrity as documented in Appendix J. 4.13.1.2 Significance Thresholds Determining whether a proposed action has the potential to impact a significant cultural resource is dependent on the existing integrity and nature of those elements that contribute to the resource's historic or cultural significance, and the sensitivity of the resource's current or historic use. Any future development project in the Planned Action Study Area that would cause a substantial adverse Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2410 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.13 3 lCF 593.70 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures change in the significance of a cultural resource (see NRNP criteria under Regulatory Context in Section 3.13) would represent a significant impact on cultural resources. In the State of Washington, historical archaeological resources and historic structures are assessed using the minimum NRHP (36 CFR 60) age threshold of 50 years of age or older. This 50 -year age threshold must be considered when assessing future development as well. For example, a structure that is presently 45 years old may be eligible for the NRHP when development commences in 5 years. Thus, to account for proposals that may be constructed in the near term, such as NE Sunset Boulevard, a more conservative 4S -year timeframe was considered. 4.13.1.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives Planned Action Study Area All studied alternatives accommodate different levels of growth and development in coming years: the No Action Alternative accommodates growth in fewer portions of the study area (about 16% of parcel acreage); Alternative 2 accommodates moderate growth (about 32% of parcel acreage); and Alternative 3 accommodates a relatively high level of growth (about 40% of parcel acreage). The likelihood that any of this development would affect cultural resources is dependent on the proximity of the proposed development to any identified cultural resources. Any future development projects located on or in the proximity of known cultural resources in the study area could have impacts on the cultural resource. Any future development project in the study area that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a cultural resource would represent a significant impact related to cultural resources. No significant cultural resources are known to exist in the Planned Action Study Area, except for the identified NRHP-eligible property at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard. Future development in the study area would not impact any known NRHP-eligible archaeological or historic properties, unless it occurred on the same parcel as this property. With the exception of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, however, no archaeological or historic resource surveys have been conducted in the study area and the potential for impacts on unknown cultural resources cannot be measured (see Unknown Resources below). Archaeological resources Review of existing archaeological records within 1 mile of the Planned Action Study Area reveals that all known archaeological sites are located in areas for which the geomorphology indicates a high probability for containing precontact archaeological sites (e.g., f7oodplains and lake margins). In contrast, the study area itself is located on a glacial till plain, which has a low probability for precontact archaeological sites. Moreover, archaeological inventory survey and landform analysis within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea reveals that much of the sediments and soils deposited and formed prior to the modern period during the Holocene epoch have been removed. Because there is only evidence of human occupation in the Puget Sound area during the Holocene epoch, the modern removal of sediments and soils from this period result in a very low probability for encountering intact archaeological deposits. Only a small percentage of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea surface provided access to subsurface sediments for archaeological analysis; however, it is possible that soils and sediments deposited during the Holocene epoch, and potential archaeological resources, exist within the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4' 3 4 icr 593.10 City of Renton Historic Resources Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Only one NRHP-eligible resource is known to exist within the Planned Action Study Area. The building at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard was identified during the reconnaissance -level historic resources survey of parcels with frontage on NE Sunset Boulevard. The building is an excellent example of a 1960s era supermarket, has good integrity, and is likely the design of a master architect. It is considered eligible for the NRHP under criterion C at the local level of significance, because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type and style of construction and may represent the work of a master. Unknown Resources' The specific impacts on unknown cultural resources cannot be discussed in detail without identifying and defining the characteristics or significance of the archaeological sites and historic resources. However, typical project impacts that could disrupt or adversely affect cultural resources include: • demolition, removal, or substantial alteration without consideration of historic and archaeological sites and/or features; • incompatible massing, size, scale, or architectural style of new development adjacent to properties containing cultural resources; • obstruction or extensive shading of significant views to and from a cultural resource by new development; • incompatible use of an existing building or structure identified as a cultural resource; • disruption of integrity of a cultural resource's setting; and • long-term loss of access to property containing a cultural resource. All alternatives accommodate future growth in the Planned Action Study Area, which could occur on any property in the Planned Action Study Area and have the potential to impact unknown cultural resources. Therefore, potential impacts on unknown cultural resources would be the same under any alternative, although the rate and timing of these impacts would vary. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea No significant cultural resources are known to exist in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Archaeological excavations revealed mixed, imported, or absent sediments or soils that would have the potential to contain archaeological resources. Concrete and asphalt also covered much of the ground surface along NE Boulevard Sunset. At the vacant eastern lot where enriched senior housing is proposed (parcel number 7227801785), buried native "A" horizon sediment was identified between 84 and 94 centimeters below surface. This sediment is considered a buried native surface, I At the time of this Draft EIS, RHA is considering the addition of a community and laundry building on its Hillcrest Terrace site north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE. As an independent action, it is undergoing its own NEPA environmental review process. There is a potential that Hillcrest Terrace would be considered a historic resource when it reaches SO years of age; review is ongoing at the time of this writing. Until such time as eligibility is determined the site would be considered an unknown resource. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.13 5 CF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures which would have been exposed during the Holocene epoch. Because it is located within the lot, ground -disturbing activities would potentially encounter sediments containing archaeological deposits. The potential for the discovery of archaeological deposits in the rest of this subarea in general is considered low. The historic resources survey evaluated the Sunset Terrace public housing complex and several residences along Glenwood Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE in this subarea. None of these resources is considered NRNP -eligible. The Sunset Terrace public housing complex, which resulted from federal investment in housing during the postwar period, is associated with a well-known Seattle architect, but the individual buildings were substantially altered by renovations in the 1970s such that the property no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey historical significance. Furthermore, the individual residences along Glenwood Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE do not appear to embody characteristics or a method of construction that would warrant special recognition. Based on the cultural resources investigations, future development in the subarea would have no impact any known NRHP-eligible archaeological or historic properties, and the likelihood of impact on unknown cultural resources is considered low based on the results of the archaeological investigations and the historic resources survey completed for the subarea. Development in the subarea would have the same low potential to impact cultural resources under any alternative either through infill development on vacant sites or through redevelopment of the subarea. 4.13.1.4 Alternative 1: No Action The "Impacts Common to All Alternatives" section identifies the likely impacts on cultural resources associated with the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, development would proceed under the City's current Comprehensive Plan and development regulations and 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 the study area would experience less growth and related development than under Alternatives 2 or 3, impacts on cultural resources are likely to occur with less frequency under the No Action Alternative. 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. 4.13.1.5 Alternative 2 The "Impacts Common to All Alternatives" section identifies the likely impacts on cultural resources associated with Alternative 2. Alternative 2 supports a higher level of growth in the study area than the No Action Alternative, necessitating a corresponding higher level of development. Therefore, Alternative 2 is more likely to have impacts on cultural resources. Development would proceed in fewer locations than Alternative 3, but would still likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures that could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Under this alternative, there would be more opportunities to encounter cultural resources over time than under the No Action Alternative, but fewer than under Alternative 3. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project -specific basis. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.13-6 1CF 593,10 City of Renton 4.13.1.6 Alternative 3 Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The "Impacts Common to All Alternatives" section identifies the likely impacts on cultural resources associated with Alternative 3. Alternative 3 supports the highest level of growth in the study area considered in this Draft EIS. Therefore, Alternative 3 would provide the highest frequency of opportunities to encounter cultural resources over time. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project -specific basis. 4.13.2 Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area The following mitigation measures are recommended for all future development projects in the Planned Action Study Area. • In the event that a proposed development site within the study area contains a building at least SQ years of age that is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP` or WHR, the project would be required to undergo review to determine if the property is considered eligible for listing. It is recommended that the City adopt a historic preservation ordinance that considers the identification and treatment of historic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR or locally designated. Until such time an ordinance is adopted, the City must enter into consultation with DAHP regarding potential impacts on historic resources in the study area that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR. For future projects that involve significant excavation in the study area, the City must enter into consultation with DAHP to determine the likelihood of and recommendations for addressing potential archaeological resources. It may be necessary to complete archaeological testing prior to significant excavation in the study area, such as digging for footings or utilities. Archaeological project monitoring may be recommended for subsurface excavation and construction in high probability areas. In the event that a future development project in the study area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing an archaeological resource, the potential impacts on the archaeological resource must be considered and, if needed, a study conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine whether the project would materially impact the archaeological resource. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City will impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. Non -site-specific mitigation could include developing an educational program, interpretive displays, and design guidelines that focus on compatible materials, and professional publications. Sunset Area community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.13 y ICF 593.10 Chapter4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures 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, it is recommended that the contractor halts excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. For DAHP contact information, see Unanticipated Discovery Plan in Appendix J. If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sheriff and DAHP should be notified immediately. If during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes, as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Appendix J. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City will impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. 4.13.3 Significant 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 Section 4.13.2 would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could be taken. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.13-8 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.14 Transportation 4.14.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Future -year traffic impacts with and without project improvements are evaluated in this section. The analysis evaluates the No Action Alternative, which assumes existing lane geometry on traffic study area roadways remain as they are today, and only background traffic growth occurs within the Planned Action Study Area. The action alternatives assume the proposed improvements and developments within the Planned Action Study Area are in place, and that traffic generated by these developments are on the street network. The future conditions analysis is conducted for the same peak hour analyzed for the existing conditions (Section 3.14), and for the same study intersections. Future conditions are analyzed for two horizon years: 2015 and 2030. 4.14.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Background Growth The City's version of the PSRC regional travel forecasting model was used to develop Alternative 1 background traffic volumes for both 2015 and 2030. Within the Planned Action Study Area, background traffic increases represent gradual growth in employment and increased dwellings and households. No major planned, proposed, or known transportation development projects were included in Alternative 1, and none were identified by the City for inclusion in the forecast models. The future model network resembles the existing condition street system within the Planned Action Study Area. Outside of the Planned Action Study Area, the forecast model includes an improvement to 1-405. This improvement assumes 1-405 between SR 167 and I-90 is widened from the existing lane configuration to four lanes in each direction. In the forecast model, this improvement provides additional regional capacity, and could influence traffic within the study area since NE Sunset Boulevard is a direct connection to the interstate. Traffic produced by the future -year Alternative 1 models was compared with existing year model traffic to calculate growth rates throughout the Planned Action Study Area. In 2015, background traffic is expected to be approximately 15% greater than existing, while in 2030, background traffic could he approximately 20% greater than existing levels. These growth rates were applied to existing traffic volumes at each intersection to develop future volumes. Operational Analysis The future -year operational results were reported from the Synchro analysis generated from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Under Alternative 1, traffic patterns and signal timing were assumed to remain the same as existing. Results indicate that all but two of the study intersections are expected to operate at the LOS D threshold or better. In 2015, the all -way -stop -controlled intersection at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street could operate at LOS E (down from the existing LOS C) due to increases in background traffic growth on Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.14 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures the southhound approach. The Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection operates at LOS D, and although the LOS standard is met, the results indicate it is nearing capacity. In 2030, this intersection could he expected to worsen to LOS E, while the adjacent intersection on Edmonds Avenue NE at NE 12th Street could operate at LOS F due to increases in southbound delay. The LOS and delay results for Alternative 1 are presented in Table 4.14-1. Table 4.14-1. Intersection Operations -Alternative 1(No Action) Alternative 1 PM Peak 2015 2030 Int # Intersection Control LOS Delay(s) LOS Delay(s) 1 NE Sunset Blvd & NF; Park Dr Signalized A 8.8 A 9.4 2 NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds Ave NE Signalized 13 12.0 B 12.6 3 NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 6.9 A 7.2 4 NE Sunset Blvd & NE 10th St Signalized B 13.3 B 14.4 S NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE OWSC C 18.7 C 21.2 6 NE Sunset Blvd & NE 12th St Signalized C 21.4 C 22.8 7 NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE OWSC B 14.7 C 1S.1 8 Edmonds Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC E 43.1 F S7.3 9 Harrington Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC D 27.7 E 35.7 10 Kirkland Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC B 12.4 B 12.9 OWSC = one-way stop control; AWSC = all -way stop control; LOS = level of service Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle. Bold type indicates results worse than City LOS D threshold. Figures 4.14-1 and 4.14-2 depict the Alternative 1 turning -movement volumes, along with their anticipated intersection delay and LOS values, for 2015 and 2030. Appendix F provides the detailed HCM-generated Synchro reports for each study intersection. Other Impacts Alternative 1 is not expected to result in construction impacts as no roadway improvements are planned. Growth would he consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; alternative 1 operational analysis is based on model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City's current and planned roadway system. No changes to nonmotorized facilities or transit are expected except for those nonmotorized improvements identified in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan adopted in May 2009 (City of Renton 2009). Alternative 1 is not measured in terms of sustainability principles, because no improvements are proposed. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.14-2 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 3N andaojuoyp $'I p w z 3N eny MEWING 0 uosaa}}a( Index Ave NE ;S z LUz Z 3N any uo;6uuie4 P3 Q W 1JJ z z ;] uo;4q a` L M r -i Uj z gl v+ � q0N W z a W M ,. n m 4 d W Z � ® ry Monroe Ave ISE 3N any puepii)l J N w � Ih�re.�V i,n:Pir,1rJ!i a 1 4* o, a C M p 2 Sm a Uy j . Y ��r Ave NE C m w z U a N� Z L 2 Fay ,. u � s W a E E c c � rn rn G _LUc/u� t ' w `] Ec d g O r-1 lot )b 3N any aaJUON w z � a m z w o a m est 0 z 3N aAV PuelVIN u0sJa}}a f Index Ave NE ;S r F r4 P] l) uo;l((e4 7- ? Z 3N any u0;6uuae0 t M W Z r4 r`I z z Monroe Ave NE 3N any puelp)l 3 Ow z a 4 � � Q x z O `L r E Z I ,., g z dam Glennwoc� O O O FL U z c w 2 z a 4m Z W J J N Q �t � d ❑ e, o E c J y r .2. 3 � Daidl�t N p �o o J J N Chapter 4. Environmental Corsequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, background traffic volumes are expected to grow at similar percentages described above for the Planned Action Study Area. Two intersections along NE Sunset Boulevard are located in the southern portion of the subarea and are expected to operate well within the City's operational LOS D standard. As shown in Table 4.14-1, NE Sunset Boulevard at Harrington Avenue NE is expected to operate at LOS A and NE Sunset Boulevard at 10th Avenue NE would operate at LOS B. These are likely the highest volume intersections within the subarea because they provide direct access to a state facility. Therefore, although traffic volumes were not analyzed at residential intersections in the subarea, the LOS on Harrington Avenue NE at NE 10th Street, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, as well as Glenwood Avenue NE at Sunset Lane NE, are expected to operate at LOS D or better. Increases in residential volumes and future delays are not expected to adversely impact traffic within the subarea because of the lower volumes and ample capacity. Transit Under Alternative 1, transit services are expected to be similar to existing conditions. No increases to service area or timeframe are planned. Bus stops and other transit amenities would remain as they are today. Modest increases in land use developments could include transit -oriented features, such as higher -density retail in close proximity to existing bus stops, but transit operations would be relatively similar to current conditions. Nonmotorized Facilities Similar to transit, nonmotorized facilities under Alternative 1 would remain the same as existing conditions. Marked crosswalks and sidewalks on NE Sunset Boulevard and within the traffic study area would remain in place, but no new facilities would be provided. 4.14.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Trip Generation and Distribution Trips generated by development in the Planned Action Study Area were estimated using the future - year regional travel forecasting model with applied proposed land uses. In 2030, approximately 180 additional households (compared to Alternative 1) are planned within the Planned Action Study Area, and approximately 1,200 additional employment positions would be created. Roughly half of these increases would be expected by 2015. With proposed development, traffic produced by the future -year Alternative 2 forecasting models was compared with existing year model traffic to calculate an overall growth rate for the Planned Action Study Area. The expected increases in the number of dwellings and households, as well as the focused increase of employment due to development resulted in approximately 17% growth in traffic in 2015 (when compared to existing traffic). Traffic in 2030 would likely be 25% higher than existing volumes. Future traffic patterns are assumed to be similar to existing patterns, except at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Kirkland Avenue NE. This intersection currently allows access to and from Sunset Area Community planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.14-5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures all approaches. As part of the proposed Alternative 2 design, a dedicated eastbound left -turn pocket on NE Sunset Boulevard would be created to provide refuge for vehicles headed northbound on Kirkland Avenue NE. This turn pocket would restrict westbound vehicles on NE Sunset Avenue from making a left turn onto Kirkland Avenue NE, and vehicles on Kirkland Avenue NE would no longer be able to cross NE Sunset Boulevard. Kirkland Avenue NE would be restricted to right -in, right -out access only. The proposed design is intended to increase mobility along NE Sunset Boulevard and improve safety for motorists by reducing the number of vehicle conflict movements. Traffic displaced by the proposed turn pocket would be routed through adjacent study intersections to their intended destinations. Operational Analysis Under Alternative 2, signal timing was assumed to remain the same as existing. Although optimization of traffic signals along NE Sunset Boulevard could occur with future developments, the existing signal timing and phasing provides a conservative analysis of future operations. Alternative 2 is expected to have higher average vehicle delay times compared to Alternative 1. In 2030, the average delay at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street is expected to be approximately 74 seconds per vehicle approaching the intersection. This is 17 seconds per vehicle greater than Alternative 1. At Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street, the average vehicle delay would be approximately 13 seconds greater than Alternative 1. Although vehicle delay would increase, the LOS between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would remain similar. Both intersections described would operate at LOS E or F in the future due to increased trip demand, with or without implementation of Alternative 2. Table 4.14-2 presents the LOS and delay expected with Alternative 2. Table 4.14-2. Intersection Operations—Alternative 2 Alternative 2 PM Peak 2015 2030 Int # Intersection Control LOS Delay(s) LOS Delay(s) 1 NE Sunset Blvd & NE Park Dr Signalized A 9.1 B 10.2 2 NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 12.3 B 13.1 3 NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 7.0 A 8.1 4 NE Sunset Blvd & NE 10th St Signalized B 14.6 B 16.5 5 NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE OWSC B 10.1 B 10.6 6 NE Sunset Blvd & NE 12th St Signalized C 23.3 C 29.0 7 NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE OWSC B 14.9 C 15.3 8 Edmonds Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC E 49.8 F 74.2 9 Harrington Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC D 32.3 E 48.3 10 Kirkland Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC B 12.6 B 13.5 OWSC = one-way stop control; AWSC = all -way stop control; LOS = level of service Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle. Bold type indicates results worse than City LOS D threshold. At the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Kirkland Avenue NE, the average delay and LOS would improve under Alternative 2, because the left -turn and through movements would no longer be allowed on Kirkland Avenue NE. The intersection delay time represents delay for right -turning Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.14 6 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 59310 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures vehicles only as they wait for a safe gap in traffic on NE Sunset Boulevard. Figures 4.14-3 and 4,14-4 show the turning -movement volumes, intersection delay, and LOS values for Alternative 2 in both 2015 and 2030. Detailed intersections reports are located in Appendix F. Construction Impacts Potential impacts that could result from Alternative 2 construction activities include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes, and road closures. During construction, vehicles would be necessary to bring equipment and materials to the Planned Action Study Area. Large, oversized trucks could require pilot vehicles as they travel to and from the freeway with large loads. These trucks may also require flaggers to manually divert or control traffic as they enter or exit roadways (due to large turning radii). This traffic maintenance would cause delays for motorists. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction of Alternative 2. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times, and may force reroutes through lower volumes local streets. Depending on the necessary workforce, an increase in personnel vehicles may also impact traffic operations within the Planned Action Study Area, especially during the PM peak when construction ends for the day. Transit Alternative 2 includes improved transit amenities along NE Sunset Boulevard, and Harrington Avenue NE. Along NE Sunset Boulevard at NE 10th Street and at Edmonds Avenue NE and on Harrington Avenue NE south of NE Sunset Boulevard, expanded bus zones are proposed on both sides of the road. These bus zones would provide a safe, well -lit waiting area for transit users, and are conveniently located near proposed retail or residential land uses. At existing bus stop locations where expanded bus zones are not proposed, covered bus shelters, improved lighting, and street furniture and benches would be provided to make transit an attractive travel option. All bus stops within the Planned Action Study Area will be upgraded to meet ADA accessibility requirements. Nonmotorized Facilities Nonmotorized facilities under Alternative 2 would be improved compared to existing conditions. Alternative 2 includes a new 5 -foot -wide designated bicycle lane in the eastbound direction of NE Sunset Boulevard from NE Park Drive to NE 10th Street. East of NE 10th Street, the bicycle lane transitions to a paved, multi -use shared bicycle and pedestrian pathway. This pathway is buffered from vehicular traffic by landscaping and a planter strip. Pedestrian improvements under Alternative 2 would also include reconstructed sidewalks and planter strips or landscaping buffers along NE Sunset Boulevard and all traffic study area roadways. These continuous sidewalks aligned at a comfortable distance from the roadway and marked crosswalks at intersections would improve pedestrian connectivity and promote a walkable community. In some locations, existing chain-link fence would be replaced with a vegetated trellis on top of walls at the back of sidewalks to create a more inviting environment for pedestrians. Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. Pedestrian -supportive signals such as count -down heads and audible signals are included in Alternative 2 to improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways at signalized intersections. Other pedestrian -level design amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, wayfinding signs, and art would be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity in the Planned Action Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.14-7 ICF 593.10 Z iLU ui z 3N antl aOJuayyl � gI Monroe Ave NE CA u N 'i E w T'! Q F— LU �= a CL LL w ry Z aj a ❑ N O a L W Y C Q m Ln d N C 7 E d Q +J aA N 3 C/i 194 fqs�03N @AV RUel�ji LUz vi� 3N any pue{ljl}{ index Ave NE #S N Z u7 z s A N 3N any uo16uwe „f "-oar z GlenrANOP O 4 '�J s wp3 0 © w z a t z:) uOlApq i5 U, 0 z z � 4 � a r, iu 44M Z w z z Ig CA u N 'i E w T'! Q F— LU �= a CL LL w ry Z aj a ❑ N O a L W Y C Q m Ln d N C 7 E d Q +J aA N 3 C/i 194 3N anV aojuoyf �--4 +� V z z s� 0 z 3N 3AV PuejjJIA 0 8 Uo5aa}}ar Index Ave NE ;S P3 }:) UDJAeQ „J w Z z 3N any uo16uuie0 m ti z Monroe Ave NE z P GJenrxod' 0 0 o 8 3N aAv pue€lrn �r N Na 2� lil City of Renton Sustainability Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures In consideration of emerging best practices in the U.S. for addressing sustainability at the municipal level, sustainability metrics were used to evaluate the alternatives. The Greenroads rating system (Muench et al. 2010) is a sustainability evaluation metric to certify the "sustainability" of roadways, similar to LEED certification for building projects and Energy Star certification for appliances. A Greenroad is defined as a roadway project that has been designed and constructed to a level of sustainability that is substantially higher than current common practice. The concept of ensuring sustainability by integrating economic and equity objectives with environmental objectives is commonly described as the "triple bottom line." Integration of these three broad policy themes should be regarded as a best practice in terms of general definitions of sustainability. For the purposes of municipal projects, it is useful to focus on those arenas that are within the actual purview of municipal governments. These fall in the following categories: • energy, • local and regional economics, • pollution, • public health, • community identity and character, and • equity. The Greenroads rating system considers best practices applied in these general categories. For more information on Greenroads, the reader is encouraged to view the website at www.greenroads.us. The Greenroads evaluation for Alternative 2 is found in Appendix F. Scoring criteria were scored in four responses: "Included," "Not Included," "To Be Included," and "To Be Determined." Many of the evaluation metrics apply to construction methods or final design elements; therefore, the inclusion of these best practices will be determined as the project progresses. Alternative 2 scores a minimum of 33 with a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, Alternative 2 meets the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of certification (Evergreen). In the Greenroads evaluation, Alternative 2 scores most strongly in the "Access and Equity" section, based on its improvements to access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Energy is currently the most urgent of the sustainability issues, because it is at the root of so many other major issues. Climate change, air pollution, public health, and economic vitality are all driven to a significant extent by the way we produce and consume energy. Improving walkability, pedestrian connections, and transit facilities as part of Alternative 2 is likely to contribute to lower consumption of energy by encouraging more pedestrian activity and less vehicle travel. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive flan land use estimates; however, Alternative 2 operational analysis is based on model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City's current and planned roadway system. Results are similar to Alternative 1. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.14-10 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Ervironmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Traffic operations in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be similar to operations under Alternative 1. Within the subarea, traffic growth from existing conditions would be similar to that outside the subarea. Trips generated by specific subarea land uses would likely travel to and from NE Sunset Boulevard via the signalized intersections at Harrington Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street. These intersections would likely facilitate the majority of traffic into and out of the subarea, while still operating better than the LOS D threshold. As shown in Table 4.14-2, NE Sunset Boulevard at Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street would operate at LOS A and LOS B, respectively, in both 2015 and 2030. Stop -controlled intersections within the subarea on Harrington Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE are likely to operate better than LOS D as well because of the lower volume and ample capacity. Queues and delays resulting from subarea - generated traffic under Alternative 2 are expected to be similar to those resulting from background growth alone. 4.14.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Trip Generation and Distribution In 2030, Alternative 3 would have approximately 1,000 more households or dwellings as Alternative 1, and approximately 2,400 additional employment positions. Roughly 40% of these would be in place by 2015. Using the City's version of the PSRC future -year regional travel forecasting model to evaluate these increases, an overall growth rate for traffic in the Planned Action Study Area was calculated for both 2015.and 2030. Compared to existing volumes, traffic under Alternative 3 would be approximately 20% higher in 2015 and approximately 32% higher in 2030, Future traffic patterns in Alternative 3 would be different from existing conditions at multiple intersections along NE Sunset Boulevard. The proposed design of Alternative 3 includes closing Harrington Avenue NE between NE Sunset Lane and NE 10th Street. This closure would likely reduce the number of vehicles that use Harrington Avenue NE to reach NE Sunset Boulevard, because the direct connection would be severed. Vehicles that head southbound on Harrington Avenue NE would be diverted to NE 10th Street to access NE Sunset Boulevard. The signalized intersection at NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE would essentially provide a connection for local residential traffic only, whereas the signal at NE 10th would likely become the main access for local traffic destined for points north of NE 12th Street. Approximately 80% of traffic to and from the north leg of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE were shifted to the NE 10th Street intersection to account for the closure. Similar to Alternative 2, the design of Alternative 3 at NE Sunset Boulevard and Kirkland Avenue NE would restrict vehicles from crossing NE Sunset Boulevard. The all -way movements allowed today would be restricted to right -in, right -out access to and from Kirkland Avenue NE, and eastbound left turns from NE Sunset Boulevard only. This design reduces the number of possible conflict points between opposing directions of traffic, and would likely improve safety along the corridor. With fewer conflict points, the design would likely improve mobility within the traffic study area. Vehicles affected by the turn restrictions would be rerouted to either of the adjacent signalized intersections. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.14-11 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Operational Analysis Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Traffic operations were analyzed for Alternative 3 assuming the same signal timing as currently employed by the City. This existing signal timing and phasing provides a conservative analysis of future operations. In 2030, two intersections would operate at LOS F under Alternative 3. Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would have approximately 42 additional seconds of delay per vehicle compared to Alternative 1. Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would see 33 additional delay seconds over Alternative i and would degrade to LOS F (from LOS E under Alternative 1). In 2015, the average vehicle delay at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street would increase by approximately 13 seconds over Alternative 1, and would result in a one -level drop to LOS F. The expected operational LOS and delay results from Alternative 3 are presented in Table 4.14-3. Table 4.14-3. Intersection Operations -Alternative 3 Int # Intersection Control LOS Alternative 3 PM Peak 2015 2030 Delay(s) LOS Delay(s) 1 NE Sunset Blvd & NE Park Dr Signalized A 9.3 B 11.9 2 NE Sunset Blvd & Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 12.4 B 13.7 3 NE Sunset Blvd & Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 6.7 A 8.3 4 NE Sunset Blvd & NE 10th St Signalized B 16.2 C 20.6 5 NE Sunset Blvd & Kirkland Ave NE OWSC B 10.3 B 11.1 6 NE Sunset Blvd & NE 12th St Signalized C 24.3 D 38.8 7 NE Sunset Blvd & Monroe Ave NE OWSC B 15.0 C 15.6 8 Edmonds Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC F 55.8 F 99.6 9 Harrington Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC D 35.0 F 68.9 10 Kirkland Ave NE & NE 12th St AWSC B 12.8 B 14.4 OWSC = one-way stop control; AWSC = all -way stop control; LOS = level of service Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle. Bold type indicates results worse than City LOS D threshold. LOS at the two intersections highlighted above under Alternative 3 is worse than under Alternative 1 and worse than the City's LOS D threshold as a result of the increase in trips generated by Alternative 3 development. The additional trip demand on the traffic study area network during the PM peak exceeds capacity at the affected intersections. Intersection turning -movement volumes, delay, and LOS are presented in Figures 4.14-5 and 4.14-6, while the detailed intersection analysis results are included in Appendix F. Construction Impacts Potential construction impacts under Alternative 3 would be almost identical to under Alternative 2. Large, heavy slow-moving trucks carrying materials and equipment would likely need to access the site via NE Sunset Boulevard. These additional vehicles, as well as potential lane closures or detour routes, would likely cause delays for motorists traveling through the Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.14-12 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact statement ICF 593.14 a t M Joe 03 L r` d yyINN �^ Z n Z M uosjapa( 3N and aojuoN ED 3N any puef)PIN - 0 N index Ave NE jS W nl ri z LUZ z 3N aAy uo]6uilJe0 P3 Q i7 uolAeG a' LOt M 2 W LU Z Monroe Ave NE 3N any PUejl jpl _ 7 W Glennwoo�l .Z ' Ln U r -I � aj L L � LL Y rz ai CL C m ai ,-P m C Q1 a Ln 0 N J _J 2 X s E (5 C v g = V O � q� - A v N Z:E r W VI _ y H F v 3 BO ms 0i 6 ,W z Ln U r -I � aj L L � LL Y rz ai CL C m ai ,-P m C Q1 a Ln 0 N J _J 2 X z w� IE WW Z y H 5 A n .tea t c Jam°{, m as 1�od lf: a ■ > 3` SxL; " IN ani. �io�G�i����li� T .2 I!u'anY�:�.n:l��l e 3 Z 111 W 4 W 4 ` M� s Z 2 Z S a r+ � W 3N DAVaOJUOW W Z ` t g� Monroe Ave NE ° ��LL 4JJh* 3 d ' O d / T�41 0 3N BAV puejl )l °� a W 0 p 3N a^Y PUel�l!71 g a ti do,t uo518}�a( %Q > P ul* r o 44, index Ave NE 3S r G��a s /� m , NE Z 3N OAV um6uuie L A P GlenrWO06 "I o 'a d u � wP3 0LA oh Ch W w g a l:)U,�, ( fPO W W zoo _ a z _ v v S 9i a B mt -1 q z £ E °1 r LU Z z W a m w R {n u LO E W M Q � � W d h5 a S Q LL Y W m Z a � a a M 0 d a a o a a N C E Q U m a a` w In C 3 V1 J J_ 2 N X Q IN City of Renton Transit Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Under Alternative 3, transit amenities along NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE would be improved over existing conditions. Similar to Alternative 2, at both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street along NE Sunset Boulevard and on Harrington Avenue NE south of NE Sunset Boulevard, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and 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. All bus stops within the Planned Action Study Area will he improved to meet ADA accessibility requirements. Transit stops are located adjacent to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which encourages the use of alternative modes of travel. Special pavement in the roadway would clearly identify transit stops on NE Sunset Boulevard. Nonmotorized Facilities Alternative 3 includes improved nonmotorized facilities such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks. A 5 -foot -wide designated bicycle lane is provided in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard within the traffic study area. Design elements such as bike route signage, hike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included in Alternative 3 to promote bike ridership and safety. Pedestrian improvements under Alternative 3 include reconstructed sidewalks and planter strips or landscaping buffers along NE Sunset Boulevard and all traffic study area roadways. An 8 -foot -wide planter area separates an 8 -foot -wide sidewalk from the roadway, contributing to a more comfortable environment for walking along the state highway. In some locations, the existing chain- link fence would be replaced with a vegetated trellis on top of walls at the back of sidewalks to create a more inviting environment for pedestrians. Pedestrian -scale lighting under Alternative 3 would improve pedestrian safety and walkabihty. 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, Alternative 3 includes the use of special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Special paving can more clearly identify pedestrian areas and alert drivers to proceed with caution, which can contribute to a safer pedestrian environment. Pedestrian - supportive signals such as count -down heads and audible signals would be provided under Alternative 3 to improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways at signalized intersections. Other pedestrian -level design amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, way finding signs, and art would be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity in the Planned Action Study Area, Sustainability The Greenroads evaluation for Alternative 3 (See Alternative 2 for a description of the Greenroads rating system) is found in Appendix P. Alternative3 scores a minimum of 33 with a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, it meets the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of certification (Evergreen). Alternatives 2 and 3 score equally on the Greenroads evaluation due to the project elements common to both alternatives. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 scores most strongly in the "Access and Equity" section of the Greenroads evaluation similar to the reasons described for Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.14-15 G 553.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Alternative 2, including improving access For pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Similar to Alternative 2, improving walkability, pedestrian connections, and transit Facilities as part of Alternative 3 is likely to contribute to lower consumption of energy by encouraging more pedestrian activity and less vehicle travel. While Alternative 3 typically includes higher levels of improvements or higher duality of improvements over Alternative 2, such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving, the Greenroads evaluation does not take into account the quality of elements, only whether best practices are included in the project. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; however, the Alternative 3 operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City's current and planned roadway system. Potential cumulative impacts are greater than under Alternatives 1 and 2. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, delay times could worsen slightly due to the increase in trips generated, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold. On the southern border of the subarea, the intersections on NE Sunset Boulevard at Harrington Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street are expected to operate better than LOS B in 2015, and better than LOS C in 2030. These intersections serve as a gateway into and out of the subarea. Stop - controlled intersections within the subarea are likely to have lower volumes and more capacity than either intersection on NE Sunset Boulevard. Since these locations likely carry low, mainly residential volume, and are not nearing their capacities, they are not expected to operate worse than LOS D. 4.14.2 Mitigation Measures 4.14,2.1 Planned Action Study Area Operational Mitigation In 2030, the intersections on NE 12th Street at Edmonds Avenue NE and at Harrington Avenue NE are expected to operate at LOS E or F under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. This exceeds the LOS D mobility standard during the PM peak hour. As mitigation at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street, the single shared turn lane on the southhound approach could be restriped to include a separate left -turn lane and a shared through - right lane. This additional turn capacity would allow through or right -turning vehicles to make their movement without waiting behind southbound left -turning vehicles. Similarly, the single shared turn westbound approach could be striped to include a dedicated right -turn lane and a shared through -left turn lane. The westbound right -turn volume is more than double the through and left - turn volume combined. A separate right -turn lane would add capacity and would alleviate the heaviest movement. Right -turn vehicles would be able to proceed independently of the through or left -turn vehicles. An additional southbound left -turn pocket and westbound right -turn pocket would improve operations to LOS D under Alternative 2 and LOS E under Alternative 3. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.14-16 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Under Alternative 3, the added turn -lane capacity improvements would reduce delay at the heaviest movements to within 5 seconds of meeting the LOS D threshold. Instead of additional permanent mitigation, demand management strategies could be used to improve LOS at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street. Pedestrian- and bicycle -oriented paths or multi -use trails could be developed between the neighborhoods north of NE 12th Street and the retail or commercial uses along NE Sunset Boulevard. Paths could include outdoor furniture and public art. Destinations could have secure bike storage areas and well -lit public spaces. Improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity could make using nonmotorized modes into town more attractive and could encourage a shift from driving to walking or biking. This shift could reduce the number of vehicles expected on the southbound left and westbound right movements at Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street. At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection, the eastbound approach could be restriped to have a separate left -turn lane and a shared through -right lane, instead of the single shared turn lane currently in place. The westbound approach could be restriped to include two through lanes (each with a shared turn movement) to increase capacity of the approach. Parking may need to be restricted on the westbound receiving leg during peak periods to accommodate the additional through lane of traffic. With implementation of these suggested mitigation measures, the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection would operate at LOS D under Alternative 2 in 2030. Alternative 3 would require the eastbound approach to be restriped with two shared turn through lanes to meet the LOS D threshold. Both the eastbound and westbound directions would likely require parking restrictions during the PM peak on the respective receiving legs to accommodate the additional through movement, but no apparent right-of-way take or construction would he necessary. Construction Mitigation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays. The following mitigation measures could be implemented prior to or during construction within the Planned Action Study Area. • Prior to construction: o Assess pavement and subsurface condition of roadways being proposed for transport of construction materials and equipment. Ensure pavement can support loads. Adequate pavement quality would likely reduce the occurrence of potholes and would help maintain travel speeds. o Alert landowners and residents of potential construction. Motorists may be able to adjust schedules and routes to avoid construction areas and minimize disruptions. o Develop traffic control plans for all affected roadways. Outline procedures for maintenance of traffic, develop detour plans, and identify potential reroutes. o Place advance -warning signage on roadways surrounding construction locations to minimize traffic disturbances. • During construction: o Place advance warning signage on NE Sunset Boulevard and adjacent arterials to warn motorists of potential vehicles entering and exiting the roadway. Signage could include "Equipment on Road," "Truck Access," or "Slow Vehicles Crossing." Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SlEnvironmenta€ Impact Statement 4.14 17 ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures o Use pilot cars as dictated by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). o Encourage carpooling among construction workers to reduce traffic volume to and from the construction site. o Employ flaggers, as necessary, to direct traffic when vehicles or large equipment are entering or exiting the public road system to minimize risk of conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles. o Maintain at least one travel lane at all times, if possible. Use flaggers to manage alternating directions of traffic. If lane closures must occur, adequate signage for potential detours or possible delays should be posted. o Revisit traffic control plans as construction occurs. Revise traffic control plans to improve mobility or address safety issues if necessary. 4.14.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea No permanent mitigation measures are recommended within Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The intersection operations under either action alternative are expected to be within the LOS D threshold. During construction, mitigation measures would be similar to those described above for the Pianned Action Study Area. Flaggers, advance warning signage to alert motorists of detours or closures, and reduced speed zones would likely benefit traffic operations. 4.14.3 Significant 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.14-18 December 2410 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.15 Parks and Recreation 4.15.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Park and recreation impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The basis for comparing these impacts are Renton's adopted park and recreation LOS standards, which are outlined in Section 3.15. This section discusses the future conditions of park and recreation facilities with the Planned Action Study Area and Sunset Terrace Development Subarea under each of the three project alternatives. Study area facilities are evaluated for future conditions (year 2030) using the City's park and recreation LOS standards. Identifying the future deficiencies and surplus in park and recreation facilities is used to address what type and how much of each facility could be added to the Planned Action Study Area to meet the future demand. Existing and future LOS conditions for park facilities were calculated using two areas: 1) park service area (0.5 mile for neighborhood park and 1 mile for community park), and 2) area of the Planned Action Study Area within each park service area. To calculate park LOS conformance, forecast population (for each alternative) within these service areas was compared to the City's LOS standards (1.2 acres/1,000 persons for neighborhood parks and 2.5 acres/1,000 persons for community parks). Table 4.15-1 summarizes the LOS for parks within the Planned Action Study Area under existing and future conditions for each alternative. For recreation facilities LOS, two measures were calculated: 1) with school facilities' and 2) without school facilities. To calculate recreation facilities LOS deficiencies and surplus, the existing study area population was compared to the City's LOS standards for each facility type (refer to Table 3.15- 3 for facility LOS). Table 4.15-2 summarizes the existing and future LOS for recreation facilities (fields, courts, and trails) within the Planned Action Study Area. Figure 4.15-1 shows the service areas of the park facilities within the Planned Action Study Area. Refer to Appendix G for the park and recreation LOS calculations. Refer to Section 3.15 for a summary of current park and recreation facilities amenities and usage. It should be noted that during the preparation of this Draft EIS, the City initiated an update to its Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Natural Resources Plan. As part of the Preferred Alternative review in the Final EIS, alternative LOS standards or conditions may be addressed. This Draft EIS focuses on current adopted LOS standards and available data. 1 The City currently does not categorize school property as parks and recreation facilities, however, in future conditions, combining park facilities with school facilities as a joint use maybe considered. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.15 1 ICF 543.10 U 4u V: C7J C� L!i Q'+ Lf) n LT, of C N N N n M �C x CC m C7+ N N lD CO -i a �q r-� C �G Ln m co n yr -t n r Ln Ln -A 10 0 c n rl S � n V ap c N CT n Lf1 4'� b] n e Ln Ln N co r- m ,--� —4 � o a x o oCL o d' Ci C M C ri O m C7+ N N lD CO -i a �q r-� C �G Ln m co n yr -t n r 0, Lf7 d' d' d.' OC O lC m d co Ln N n lG Ln m n It n L' d O Ln in -A 14 n rl S � n V ap c N CT n Lf1 4'� b] ¢ti N C Ln Ln a n w o -+ Q; o M rh o oCL d LF C M C ri O 0, Lf7 d' d' d.' OC O lC m d co Ln N n lG Ln m n It n L' d O Ln T Ln 11C 0+ G Lri O d' ON m 0 Cti' N d OC n CV = M C' N + n + N cl 00 N N N Ln in -A 14 Ln Q+ S N CJD V M d M Llj N N 0'+ N 6'� ltd V Ln Ln a n w o -+ Q; o M rh o oCL d LF C M C r-� O Ln T Ln 11C 0+ G Lri O d' ON m 0 Cti' N d OC n CV = M C' N + n + N cl 00 N N N N Ln N 0�, in -A LO U S CU V f M Llj N N 0'+ N 6'� ltd V m C,3 dr' o ` o m o oCL d LF C O C O N Ln N U V f S CU V f v � f a o� o ` o m o oCL C O C O �? C ❑ fz a uC-1 za O O � G G � b '� 'G O C Ca vv w txO ai =a.. ZU ACL V V) CL N Ln N Q v MW � 00 n m 0� 1-1 � m a rK cc O ti d �• � f M n looLps qj! N r-1 M v 06 C. N L 11 y r•. 0 �, Q C Y O QC' Q C M 7 N Y n V 4L (6 M cn ay •`� pq Y � r Ln ` '� rn t• N O=• Izrw Q r r ]oogJS jnogjl M N t- N m C% �v M IX yL a [oogjs jnogjl v Coo Cc In N D 6 ¢ 'n C•. S jll0 jl [ 1 OOi1O`I N cc 00 n m 0� 1-1 � m a rK cc O Lf N Q v r" cy N cc r[OogJS qjl N r-1 M M a, m C. N L 11 Y O QC' Q C 7 N Y n V 4L (6 M cn ay •`� pq Y � r ` '� M M n t• N O=• Izrw v s O O N N t- N m C% �v M IX yL a [oogjs jnogjl v Coo Cc In N D 6 ¢ 'n C•. S jll0 jl [ 1 OOi1O`I N rill a o 0 c 00 Ln 4 m m m a rK cc O Lf N Q v r" r100405 MI C:co r c.i 10Og05 i[ji 4 M 6 c Q N C. N L V � i Y O QC' Q C 7 N Y n V 4L (6 M cn ay •`� pq Y � r ` � 4 O v s v>Ll� � � n M oc M IX Y C v Coo Cc In N D 6 ¢ 'n C•. S jll0 jl [ 1 OOi1O`I N rill a o 0 � C i ti m y U V c 00 Lb 4 m H O rK cc O Lf N Q v r" r100405 MI c.i 4 6 c Q N C. N L V � i Y � Q C 7 N Y n V 4L cn ay •`� pq Y � r � 4 O Y 7CD W t V) ti L C 7 v Coo JS no 1 q j uj M m D 6 O — V m N rill a o 0 � C i ti m y U V V U N S y = 47 Y *�' a a N N U a C ? O y(G sr Yi LM 4i � C7 C Qi a V)CL L-; i R. �. V � 91 r P O �C.. L C V CS. Y a c a .0 v a Q •�' CL a C Ln O C p .'C '� C. CN CD p N\ M N 4JE � \C CIy o n1 -C� a 'G a y o C ¢ E ,loops q11 T3 ra V U U y V D Ci C 75 Lw E o ELax �o Ln 92, is C i V) C aCi v, CC u m CJ Q Q L 71 v} Q W m C6 n 'B t N E 10OWS 11101P! '6 t� a a� as Ln M y, rC L- N OL \ ` U bD O cC rC r 0. vi C C F = Lr- E 00 4 m N C5 O Q v C V � i Y y L; 7 N Y n V 4L cn ay •`� Y � r � 4 O W t V) ti L C 7 O — V :n dJ �i L � C i G C m y C ;1 7� N S y = 47 Y *�' a a c 0 r C ? O y(G sr Yi LM C a L-; i R. �. V � 91 C'� C � • U O �C.. L C V CS. Y a c a .0 v CL a C Ln O C p .'C '� C. CN CD p N\ M N 4JE � \C CIy o n1 -C� a 'G a y o C ¢ E T3 ra V U U y V D Ci C 75 Lw ELax �o is C i V) C aCi v, CC u m CJ Q Q L 71 v} Q W m C6 t N 31S w, City Limits � r - ' +jSE!93RjD 5r Q Planned Action Study Area � SE 95TH wpY Water Parcels May Creek Park 2rrH ST ! M Park and Recreation Facilities NE 27TH PL School Sports Field (approx. area) SE 98TH S7 Sierra Heights Sunset Court i Kenn dale `� Park NE 25TH S7 N C:3 Service Area (0.5 mile) rH 5T Lions Park o, North Highlands Park_ 0 Service Area 10.5 mile) W NE 22ND PL NE Highlands Park w 22ND ST Service Area (1 mile) ? Hillcrest �q'1*�t ' NE 21ST ST N W Elementary anti A ca m NE 19TH ST a 0� 5D0 1000 NE 161H ST �1E•�6TN North Highlands NE 17TH ST — eek Park McKnight Middle Hic School i 9t�0 Sunset Court Park NE 12tH ST Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park N pp t0� w W z z NE 11TH ST art Gti W � ��ltit O � ¢ Z G 4 NC a NE IM H ST yG m z Highlands IOrHsr Kiwanis Park in P 4w Elementary NE 9TH P J NE 9TH ST W z O W L Z h \ W LU -X1 W Z a N STH 5T NE BTFI Sr N@ gTH P4 W NE 8TH ST d ST p z e1���N cc NE 7TH ST z Oi z "� p j11 Z Park � "' Highlands '+' z ¢ Q NESiHPL N 6TH ST j w 4 NE 6TH ST ca x g LU cc a NE STH PL x a ¢ a +7 Windsor z tyE STK 5T NE STH 5T Hills Park x w W NE 4TH PL N 4TH 5T �4! NE 4rH Cr NE 4TH ST \\\z W lti � N 3RD ST y 44> L ` h= 3�pgl Heritage Park NE 2ND PL 't, a N 2ND ST Al NE 2ND ST N Liberty Park ��"� NE IST PL Cedar River Park ST SE IST PL LU W N Zp LU " a S7` 2t10 CT �f SE 2ND PL _~,�SE`3111),ST��� z Cedar River Natural Area SE ATH 57 SC AY4i ST r Sau rce: City om enton 3 'CF Figure Parks and Recreation Facility Service Areas Areas iNtERNAIIONAL Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton 4.15.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Construction Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Construction could temporarily disrupt pedestrian access to existing park properties. Active construction sites also represent opportunities for creative play and attractive adventure for young people in the community. Operation Under the No Action Alternative, no changes are planned to the parks and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area; the park system would remain as it exists today. Figure 4.15-1 shows park locations). In Future No Action conditions (year 2030), as shown in Table 4.15-1, there would he a deficiency in both neighborhood park and community park acreage indicating that the future forecasted population in both the study area and parks service areas would be underserved when applying the City's parks and recreation LOS standards. Additionally, under the No Action Alternative, no pedestrian access or circulation improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard would occur. The pedestrian environment along NE Sunset Boulevard would remain as it exists today. The boulevard would continue to be a barrier to access between neighborhoods and the parks and recreation facilities in the study area. As shown in Table 14.5-2, LOS results for future No Action conditions (not including school recreation facilities) indicate that there would he a deficiency in baseball/softball fields, football/soccer fields, and walking/hiking trails within the Planned Action Study Area. IF school facilities were considered as a joint use with park facilities, as discussed in Alternatives 2 and 3, the City's current adopted standards for fields and courts would be met, but a deficiency would remain for walking/hiking trails. Public stormwater systems in the Planned Action Study Area would remain as with existing conditions—no stormwater elements would be incorporated into the Planned Action Study Area park sites. Refer to the water resources analysis (Section 4.3) for discussions related to incorporating stormwater facilities into park land. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea No parks and recreation facilities exist in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and no parks would be added under the No Action Alternative. A senior housing development on the northeast vacant parcel (RHA's Piha site on Figure 2-9) would add 12,500 square feet of senior day health services and serve on-site and off-site seniors. The Edmonds -Glenwood site (see Figure 2-9) would provide passive open space, but no active parks and recreation features would be built. The subarea would be underserved according to the City's parks and recreation LOS standards. NE Sunset Boulevard would remain unimproved and pedestrian access would continue to be limited between the subarea and parks and recreation facilities located south of NE Sunset Boulevard. The closest park facility to the subarea is the Sunset Court Park. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.15 5 1CF 593,14 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures No stormwater elements would be incorporated into the subarea. 4.15.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be as described for Alternative 1; however there would be a greater potential with the construction of street and drainage improvements to temporarily disrupt access to existing parks from nonmotorized routes. With the future increase in population (an increase of 3,830 from existing conditions) in the Planned Action Study Area for Alternative 2, an increase in demand for park and recreation facilities is anticipated. Although about 0.89 acre of park 38,500 square feet of community service space are added to the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 2 (in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea), there would be a deficiency in both neighborhood and community park land under future conditions and the population would continue to be underserved, as shown in Table 4.15-1. Without the addition of new recreation facilities, there would also be a deficiency of fields, courts, and trails within the study area, as shown in Table 4.15-2. Beyond park acres, ballfields, courts, and trails, there may also be a need for specialized facilities such as gyms, running areas, and meeting rooms. This would be further determined by City parks and recreation plans and site programming, Opportunities to increase park land and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area could include combining school recreation facilities with park facilities through joint -use agreements. An example of a joint -use development is the Hillcrest Elementary School and North Highlands Park. Coordination between the Renton School District and the City could develop a joint - use agreement so that park and recreation facilities would be shared between the two properties, maximizing resources and operational budgets. This would be possible as the Renton School District contemplates an expansion of its early childhood education facility and as the City contemplates the future of the [North Highlands Community Center as additional community center space in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Other potential joint -use possibilities in the Planned Action Study Area include the Highlands Park and Highlands Elementary School in the southern portion of the study area, though no pending plans for either site are known at this time. Other additional opportunities for increasing park land and recreation facilities in the study area include development of passive open space that would be distributed throughout the study area, and repurposing of public properties or acquisition of private properties in areas where recreation demand is anticipated to increase under future conditions. Development of green connections within the study area could also provide opportunities to develop pocket parks, though these connections cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage and do not satisfy "active" park and recreation LDS standards. As described in Chapter 2 and shown in Figure 2-14, there are publicly owned properties, vacant properties, lot remnants, a sidewalk network, and proposed green connections that may allow for improvement and acquisition to create a coordinated pocket park system. Achieving this also depends on whether operational efficiencies to maintain these facilities are possible and City recognition and adoption of pocket parks, associated design standards, and LOS standards in its plans and regulations. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.15-6 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures With the planned improvements along NE Sunset Boulevard as part of the City Complete Streets standards, nonmotorized connections between residential areas and park/recreation facilities would be improved to include expanded sidewalks, lighting, and a hike lane. Stormwater management elements could be incorporated into public properties and streets providing additional open space, as discussed in Section 2.7.2.4. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would experience increased population under Alternative 2. With no existing park or recreation facilities located within this subarea, future demand would not he met unless park land and recreation facilities were added. As part of Alternative 2, a new community center would be added to the subarea at the northeast corner of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. A 0.89 -acre active park or open space would be added at the southwest corner of the Glenwood Avenue NE and Harrington Avenue NE intersection. Passive open space would also increase park acreage. As part of the overall Planned Action Study Area, the subarea would be underserved when applying the City's parks and recreation LOS standards. The Complete Streets improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard would improve pedestrian connections between the subarea and park and recreation facilities. As discussed in the water resources impact analysis (Section 4.3), stormwater elements would potentially be incorporated into open space areas. Under current policy, park property with co -located or integrated stormwater management facilities cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage for purposes of meeting parks LOS. 4.15.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Construction impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 2; however Alternative 3 would have the greatest potential of the studied alternatives to result in growth and construction that could temporarily disrupt access to existing parks from nonmotorized routes. Under Alternative 3, population in the Planned Action Study Area increases by 5,789 people from existing conditions. With this increase, the demand for parks and recreation facilities would increase more than under Alternative 2. Without additional park acreage, there would be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area (Table 4.15-1) and a deficiency in fields, courts, and trails (Table 4.15-2). Similar to Alternative 2, there may also be a need for specialized facilities such as gyms, running areas, and meeting rooms. This would be further determined by City parks and recreation plans and site programming. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would include the potential to create joint -use parks and recreation, combining school recreation facilities with park facilities under joint -use agreements. North Highlands Park could be combined with Hillcrest School as part of the family village concept. There may he other opportunities for joint use of facilities such as Highlands Park and Highlands Elementary School. (See Figure 3.15-1 for a location of park and school facilities.) Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.15-7 ICF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Ervironmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The addition of passive parks and pocket parks throughout the Planned Action Study Area would add open space acreage to the study area. As described in Chapter 2 and shown in Figure 2-14, there are publicly owned properties, vacant properties, lot remnants, a sidewalk network, and proposed green connections that may allow for improvement and acquisition to create a coordinated pocket park system, though green connections would not satisfy current active park and recreation LOS standards. Achieving this also depends on whether operational efficiencies to maintain these facilities are possible and City recognition and adoption of pocket parks, associated design standards, and LOS standards in its plans and regulations. As discussed further under the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, a multi- generational community center, and, potentially, a library, totaling 42,500 square feet, and 0.25 acre of passive open space along Harrington Avenue NE would be added to the Planned Action Study Area (in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) as part of Alternative 3. These amenities could offset some of the anticipated recreational facility deficiencies. However, libraries are not part of the City's current parks LOS standards. Stormwater elements would potentially be incorporated into open space areas within the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 3. Based on the current adopted Long Range Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Pion (City of Renton 2003), the City does not consider stormwater management features to meet the definition of public open space. Under current policy, park property with colocated or integrated stormwater management facilities cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage for purposes of meeting parks LOS. See the water resources analysis (Section 4.3) for a discussion of combining facilities. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Without additional park and recreation facilities added to the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under future conditions, the forecasted population in this subarea would remain under served in neighborhood and community parks, as well as fields, courts, and trails, as shown in Tables 4.15-1 and 4.15-2, respectively. With Alternative 3, portions of Harrington Avenue NE right-of-way within the subarea would be converted to 0.25 acres of passive open space. A multi -generational center, and, potentially, a library would be constructed in the subarea southeast of the Harrington Avenue NE/Glenwood Avenue NE intersection and adjacent to the new passive open space along Harrington. As part of the overall Planned Action Study Area, the subarea would be underserved according to results when applying the City's parks and recreation LOS standards. Under Alternative 3, NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to include bike lanes, intersection improvements, and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access between residential areas and park land. Stormwater elements would be incorporated into park and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 3. See the water resources analysis (Section 4.3) for a discussion of combining facilities. However, stormwater management facilities cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage for purposes of meeting parks LOS. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.15-8 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.15.1.4 Indirect Impacts Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Under each of the alternatives, indirect park and recreation impacts are expected to mostly fall on the City's regional and community -wide parks and recreation facilities. For example, as the population increases in the Planned Action Study Area, there will be a growing deficiency of Neighborhood and Community Parks. Due to proximity, those demands would likely be displaced to nearby regional facilities such as Gene Coulon Park as well as in surrounding communities. Facility deficiencies in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities. Successful implementation of the Planned Action would result in higher property values and more intense competition for properties that could fulfill the Planned Action Study Area's park and recreation needs. 4.15.1.5 Cumulative Impacts Increased demands for park and recreation facilities and services generated by the forecast population growth under each of the alternatives would add to those created by general population growth throughout the Renton community (See socioeconomics impact analysis in Section 4.9). To the extent that other Renton neighborhoods currently have or will have deficiencies in park and recreation facilities, cumulative impacts will be exacerbated. Expanded parks and recreation facilities within the Planned Action Study Area to serve forecast population would require increased funding for land acquisition and operations. The potential joint/coordinated use of school and park facilities could create economies for both the City and the Renton School District through appropriate joint -use agreements. 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures 4.15.2.1 Planned Action Study Area During construction, impacts adjacent to or in parks within the Planned Action Study Area, such as an increase in noise, dust, and access limitations, would be mitigated as per a construction mitigation plan. The following four mitigation measures would help improve the availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area. The City is initiating a parks, recreation, open space, and natural resources plan for completion in 2011. That plan could identify alternative LOS standards and parks and recreation opportunities inside or outside of the Planned Action Study Area that could serve the local population. The City is considering amendments to its development codes that would provide for payment of a fee -in -lieu for required common open space. As proposed, the fee -in -lieu option could be executed when development sites are located within 0.25 mile of a public park and when that park can be safely accessed by pedestrians. The City's package of amendments also includes park impact fees. (City of Renton 2010.) Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.15 9 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures The City and Renton School District could develop a joint -use agreement for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. An example of a joint -use agreement is the City of Sammamish and Issaquah School District No. 411's "Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Joint Use, Development, and Maintenance of City and District Properties" (City of Sammamish and Issaquah School District No. 411 2006). These types of agreements define joint -use elements such as activity scheduling, liability, and maintenance. Joint -use agreements between the City and Renton School District could also be used to, at least partially, address the LOS deficiencies in existing recreation facilities. • The City could add parks and recreation facilities such as: o The City could convert current public properties no longer needed for their current uses to parks and recreation uses, such as the Highlands Library that is intending to move and expand off site. Figure 4.15-2 shows properties in public use. o The City could purchase private property for parks and recreation use. An efficient means would be to consider properties in the vicinity of existing parks and recreation facilities or where additional population growth would be greatest. Figure 4.15-2 shows locations where future demand could be greater and where the City could focus acquisition efforts. 4.15.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea With the prevalence of public facilities in the Planned Action Study Area as a whole, and the addition of a multi -generational community center, and potentially a library in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there is opportunity to manage the current facilities in a manner that maximizes their beneficial parks and recreation uses for future population growth. The mitigation measures proposed for the Planned Action Study Area would help serve the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. 4.15.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under studied alternatives for 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.15-10 1CF 593.10 WAY 315rSr SE 93RD 5T City Limits Q Q Planned Action Study Area z z SE 98TH ST �^ ~ Parcels NE 24TH ST Publicly Owned Parcels 27tH 5T rt NE 22ND PL L-1 Public/Private Opportunity Area M NE 21sT ST Sunset Court 0 Service Area (0.5 mile) NE 19TH ST z j S7- 7North `NE'25TH NorthHighlands Park © 24TH ST vQ+/ Service Area (0.5 mile) W NE 23RD PL Highlands Park W Service Area (1 mile) a NE 22ND ST z N o NE 20TH ST 0 500 1.000 W M Q LU z WNEI8TH ST Q WAY W In vii 95TH SE W Q SE 96TH PL z z SE 98TH ST �^ ~ NE 25TH 57 N NE 24TH ST x rt NE 22ND PL M NE 21sT ST NE 19TH ST eek TH ST zLU NE 17TH ST g z W 3 m a b NE 13TH PL W r yQ Z r�� O NE 12TH ST olk y NE PPS Zg' > Uj a NE 11TH ST I"S �Q NE 10TH PL O Z ., NE 10TH ST L Z y, NE 9TH PL WV NE STH CT NE 9TH ST z NE 9TH S7 LU Z �j y � w N 8TH ST NF 8rh Sr a gCNR� O NE STH ST w q NE tNS� oc z z LU 4 Z MF 6rH P, 8 W NE 7TW ST Q W Z Z a M� 6r 7 NE 6TH PL a O N 6TH 5T z z a k Cr ,a ? NE 6TH STUj `x W j w °C ZO NE STH PL a a x ,,, oc NE 5TH ST NE 5TH 5T a c z LU a ii NE 4TH PL x N 4TH ST 2 NE 4TH 5T an V z m �NM5T y a 2 y.T � Z 3FLa 5 `�J� a N 2Np 5T W N � Q•�� a V) 4I a r a a r 3 �54� j SI P "n Source: City ofARenton 3 � ICF INTERN AT:ON AL NE 3RWCT NE 2Nd PL NE 2ND 5T N fi�Sp NE IST PL SE 15T PL W ,if', a SE 2ND PL ip,Sz �T�.--�— o SE 4TH ST `� z SE AT" S't Figure 4.15-2 Publicly Owned Lands Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton 4.16 Public Services 4.16.1 Impacts Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts are discussed at two levels under each alternative: 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area 2) and specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. See Appendix I for a qualitative analysis of public health in land use planning and community design, particularly regarding health services and solid waste disposal components of the public services covered in this section. 4.16.1.1 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Police The Renton Police Department could experience an increase in calls for service related to construction site theft, vandalism, or trespassing relating to construction anticipated under the No Action Alternative. The need for police response would depend on the implementation of security measures (e.g., fencing, lighting, and security patrols) during construction. Under the No Action Alternative, population in the Planned Action Study Area would grow by approximately 3,442. Applying the Renton Police Department staffing -per -population standard to this increase would result in the need for an estimated 5.5 additional police officers to address the increase in service calls related to growth. In addition, the growth in population and employment under this alternative would result in increases in traffic congestion within and near the study area (see the transportation analysis in Section 4.14 for more detail). This increase in traffic congestion would result in marginal increases in response time overall, though to a lesser extent than other alternatives. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services could include increased calls for service related to inspection of construction sites and potential construction -related injuries. Given that this alternative includes the least potential growth of the alternatives considered, it would have the lowest level of construction -related impacts. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area would result in the need for an additional 0.8 firefighter full-time equivalent (FTE). Increases in area traffic resulting from growth anticipated in the study area would result in increases in fire and emergency medical response time. However, the No Action Alternative has the least growth of the alternatives considered and, therefore, would provide the least impact on response time. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.16-1 CF 593.10 City of Renton Education Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Under the No Action Alternative, McKnight Middle School would be improved to add 10 classrooms, which would translate to capacity for approximately 290 more middle school students. The expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. Population growth under the No Action Alternative would result in increases in approximately 339 students in the Renton School District compared to existing conditions. Based on demographic trends described in Section 3.9, new students in 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. This increase in student population would be accommodated by the district's planned opening of Honey Dew Elementary, as well as construction of additions to McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. In addition, the school district has long-term plans to open a new middle school on district -owned property in Kennydale. These existing capital facility plans are expected to accommodate the increased number of students under the No Action Alternative. Health Care Under the No Action Alternative, increase in population within the Planned Action Study Area would increase the need for hospital beds in the Valley Medical Center (VMC) service area by approximately 2.6 beds, based on the current ratio of hospital beds to district service area population. Additional population growth may also result in increased demand at VMC's nearby primary care and urgent care clinics. Social Services No changes to social service programs or facilities are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area under the No Action Alternative. Population increases in the study area are anticipated to result in higher demand for social services provided in the study area as well as those provided in the larger community. Access to social services in and near the study area are not anticipated to improve overall, compared to existing conditions, as redevelopment would result in piecemeal improvements to infrastructure providing access to these services, including sidewalks and transit service. See the transportation analysis in Section 4.14 for more information. Solid Waste The No Action Alternative provides the lowest level of development activity and the lowest level of construction -related waste generation of all alternatives being considered. Under the No Action Alternative, solid waste generation is expected to increase by around 82,500 pounds of waste per week compared to existing conditions, the smallest increase of all studied alternatives. A portion of this waste stream would be diverted to recyclables as planned under the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (King County 2009). Public Library When the library is relocated, library services may be temporarily unavailable in the Planned Action Study Area, but services would be available at other branches. Growth anticipated under the No Action Alternative would create a demand for an additional 1,235 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions using the King County Library System's recommended ratio of 359 square feet per 1,000 population for libraries in the Newcastle/ Renton Highlands King County Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact statement 4.16 2 iCt 59310 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Library System geographic cluster [described in Section 3.16]. Although the geographic clusters that the King County Library System uses for planning include a larger area than the Planned Action Study Area, it is anticipated that the planned improvements to the Renton Highlands Library, which would increase its size by more than 8,408 square feet, in combination with the new 10,000 -square - foot Newcastle Library proposed nearby to the north, would account for this level of population growth. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be the same as for the study area as a whole. Under the No Action Alternative, population in this subarea would grow by approximately 404. Applying the Renton Police Department standard to this population increase would account for 0.6 of the approximately 5.5 additional police officers to address population growth described under the Planned Action Study Area above. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time for this subarea would be the same as for the study area as a whole. The subarea is near Fire Station 12 located centrally within the Planned Action Study Area, making response time less likely to be adversely impacted in the subarea. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to the subarea population growth of 404 people results in the need for less than 0.1 of the 0.8 firefighter FTE needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Education Students in this subarea attend Kennydale Elementary, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. It is possible that reconfiguration of elementary school boundaries resulting from opening Honey Dew Elementary would alter where students in the subarea attend elementary school; however, opening Honey Dew Elementary would also alleviate short-term overcrowding in area elementary schools. The new Honey Dew Elementary will have an enrollment capacity of 500 students, more than enough to accommodate the additional 20 elementary students expected under No Action population growth in this subarea. In addition, the 290 -student additional capacity obtained from adding 10 classrooms to McKnight Middle School is expected to more than accommodate the additional seven middle school students generated by the No Action Alternative. Existing high school capacity should account for the approximately 12 additional high school students generated in the subarea as a result of No Action population growth. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, the new students in this subarea would represent a higher -than -average proportion of students needing English Language Learner Programs in the district. Health Care Using VMC's existing ratio of hospital beds to district population as a basis for analysis, the increase in population anticipated under the No Action Alternative would result in a small increase in demand of approximately 0.3 hospital bed in this subarea of the 2.6 beds anticipated in the overall Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.16 3 !CF 543.10 City of Menton Cl Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area. The smaller population increase under this alternative would also result in the smallest demand for additional service at VMC's nearby primary care and urgent care clinics. Social Services Two vacant properties in this subarea would be developed by RHA under the No Action Alternative. The subarea's new affordable housing development for seniors would include enriched senior services on site, including elder day health for off-site patients in a 12,500 -square -foot space on the northeastern vacant RHA parcel. The existing Sunset Terrace meeting space would remain. Other than standard local improvements to adjacent streetscapes (e.g., sidewalks, curb), there would be no improvements to infrastructure or services that improve access to social services in the wider community for residents of this subarea. The increased population of affordable housing and, in particular, affordable senior housing would increase the demand for social services, including senior services accessible to the subarea. Solid Waste The No Action Alternative provides the least development activity in this subarea, producing the lowest level of construction -related waste generation of all alternatives being considered. Solid waste generation from the subarea under this alternative would increase by about 9,700 pounds of waste per week compared to existing conditions, the smallest increase of all alternatives. Public Library The growth anticipated under the No Action Alternative in this subarea would account for approximately 145 square feet of library facilities to meet the growth in demand. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, this growth would be met by the additional 8,408 square feet of library space for the Renton Highlands Library planned by the King County Library System. 4.16.1.2 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Police Construction -related impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for the No Action Alternative, except that additional construction would occur, resulting in greater potential construction -related impacts. Population in the study area would increase by approximately 3,830 compared to existing conditions, resulting in a need for approximately 6.1 additional police officers when applying the Renton Police Department standard to this population increase. This is approximately 0.6 FTE increase over the No Action Alternative. In addition, a greater amount of traffic would be generated under Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative, thus creating a slightly longer response time. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time under Alternative 2 would be the same as for the No Action Alternative, except that the larger increase in population and additional Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.16-4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 59110 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Mea5ure5 construction that goes with it would result in construction and response time impacts within the range of other alternatives. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth under Alternative 2 would result in the need for an additional 0.9 of a firefighter FTEs compared to existing conditions, only 0.1 FTE more than the No Action Alternative. Education Under Alternative 2, the McKnight Middle School expansion and reconfiguration and expansion of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would occur. Similar to the No Action Alternative, the expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. The Early Education Program at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would likely he moved, at least temporarily, as part of the reconfiguration of that facility. Population growth under Alternative 2 would result in an increase of approximately 377 students attending area Renton School District schools compared to existing conditions. This increase falls within the range of the other alternatives considered. The Alternative 2 increase in student population would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. A reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center could provide additional elementary school capacity to students in and near the study area. The demand for additional English Language Learner Program space would fall within the range of the two other alternatives being considered. Health Care Alternative 2 population increases in the study area would result in the need for approximately 2.9 hospital beds, only a fraction more than under the No Action Alternative. Additional population growth would also result in slightly increased demand at VMC's nearby primary care and urgent care clinics compared to the No Action Alternative, and less demand than under Alternative 3. 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. Social Services Infrastructure improvements planned for Alternative 2, including new transit shelters and better pedestrian and bicycling amenities, would help make social services within the study area and those serving the larger community more accessible to area residents. There could 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. Additionally, Alternative 2 provides senior and social services described in more detail below under the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. No changes to existing social service programs or facilities outside the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are anticipation in the Planned Action Study Area under Alternative 2. Population increases within the study area are anticipated to result in demand for social services falling within the range of other alternatives considered. Solid Waste Alternative 2 provides for a higher level of redevelopment and civic investment than the No Action Alternative, but less than Alternative 3, resulting in construction -related waste generation within the range of alternatives being considered. Under Alternative 2, solid waste generation would Sunset Area Community Planned Action ADecember 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement _15 5 ICF 593,10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures increase by around 92,000 pounds of waste per week compared to existing conditions, approximately 9,500 pounds per week more than the No Action Alternative and around 47,000 fewer pounds per week less than Alternative 3. As with other alternatives, a percentage of waste generated would be diverted to recycling. Public Library When the library is relocated, library services could be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches. Growth anticipated under Alternative 2, would create a demand for an additional 1,375 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions, based on the King County Library System recommended 359 square feet per 1,000 population for libraries in the Newcastle/Renton Highlands King County Library System cluster. This falls within the range of other alternatives being considered. Although the geographic clusters that that the King County Library System uses for planning include a larger area than the Planned Action Study Area, it is anticipated that the planned improvements to the Renton Highlands Library, which would increase its size by more than 8,408 square feet, as Weil as the addition of a new 10,000 -square -foot Newcastle Library facility nearby to the north, would account for this level of population growth. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be the same as for the study area as a whole. Under the Alternative 2, population in this subarea would grow by approximately 716 compared to existing conditions. Applying the Renton Police Department standard to this increase would account for 1.1 of the approximately 6.1 additional police officers estimated to address population growth described under the Planned Action Study Area above. This increase falls between those estimated for the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time for this subarea would be the same as for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole. The subarea is near Fire Station 12, located centrally within the Planned Action Study Area, making response time less likely to be adversely impacted. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth of 716 people in the subarea would account for less than 0.2 of the 0.9 firefighter FTE needed in the overall study area to maintain the staffing ratio. Education Similar to the No Action Alternative, the 2411 opening of Honey Dew Elementary may change where elementary students living in this subarea attend elementary school. However, the new school is expected to alleviate existing elementary school overcrowding and accommodate the anticipated increase in elementary student enrollment in this subarea. Population growth under the Alternative 2 would result in an increase of approximately 69 subarea students attending area Renton School District schools compared to existing conditions. This increase falls within the range of other alternatives considered. It is anticipated that the Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.16-6 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Fnvironmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures 2 increase in student population would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. A reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center could provide additional capacity to students that would need early childhood education services in the subarea as well as across the school district. In addition, the anticipated increase in students needing the English Language Learner Program would fall within the range of the other alternatives considered. Health Care Under Alternative 2, the increase in population would result in a minor increase in hospital bed demand and demand for service at nearby VMC primary care and urgent care clinics compared to the No Action Alternative, and a smaller demand than Alternative 3. Under Alternative 2, demand for hospital beds increases by 0.5 bed over existing conditions. Social Services The Sunset Terrace redevelopment would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would he replaced with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on-site social service programs could be minimized or avoided. Under Alternative 2, targeted redevelopment in this subarea would expand area that could be used to house social services within the subarea. Approximately 26,000 square feet of space in the central part of the subarea could be used for a variety of community services, including social services and community meeting spaces. In addition, the proposed senior affordable housing development in the eastern part of the subarea would almost double in size from the No Action Alternative to 12,500 square feet. Residents within the subarea would benefit from streetscape and transit capital infrastructure investments mentioned for the Planned Action Study Area above, which would improve accessibility of social services inside and outside the subarea. Construction at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as the center is expanded could require relocation of the Friendly Kitchen weekly meal program that meets at that site. Population increases in the subarea are anticipated to result in higher demand for social services, compared to the No Action Alternative, but to a lesser extent than Alternative 3. Solid Waste Alternative 2 provides for redevelopment of subarea, generating more construction -related waste than the No Action Alternative, and a similar level of construction -related waste as Alternative 3. Solid waste generation under the Alternative 2 would increase by around 17,200 pounds of waste per week compared to existing conditions, an within the range of waste generation estimates for other alternatives considered. Similar to other alternatives, a portion of the increase in waste stream would be diverted to recyclables. Public Library Space for library or other community services is available in the proposed Alternative 2 conceptual plan per Figure 2-9. Growth within the subarea would account for approximately 257 square feet of additional library facility space compared to existing conditions, which is within the range of other alternatives considered. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.16-7 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.1 City of Renton 4.16.1.3 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Police Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Construction -related impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for the No Action alternative. Because Alternative 3 would involve the most development, it would result in the highest potential construction -related impacts. Population in the study area would increase by approximately 5,789 compared to existing conditions, resulting in a need for approximately 9.3 additional police officers when applying the Renton Police Department standard, 3.8 officers more than estimated for the No Action Alternative. In addition, there would be a greater amount of traffic generated under Alternative 3, resulting in longer response times compared to the other alternatives considered. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time would be greater under Alternative 3 compared to the other alternatives considered. However, the centrally located Fire Station 12, as well as planned construction of other fire station facilities that could help provide back-up service to the study area, would ensure that the City maintains it fire and emergency medical service response time level of service under Alternative 3. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth under Alternative 3 would result in the need for an additional 1.3 Firefighter FTEs compared to existing conditions, approximately 0.5 FTE more than the No Action Alternative. Education Under Alternative 3, the McKnight Middle School expansion would occur similar to other alternatives. In addition, changes would occur at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, similar to Alternative 2, only the reconfigured center would be part of a family village concept that would include recreation facilities and housing. Similar to other alternatives, the expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. However, the Early Education Program at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would likely be temporarily moved, as part of the reconfiguration of that facility. Population growth under the Alternative 3 would result in an increase of approximately 567 students attending area Renton School District schools compared to existing conditions. This is the largest increase of all the alternatives considered. Approximately half of the new students would be elementary age, which would take advantage of added capacity at both Honey Dew Elementary (anticipated opening in the fall 2011) and the reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center. Alternative 3 would also include the largest demand on additional English Language Learner Program space of the three alternatives considered. The Alternative 3 increase in student population would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, including a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as part of a family village concept, which addresses both traditional K-12 grades as well as early childhood education. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.16-8 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Health Care Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Population growth is greatest under the Alternative 3, resulting in the need for an estimated 4.4 additional hospital beds based on the existing number of hospital beds per district population. Although this represents the greatest increase of all the alternatives, this increase in hospital beds is minimal and not expected to result in impacts on VMC. The additional population growth under this alternative would also result in a higher demand at VMC's nearby primary care and urgent care clinics compared to the other alternatives. There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to health care services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would he established. Social Services Alternative 3 includes major public investments that would create redevelopment opportunities that could expand upon or enhance social services within the study area. Among the key components of Alternative 3, outside of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, is development of a family village in the North Subarea. This family village concept would provide for a range of social services, including early education, as well as senior services, and other educational and recreational facilities and programs. The family village would expand on social services and community meeting space available within the study area. 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 could be accommodated as part of the range of social services provided at the family village. In addition, similar to Alternative 2, improvements to streetscapes, including sidewalks and transit shelters in the study area, would help make social services located outside the study area more accessible to area residents. There could 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. The larger population increase anticipated within the study area under this alternative would result in higher demand for social services. The expanded or enhanced social services in this study area described above would accommodate the higher demand. Solid Waste Alternative 3 provides for the highest level of redevelopment and civic investment of all alternatives considered, resulting in higher levels of construction -related waste generation. Solid waste generation under Alternative 3 would increase by around 139,000 pounds of waste per week compared to existing conditions, 56,500 more pounds per week than the No Action Alternative. As with other alternatives, a percentage of the waste would he diverted to recycling. Public Library As with all other studied alternatives, when the library is relocated, library services could be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches. Growth anticipated under Alternative 3 would create a demand for an additional 2,079 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions, using the King County Library System's recommended ratio of 359 square feet per 1,000 population for library space in the Newcastle/Renton Highlands King County Library System geographic cluster. Although the geographic clusters that that the King Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2014 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.16-9 ICF 59310 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures County Library System uses for planning include a larger area than the Planned Action Study Area, it is anticipated that the planned improvements to the Renton Highlands Library, which would increase its size by more than 8,408 square feet, in combination with a new 10,000 -square -foot [Newcastle Library located north of the study area, would account for this higher level of population growth. These combined facilities would add around 18,408 square feet of additional library facilities to this King County Library System geographic cluster. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would be the same as for the study area as a whole. Under Alternative 3, population in this subarea would grow by approximately 1,106 compared to existing conditions. Applying the Renton Police Department standard to this population increase would account for 1.8 of the approximately 9.3 additional police officers to address population growth described under the Planned Action Study Area above. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction impacts and indirect impacts on response time for this subarea would be the same as for the Planned Action Study Area as a whole. The subarea is near Fire Station 12, centrally located within the study area, making response time less likely to be adversely impacted in this portion of the study area. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to population growth of 1,047 people in the subarea would account for slightly more than 0.2 of the 1.3 Firefighter FTEs needed in the overall study area to maintain the staffing ratio. Education Similar to other alternatives, the 2011 opening of Honey Dew Elementary could change where elementary students living in this subarea attend elementary school. Redeveloping the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as part of a new family village development that includes a new school facility would result in temporary relocation of early childhood programs currently located on that site, possibly making it more difficult for subarea children using that program to access the program during construction. Population growth under Alternative 3 would result in the largest anticipated increase in student population in the subarea of all alternatives, approximately 107 additional students compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that this additional increment of students would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements, including opening Honey Dew Elementary, expanding McKnight Middle School, and redeveloping the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, which would provide additional student capacity for early education programs. In addition, Alternative 3 would provide the largest anticipated increase in English Language Learner students of the alternatives considered. This increase in English Language Learners would be accommodated through the district's ongoing plans for that program. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.16-10 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures Health Care Under Alternative 3, the increase in subarea population would result in a small increase in hospital bed demand and demand for service at nearby VMC primary care and urgent care clinics compared to other alternatives. Under Alternative 3, demand for hospital beds would increase by 0.8 bed over existing conditions, a less -than -significant impact on provision of health care. Social Services Similar to Alternative 2, redevelopment of this subarea would displace the existing on-site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on-site social service programs could be minimized or avoided. Redevelopment plans for the subarea, under Alternative 3, include the largest amount of space that could be devoted to community or social services. The approximately 42,500 square feet of space devoted to these uses is slightly larger than the combined social service/community space and enriched senior services proposed under Alternative 2. Space could be used for social services, community centers, or other facilities providing meeting/gathering space. In addition, similar to Alternative 2, the residents of the subarea would benefit from infrastructure improvements that make walking and transit use more viable, increasing the residents' access to social services located outside the subarea. The larger population in Alternative 3 would result in higher demand for social services provided within the subarea, as well as those provided in the larger community. Solid Waste The redevelopment of the subarea anticipated under Alternative 3 would generate more construction -related waste than the No Action Alternative, and a similar level of construction - related waste as Alternative 2. Solid waste generation under the Alternative 3 operation would increase by around 26,500 pounds per week compared to existing conditions, 9,400 pounds per week more than Alternative 2 and 16,800 more than the No Action Alternative. As with other alternatives, a percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling. Public Library Space for library or other community services is available in the proposed Alternative 3 conceptual plan [Figure 2-10]. Growth in population in the subarea would account for approximately 397 square feet of additional library facility space compared to existing conditions, the highest of any of the alternatives considered. However, the King County Library System's plans to increase the size of the Renton Highlands Library by approximately 8,408 square feet would account for this level of population increase. 4.16.1.4 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts All alternatives would increase growth above existing conditions and would add to a citywide increase in demand for public services; however, the alternatives accommodate an increment of growth already anticipated in the City Comprehensive Plan at a citywide level. Alternative 1 is most consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan growth levels to the year 2022, whereas Alternatives 2 and 3 represent an increase in planned growth more similar to the year 2031 growth allocations that the City will address in its 2014 Comprehensive Plan update. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement a.16 11 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 4.16.2 Mitigation Measures 4.16.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Police Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures During construction, security measures will be implemented by developers to reduce potential criminal activity, including on-site security surveillance, lighting, and fencing to prevent public access. The City should design street layouts, open space, and recreation areas to promote visibility for residents and police. Street and sidewalk lighting would discourage theft and vandalism, and enhance security. Revenues from increased retail activity and increased property values could help offset some of the City's additional expenditures for providing additional officers and responses to incidents. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Developers will construct all new buildings in compliance with the International Fire Code and Renton Development Code (Title 4), including provision of emergency egress routes and installation of fire -extinguishing and smoke -detection systems. All new buildings will comply with accessibility standards for people with disabilities, per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Revenues from increased retail activity and increased property values could help offset some of the City's additional expenditures for providing additional fire and emergency medical service staff to respond to incidents. Education During renovation of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center under Alternatives 2 and 3, the Renton School District should provide temporary transportation or take other equivalent measures to ensure accessibility of the early education program to area children who attend the program. Since the school district typically plans for a shorter -term horizon than the 20 years envisioned for the Planned Action, the district will continue to monitor student generation rates into the future and adjust its facility planning accordingly. The district will continue to implement existing plans to expand permanent student capacity at area schools. In addition, the district may utilize portable classrooms or shift attendance boundaries to address student capacity issues that arise on a shorter - term basis. The school district will also continue monitoring growth in the number of English Language Learner students in the district and will plan for additional capacity to meet growing demands for that service, particularly in schools with high percentages of English Language Learners, such as Highlands Elementary. The school district imposes a school impact fee for new residential construction. This funding source can be used to help provide expanded school facilities needed to serve the growth anticipated under all alternatives (RMC 4-1-160). Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.16 12 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Health Care Chaoter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are 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 could work together to relocate the Friendly Kitchen community feeding program under Alternative 3, in which the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center campus, the current site of this program, is redeveloped as part of a family village. Relocation should occur at an accessible location nearby to maintain service to the existing community that relies upon the Friendly Kitchen services. If possible, Renton School District and RHA could incorporate space for the continuation of the Friendly Kitchen Program within the family village. RHA and the City could consider developing a community center facility as part of Sunset Terrace redevelopment or the family village development or at another location in the Planned Action Study Area. The center would provide an accessible on-site space for a comprehensive range of social services for residents in the Planned Action Study Area, focused on alleviating poverty and addressing the needs of some of the more predominant demographic groups found within the Planned Action Study Area—seniors, individuals living with disabilities, those speaking English as a Second Language, and youth. Solid Waste The City's Solid Waste Utility should work with the development community to make efforts to recycle or reuse building materials, where possible, when redeveloping sites, to minimize input to the construction -related waste stream. The City's Solid Waste Utility and private waste haulers should maintain a recycling and waste -reduction program consistent with the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan to minimize waste production. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. 4.16.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police Mitigation measures described above for the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this subarea. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Mitigation measures described above for the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this subarea. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.16-13 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Education No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Health Care No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Social Services Chapter 4. EnvironmentaiConsequences and Mitigation Measures RHA's provision of community space that could be used for social services or community meeting space for community organizations would serve as mitigation for the proposal under all alternatives. See the discussion under 4.16.2.1. RHA should maintain a community meeting space within or near the subarea during construction phase of Sunset Terrace redevelopment in Alternatives 2 and 3 that allows for on-site social service programs to continue meeting within the subarea. Solid Waste Mitigation measures described above for the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this subarea Public Library The Icing County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. 4.16.3 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Demand for public services will continue to increase in conjunction with population growth. With advanced planning and implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to police, fire/emergency medical, education, health care, social services, solid waste, or library services are anticipated. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.16-14 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 1CF 59310 City of Renton 4.17 Utilities 4.17.1 Impacts Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Impacts on utilities that are common to all alternatives are described first, followed by descriptions of impacts under each alternative. The impacts by alternative are discussed at two levels; 1) programmatic impacts of growth and civic investment throughout the Planned Action Study Area and 2) specific project impacts of developing proposed conceptual plans within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. For each alternative evaluated, anticipated growth could influence the performance of the water and wastewater utility systems that are managed by the City as well as telecommunication systems. Impacts Common to All Alternatives Telecommunications Where new construction occurs, it is anticipated that existing telecommunications 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. For telecommunication utilities in the Planned Action Study Area, increased capacity requirements with increased levels of population and commercial activity under each of the alternatives could require new fiber within the Planned Action Study Area. Coordination with telecommunication providers as development occurs should be performed so that appropriate Facilities can be planned. Coordination should occur early in the development planning so that as new streets are developed, fiber can be placed in the utility corridor at that time for cost savings. Water and Wastewater To accommodate the required demand and capacity for water and sewer services for new development and redevelopment within the Planned Action 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. Water system pressure in some areas within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended From the higher -pressure Highlands 56S pressure zone system. Each alternative would increase the demand for water and wastewater service. Demands on utilities would increase as a result of cumulative development. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as long as the replacement of water and sewer infrastructure is properly planned, designed, and constructed, and funding strategies are identified and approved by City Council. The relative impacts of each alternative in the Planned Action Study Area cumulatively and in particular subareas are described below. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.17-1 17 1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmentai Impact Statement 1CF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures 4.17.1.2 Alternative 1: No Action Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 1 (No Action), new development and redevelopment would occur within the Planned Action Study Area, but the growth would be less than the growth under either of the action alternatives. As noted in Table 2-6, anticipated growth would result in an increase in residential population of 3,442 persons (116% of existing) and an increase in employment population of 914 persons by 2030. Water The increase in average daily demand (ADD) was calculated for Alternative 1 by applying a demand factor of 184 gallons per day per capita for single-family housing, 145 gallons per day per capita for multifamily housing, and 56 gallons per day per capita for employees (R.W. Beck, Inc. 2005). An additional increase of 10% to account for non -revenue water was also included to account for water loss. The increase in the ADD is projected to be 0.29 million gallons per day (138% of existing ADD of 0.21 million gallons per day) within the Planned Action Study Area. Using a peak daily demand (PDD) to ADD ratio of 1.90, the PDD is projected to increase by 0.55 million gallons per day (138% of existing PDD). The existing booster pump stations that supply the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones, within which the Planned Action Study Area is located, have sufficient supply capacity to meet the projected growth in demand. The growth projected for Alternative 1 would increase the storage requirements for the Highlands 435 and the Highlands 565 pressure zones and further increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone. In addition, the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire -flow requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The capacity of the existing water distribution system to meet these higher fire flows is inadequate if system improvements are not constructed. Wastewater Using the factor of 100 gallons per day per capita to generate wastewater flow and a factor of 2,800 gallons per acre per day for commercial and institutional uses, the increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area under this alternative would be 0.31 million gallons per day (an increase of 90% of the existing load). No impacts are expected in the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area. However, the increased wastewater load with the growth planned under Alternative 1 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the Planned Action Study Area. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Growth in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would result in an increase in residential population of 404 persons (110% of existing population) and in employment population of 49 persons by 2030. Water Using the same factors noted above for demand per capita, the increase in ADD for this subarea would be 0.03 million gallons per day (176% of the existing ADD of 0.02 million gallons per day). The increase in the PDD for this subarea would be 0.06 million gallons per day (176% of existing Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.17 2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures PDD). The primary impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be increased fire -flow requirements. Water system pressure in some areas within the Planned Action Study Area may not be adequate for multistory development and/or For development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher -pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. Wastewater The increase in wastewater load in this subarea would be 0.04 million gallons per day (170% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased wastewater load could have an impact on local sewers within the subarea. The sewers in the subarea are of a similar age as those in the Planned Action Study Area, and, likewise, have reached the end of their useful life and should be replaced. In addition, the increased wastewater load with the growth planned under Alternative 1 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea. 4.17.1.3 Alternative 2 Planned Action Study Area Under Alternative 2, new development and redevelopment would occur in the Planned Action Study Area at a higher capacity than under Alternative 1 (No Action), but the growth would be less than that under Alternative 3. As noted in Table 2-6, anticipated growth would result in an increase in residential population of 3,830 persons (129% of existing population) and in employment population of 2,165 persons by 2030. Water The increase in ADD For Alternative 2 was calculated to be 0.39 million gallons per day (184% of existing ADD of 0.21 million gallons per day) within the Planned Action Study Area. The PDD is projected to increase by 0.74 million gallons per day (1840/% of existing PDD). The existing booster pump stations that supply the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones, in which the Planned Action Study Area is located, have sufficient supply capacity to meet the projected growth in demand. The additional growth projected for Alternative 2, as compared to Alternative 1, would further increase the storage requirements for the Highlands 435 and the Highlands 565 pressure zones and further increase the existing storage deficit. Fire -flow requirements would also increase with more multifamily development and commercial development. The primary impact of subarea development on the water distribution system is increased fire -flow requirements. Water system pressure in some areas within the Planned Action Study Area may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with Fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher -pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. Wastewater Under Alternative 2, the increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.70 million gallons per day (115% of existing load). Similarly, as discussed under Alternative 1, no impacts are expected in the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.17-3 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures the Planned Action Study Area. However, the increased wastewater load with the growth planned under Alternative 2 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the study area. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under Alternative 2, anticipated growth in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would result in an increase in residential population of 716 persons (209% of existing population) and in employment population of 164 persons by 2030. Water The increase in ADD for this subarea would be 0.06 million gallons per day (339% of existing ADD). The increase in the PDD for the subarea would be 0.11 million gallons per day (339% of existing PDD). The primary impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be increased fire -flow requirements. Water system pressure in some areas within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher - pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. Wastewater The increase in wastewater load in this subarea, under Alternative 2, would be 0.40 million gallons per day (311% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area evaluation of wastewater conveyance capacity for Alternative 2, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased wastewater load could impact local sewers within the subarea and increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea. 4.17.1.4 Alternative 3 Planned Action Study Area Alternative 3 shows the highest amount of growth in the Planned Action Study Area. Anticipated growth would result in an increase in residential population of 5,789 persons (194% over existing population) and in employment population of 3,334 persons by 2030. Water With the growth projected for Alternative 3, the increase in the ADD is projected to be 0.59 million gallons per day (282% over existing ADD), and the PDD is projected to increase by 1.13 million gallons per day (282% over existing PDD). The existing booster pump stations that supply the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones, in which the Planned Action Study Area is located, have sufficient supply capacity to meet the projected growth in demand. The primary impact of subarea development on the water distribution system is increased fire -flow requirements. Water system pressure in some areas within the Planned Action Study Area may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher -pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. As noted for Alternatives 1 and 2, the growth projected for Alternative 3 would also increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone, and the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire -flow requirements and associated storage requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.17-4 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact StatementICF 593.10 City of Renton Wastewater Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures Under Alternative 3, the increase in wastewater load for the Planaled Action Study Area is 0.57 million gallons per day (193% of existing load). This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area. Similar to the discussion under Alternatives 1 and 2, the increased wastewater load with the growth planned for Alternative 3 could increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the Planned Action Study Area. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Anticipated growth in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, under Alternative 3, would result in an increase in residential population of 1,106 persons (334% of existing) and in employment population of 182 persons. Water The increase in ADD for this subarea would be 0.09 million gallons per day (499% of existing ADD), and the increase in the PDQ for this subarea would be 0.17 million gallons per day (499% of existing PDD). The primary impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be increased fire -flow requirements. Water system pressure in some areas within the Planned Action Study Area may not be adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems, unless new water mains are extended from the higher -pressure 565 pressure zone system. Wastewater Under Alternative 3, the increase in wastewater load in this subarea is 0.10 million gallons per day (469% of existing load). Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from this subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within this subarea and increase current surcharging of the local sewers within the subarea. 4.17.2 Mitigation Measures 4.17.2.1 Planned Action Study Area Each of the alternatives would increase the population and commercial activities in the Planned Action Study Area, which would increase the water demand and wastewater flow in the Planned Action Study Area. To mitigate the current and projected water storage deficit in the pressure zones that serve the study area, the City completed the construction of the 4.2 -million -gallon Hazen Reservoir in the Highlands 565 pressure zone in March 2009. The City also completed a water distribution storage feasibility study to develop conceptual options and planning level cost estimates for expanding the storage capacity at two existing City -owned sites: the Highlands Reservoirs site and the Mt. Olivet Tank site (HDR, Inc. 2009). Financial strategies for the planning, design, and construction of the storage -capacity expansion have not been determined at this time. To mitigate the fire -flow requirements for the proposed level of development and redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area, larger diameter (12 -inch) piping is required throughout the Planned Action Study Area to convey the higher fire -flow requirements. The new water mains will Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.17-5 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Menton Chapter4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures be looped for reliability and redundancy of service, as required by City policies and water design standards. The larger mains will be installed within the dedicated right-of-way in a north -to -south and east -to -west grid -style water system. Additional mains within the development sites will also be required to provide water to hydrants and water meters, and should be looped within the development site around buildings. To provide the water pressure requirements for multistory buildings and to support the pressure requirements for fire sprinkler systems, the new water mains will be connected to the higher -pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. The options to address fire flow within the Planned Action Study Area are further described below. Mitigation Measures to Address Fire Flow 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 Figure 4.17-1 and summarized below. A 12 -inch -diameter pipeline loop shown in Figure 4.17-1 was developed to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the existing Highlands 435 pressure zone. This 12 -inch -diameter loop was also extended north of NE 12th Street in the existing Highlands 565 pressure zone to improve the conveyance capacity throughout the Planned Action Study Area. This 12 -inch -diameter loop improvement builds on the City's recent extension of the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the Highlands 435 pressure zone to support fire -flow requirements for the Harrington Square Development. In addition to the 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop shown in Figure 4.17-1, additional piping improvements for each development served from the 12 -inch -diameter loop are expected to be required to provide sufficient fire flow and pressure throughout each development. The sizing and layout of this additional piping will depend on the development layout, but will require that the development piping be looped around buildings and be sufficient in size to maintain the fire -flow requirements of the development. Wastewater Collection The local wastewater collection system in 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 2409). 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. These include the areas shown in Figure 4.17-2 and described below: Existing 8 -inch on the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue to Kirkland Avenue Existing 8 -inch and 12 -inch in Harrington Avenue from NE Sunset Boulevard to NE 12th Street Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4.17 6 ICF 593.10 Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences City of Renton and Mitigation Measures • Existing 8 -inch in Edmonds Avenue from NE 10th Street to NE 9th Street • Existing 8 -inch in Kirkland Avenue from NE 12th Street to NE 15th Street Depending upon the alternative selected, the impacted area and the identified area of concern could be reduced and some sections described above and in Figure 4.17-2 may be eliminated. Based on a recent capacity analysis, the same sections identified above were confirmed to have capacity restraints for all three alternatives; the only difference among the alternatives will be timing of when those facilities exceed capacity as development occurs. (pers corn Christensen) 4.17.2.2 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 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 he extended to serve the development. The sewers within this subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan (City of Renton 2049). Based on the increased wastewater load within this subarea, the local sewers could need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. 4.17.3 Significant 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. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 4' 17 ICF 593.10 I 1 NE 2I th St NE 21 It St N E 20th S tw # F z CL > NE 19th S t �j N 12 -inch loop improvement — Streets A o zsa soo Iso 1,000 Feet Existing water pipes � Planned Action Study Area V CFI2MHILL qqw Figure 4.17-1 Water System Improvements in Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS C Z Y E 18th S t 3 w 3 p N 17th P+ a, Q c w z t 1 NE 17th S t z ?i N Qj Q� ¢, C a w ti� P fo ua E z w yG w w w Z ¢ z Y > W > Q v W N 14t t u NE 13th PlCL X O ° w a y s m N 13t St v < z NE : 3th a _o C O Z -v NE 12th St Prate R Q� wN z w z z oc o, a*� ° NE 11th P1 v 3 v �h C N E 11th 5t w d Ll' J v NE loth PI ¢ m > 4s z CLv E o NE 10th Ct NE 10th PI �fC2 4 NE 10th St ti ? ¢> o `c NE 70th Lh NE 9th pl Aly NE 9th I 0 NE 9th P I w z E 16th t Z � NE 9th Alyu v ¢ d o NE 9t St NE 9th St a °o s 3 w w z NE 8th P I z z LL — v > a ? 1 a < Q Z 0 IVEg St a o ¢ NES Sta 0E ow E o (D m y 75 LLJ 'b rn L ° � o NE 7th St x r, m Q, N 12 -inch loop improvement — Streets A o zsa soo Iso 1,000 Feet Existing water pipes � Planned Action Study Area V CFI2MHILL qqw Figure 4.17-1 Water System Improvements in Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS N E 20th S t NE 20th St i i NE 19th S t E 18th St 4 W z L ¢ N 17thPI NE 17th 5t �r NE 219t5t io w z �[ w 4 G a > l N 17thPI NE 17th 5t �r Figure 4.17-2 CH2MHILL Wastewater System Areas for Improvement in Planned Action Study Area qqw Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS C 4 wK p O w -a ,`�'1 _� F w LU �L w w mvv z Y 2fi v> T",>.-IU a'N 14th #x NE 13th Pl L o ° a a w 4 a v c a LU m N 13th St ¢' )SE 3t J v O 0 2 o NE 12th St Private Rz 4 � z E w (U' m NE 11thPI m S`t�seL NE 11 th S t w 1v �Jc NE 10th P1 ¢ o 7 a E 7s z o NE 10thCt NE 10th PI P(� NE 14th St i Neth Ln c 4 NE 9th plAly NE 9 PI NE 9thPl w LU IE 10th t z >` NE 9th Aly > ro NE 9tF St NE 9th 5t 0 3 w z NE 8th Pl z z ti _ — �, ¢ z c Sr c CV ¢' w z BchPt K JN E 8 Std _}o o v NE z lvt Yo a NE 7th St x � C` 9 0 250 500 750 1,000 Wastewater areas of improvement Streets AN Feet Existing wastewater pipes M Planned Action Study Area Figure 4.17-2 CH2MHILL Wastewater System Areas for Improvement in Planned Action Study Area qqw Sunset Area Community Planned Action Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Implementation of the proposals—redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a broader neighborhood Planned Action encouraging neighborhood land use growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process— would require a commitment of natural, physical, energy, human, and fiscal resources that would potentially be irreversible and irretrievable. The importance of these actions would vary, depending on the scarcity of the resources and their ability to be reclaimed. The proposed commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources is anticipated to result in benefits. Residents, businesses, and employees of the Planned Action Study Area and the Renton residents and businesses would benefit from 1) the replacement of antiquated and dilapidated Sunset Terrace public housing with a new mixed -income, mixed-use development and 2) revitalization of the overall Planned Action Study Area through civic and infrastructure investments and growth. In addition, the proposals include measures that would meet sustainability goals such as mixed-use development that reduces GHG emissions, green infrastructure that improves stormwater quality, and transportation improvements that promote active and healthy lifestyles. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.18-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4,19 Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Long -Term Productivity Implementation of the proposals to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and to revitalize the Planned Action Study Area through civic and infrastructure investment and additional private reinvestment would result in trade-offs between short-term environmental losses and long- term gains. Short-term environmental consequences include construction impacts of new housing, commercial, and mixed-use development and infrastructure improvements such as roadway, drainage, water, sewer, and ether facilities. Short-term construction effects would include temporary displacement and relocation of residents and businesses; generation of noise, dust, and erosion; and potential traffic rerouting. However, mitigation measures would be incorporated into the design and approvals to minimize these potential impacts. Long-term benefits include a more cohesive pattern of residential and commercial redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization that would replace antiquated and dilapidated housing, provide opportunities for healthy active lifestyles, and increase local employment. Stormwater master planning would achieve net improvements in stormwater treatment. NE Sunset Boulevard would be revised with access management and aesthetic appeal. Mixed-use development would result in a reduction in energy use and GHG emissions at a regional level. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4.19-1 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 Chapter 5 Coordination and Consultation with Agencies and Tribes The City of Renton initiated consultation with agencies and tribes regarding permit requirements and to identify any areas of concerns regarding the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment as well as the overall Planned Action. Correspondence includes the following found in Appendix J of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement: letter regarding potential Area of Potential Effects to the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, September 1, 2010; email from DAHP, dated November 18, 2010, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions on eligibility; and • letter from DAHP concurring with conclusions of no adverse impacts, dated November 30, 2010. Consistent with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the proposal has been evaluated with respect to its potential effects on species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. A biological assessment has been prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service for its concurrence with a finding that the proposal may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect, anadromous fish protected under the ESA, and would have no effect on any ESA -protected species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction. Other federal and state agencies were also notified of comment opportunities through the scoping process identified in Appendix A and were offered comment opportunity on this Draft EIS (see Chapter 7). Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement Icr 593.10 5-1 Chapter 6 List of Preparers This section lists the names, expertise, experience, and professional disciplines of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing this Draft Environmental Impact Statement including technical reports in the appendices. Expertise, Experience, and Name Education Professional Disciplines Atchison, Dustin MS, Water Resources Engineering, University of Wisconsin—Madison, 2004 BS, Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1997 Cerise, Gilbert MPA, Public Administration, Columbia University, 1994 BA, Political Science, University of Washington, 1991 Chang, Rachel MS, Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, 1991 BS, Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, 1989 Chung, Raymond BS, Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1997 Dawson, Karen Degrees from Oregon State University: Role: drainage master plan; water resources analysis lead Experience: 13 years Professional disciplines: civil engineering, water resources, stormwater, low -impact development, stream restoration Role: land use and public services analysis Experience: 15 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, environmental documentation Role: environmental health analysis Experience: 19 years Professional disciplines: hazardous materials, environmental engineering Role: drainage master plan; water resources analysis Experience: 13 years Professional discipline: water resources Role: earth analysis Experience: 20 years Professional discipline: geotechnical Role: plants and animals analysis Experience: 17 years Professional disciplines: ESA issues, watershed analysis, water quality, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem evaluation and restoration Role: principal investigator for archaeology Experience: 5 years Professional discipline: prehistoric archaeologist Role: paries and recreation analysis Experience: 8 years Professional disciplines: transit and transportation planning, public involvement, environmental documentation, and GIS Role: aesthetics analysis, GIS mapping Experience: 5 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, urban design, environmental permitting Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmenta€ Impact Statement 6-1 ICF 593.10 MS, Civil Engineering, 1990 BS, Civil Engineering, 1986 BS, Forest Engineering, 1986 Earle, Ph Q, Forest Ecology, University of Christopher Washington, 1993 MS, Geosciences, University_ of Arizona, Tucson, 1986 BA, Biology and Geology, Whitman College, 1978 Elder, J. Tait MA, Archaeology, Portland State University, 2010 BA, Anthropology with a Minor in Geology, Western Washington University, 2004 Evanoff, Kristina Masters of Engineering, University of Washington, 2006 BS, Geography, University of Utah, 2000 BS, Environmental Studies, University of Utah, 2000 Gifford, Kevin Master of Urban Planning, Texas A&M University, 2006 Bachelor of Environmental Design, Texas A&M University, 2004 Role: drainage master plan; water resources analysis lead Experience: 13 years Professional disciplines: civil engineering, water resources, stormwater, low -impact development, stream restoration Role: land use and public services analysis Experience: 15 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, environmental documentation Role: environmental health analysis Experience: 19 years Professional disciplines: hazardous materials, environmental engineering Role: drainage master plan; water resources analysis Experience: 13 years Professional discipline: water resources Role: earth analysis Experience: 20 years Professional discipline: geotechnical Role: plants and animals analysis Experience: 17 years Professional disciplines: ESA issues, watershed analysis, water quality, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem evaluation and restoration Role: principal investigator for archaeology Experience: 5 years Professional discipline: prehistoric archaeologist Role: paries and recreation analysis Experience: 8 years Professional disciplines: transit and transportation planning, public involvement, environmental documentation, and GIS Role: aesthetics analysis, GIS mapping Experience: 5 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, urban design, environmental permitting Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmenta€ Impact Statement 6-1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Name Grueter, Lisa Henke, Jennifer Fletzel, Christopher Kuo, Kai -Ling Mason, Roger McKenzie, John Petersen, Gene Rodland, Rob Wilder, Jim Yuen, Terry Education MCP, City Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 1990 BA, Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, 1987 MS, Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1997 BS Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1995 MA, Public History and Historic Preservation, Middle Tennessee State University, 1998 BA, History, Washington University, St. Louis—Minors in Archaeology and Art Historv, 1994 MS, Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2001 BS, Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 1998 AAS, Applied Science, Boise State University 1976 BS, Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1991 BA, Urban Planning, University of Washington, 1975 BA, Sociology, University of Washington, 1976 BA, Geography, University of Washington, 2000 MS, Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, 1981 BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, 1975 BS, Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1998 Chapter 6. List of Preparers Expertise, Experience, and Professional Disciplines Role: EIS lead, housing Experience: 23 years Professional disciplines: land use planning, environmental documentation Role: utilities analysis Experience: 13 years Professional disciplines: water supply and treatment, hydraulic modeling and analysis Role: cultural resources lead, historic resources analysis Experience: 14 years Professional disciplines: historic preservation, architectural history, and preservation planning Rale: air quality, energy, and noise analyses Experience: 8 years Professional disciplines: air and noise engineer, transportation planner Role: project manager, transportation engineer Experience: 27 years Professional disciplines: Professional engineer Role: SR 900 design; transportation analysis Experience: 18 years Professional disciplines: transportation engineering, site civil engineering, channelization, urban corridors, access management, sustainable practices in roadway engineering, cost estimating Role: utilities peer review, parks and recreation peer review Experience: 35 years Professional disciplines: SEPA/NEPA, environmental planning, resource planning, infrastructure planning Role: socioeconomics and environmental justice analysis Experience: 10 years Professional disciplines: land use, social, environmental justice Role: peer review air quality, energy, and noise analysis Experience: 35 years Professional discipline: environmental/air and noise engineer Role: transportation analysis Experience: 11 years Professional discipline: professional engineer Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Ervironmental Impact Statement 6 ICF 593.10 Chapter 7 Distribution List The notice of availability for this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was provided to the following agencies and individuals. Agencies indicated with an asterisk (*) were provided with an paper or electronic copy of the Draft EIS. 7.1 Federal, State, Tribal, Regional, County and City Agencies 7.1.1 Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers* U.S. Department of Interior* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* U.S. Housing and Urban Development* 7.1.2 State of Washington Agencies Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Department of Commerce* Department of Corrections* Department of Ecology* Department of Fish and Wildlife* Department of Health, Environmental Health* Department of Natural Resources* Department of Social and Health Services* Department of Transportation, Northwest Region* Governor Chris Gregoire* Parks and Recreation Commission* Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF ICF 593.10 City of Renton Puget Sound Partnership* Recreation and Conservation Office* 7.1.3 Tribal Duwamish Tribal Office Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* 7.1.4 Regional Puget Sound Clean Air Agency* Puget Sound Regional Council* 7.1.5 Counties King County Development & Environmental Services King County Wastewater Treatment Division* King County Library System* Seattle -King County Public Health* 7.1.6 Cities City of Newcastle City of Kent City of Tukwila 7.1.7 Local Agencies Renton Housing Authority* Renton Historical Society Chapter 7. Distribution 7.2 Special Districts, Transportation, and Utilities Renton School District* Metro Transit* Seattle Public Utilities Puget Sound Energy* Sound Transit* Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2410 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 2 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 7. Distribution 7.3 Newspapers Renton Reporter Seattle Times 7.4 Residents and Property Owners The City of Renton (City) has published a notice of availability in the Renton Reporter. In addition, the City notified its interested parties list, which includes participants in the scoping meeting as well as those who responded to the scoping postcard. Notices of availability have been posted throughout the Sunset Area Community, including at major intersections, in community buildings, and in commercial areas. Copies of the Draft EIS have been made available for public review at the following locations Renton Public Library (both Downtown and Highlands branches), Renton Housing Authority, Renton City Hall, and the City's website (as described on the Fact Sheet). Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 3 ICF 593.10 Chapter 8 References and Acronyms 8.1 References 8.1.1 Chapter 1 City of Renton. 2010a. City oj'Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards. . 2010b. Docket #53 Staff Report. September 29. 2009x, Renton Trails and Bicycle MasterPlan. May .2009b. Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. January. King County. 2009. Draft 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Seattle, WA. Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. NW Energy Start Homes Program. Available: <http://www.northwestenergystar.com/>. Accessed: October 15, 2010. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Implementation Working Group: Report to the Climate Action Team. Appendix G. SEPA Mitigation Strategies for Climate Change Impacts 8.1.2 Chapter 2 Printed References City of Renton. 2010a. Renton Highlands (Sunset Area). Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2768. Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2010b. Adopted Budget. 2010 Capital Investment Program: 2010 through 2015. Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Government/F]S/FinancialDocuments/Budget/201 OAdo ptedBudget.pdf>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2010c. Amendments to the King County Surface Water DesWn Manual. .2009a. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 9: Land Use Element. Adopted November 1, 2004. Ordinance 5099 & 5100. Amended December 8, 2008. Renton, WA. . 2009b.SunsetArea Community Investment Strategy. November 18, 2009. Prepared by Mithun, Inc. on behalf of the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department. 2009c. Highlands Action Plan, February. 2009d. Renton Trails and Bicjvle Master Plan. May Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement $ 1 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter S. References, Index, and Acronyms -. 2008a. Report and Recommendations: Highlands Phase II Task Force, December. Adopted by Renton City Council in 2009. Available: <http://www.rentoiiwa.gov/business/default.aspx?jd=10946>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2008h. Economic Equality and Housing Briefing: Answers to Preliminary Briefing Questions. Highlands Phase 11 Task Force. July 2. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/Highlands%2OEconomi c%20Equality%2OStudy%2OQuestions%20web%20draft.pdf>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2008c. Business Area Study Session: Answers to Preliminary Study Questions. Highlands Phase II Task Force. August 20, 2008. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/Business°/02OAreas%2 OStudy%2OQuestions.pdf> Accessed: September 20, 2010. . 2006. Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area Citizen's Zoning Task Force. November. Adopted by Renton City Council in May 2007. City of Renton and Renton Housing Authority. 2009. Highlands Redevelopment: Presentation to the City of Renton. April 7. King County. 2009. King County Surface Water Design Manual. Updated September 13, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/documents/surface- water-design-manual.aspx>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. Renton Housing Authority. 2010a. Welcome to the Renton Housing Authority. Available: <http://www.rentonhousing.org/7 Last updated: September 18, 2010. Accessed: September 20, 2010. .2010b. RHA Communities Waitlists. Available: <http://www.rentonhousing.org/RHA%20Communities%2OWaitlists.pdf> Accessed: September 20, 2010. . 2010c. Tenant Demographic Data Report, Housing Authority, City of Renton. September 22. Renton, WA. Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects. 2008. Renton School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2009-2015. Renton, WA. Prepared for Renton School District, Renton, WA. Personal Communications Gropper, Mark. Executive Director. Renton Housing Authority, Renton, Washington. September 17, 2010—email regarding Sunset Terrace income to Lisa Grueter, ICF International. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement $ z ICF 593.10 City of Renton 8.1.3 Section 3.1 Chapter 8. References, index, and acronyms American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2010. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 511, Edition. Atwater, Brian F., Alan R. [Nelson, John J. Clague, Gary A. Carver, David K. Yamaguchi, Peter T. Bobrowsky, Joanne Bourgeois, Mark E. Darienzo, Wendy C. Grant, Eileen Hemphill -Haley, Harvey M. Delsey, Gordon C. Jacoby, Stuart P. Nishenko, Stephen P. Palmer, Curt D. Peterson, and Mary Ann Reinhart. 1995. Summary of Coastal Geologic Evidence for Past Great Earthquakes at the Cascadia Subduction Zone. February. Earthquake Spectra 11(1):1.-18. City of Renton. 2009. Sensitive Areas Maps. May 21. Available: <http://rentonnet.org/internetapps/maps/index.cfm?fuseaction=products>. Accessed: September 20, 2010, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2003. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Seismic Provisions and Commentary for New Structures. 2003 Edition. FEMA 450. Golder Associates, 2003. Final Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Renton Sunset Interceptor Phase 11, Renton, Washington. September 2. Prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc. 1996. Geotechnical Engineering Study N.E. Sunset Boulevard Harrington Avenue N.E. to Union Avenue N.E. Sewer Interceptor Project, Renton, Washington. May 7. Prepared for the City of Renton, WA. International Code Counsel. 2009. International Building Code. February. ISBN978-1-58001. Johnson, S. Y., R. J. Blakely, T. M. Brother, R. C. Bucknam, P. J. Haeussler, T. L. Pratt, A. R. Nelson, B. L. Sherrod, R. E. Wells, D. J. Lidke, D. J. Harding, and H. M. Kelsey, compilers. 2004. Fault number 570, Seattle fault zone, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States. Available: <http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/gfaults>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Hazard Mapping Images and Data, Lower 48 States, 2002. Available: <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2002>. Accessed October 20, 2010 Washington State Department of Transportation. 2010. WSDOT Design Manual. July. Design Office, Engineering and Regional Operations Division. Available: <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-0Lhtni>. 8.1.4 Section 3.2 King County. 2007.2007 King County Climate Plan. Last updated: February. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/permits/info/SiteSpecific/ClimateChange.aspx#SEPA>. .2010. Air Quality Conformity Analysis for Transportation 2040, The Long -Range Metropolitan Transportation Plan of the Central Puget Sound Region. March 4. Seattle, WA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. National Air Toxics Assessment. Available: <http://vvww.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natamain/>. Accessed: October 2010, Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-3 ;CF 543.10 City of Renton Chapter 8. References, Index, and Acronyms Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008. Leading the Way: Implementing Practical Solutions to the Climate Change Challenge. Ecology Publication #08-01-008. November. 8.1.5 Section 3.3 City of Renton. 2010. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. .2006. Monitoring Report: Gene Coulon Park Microbial Source Tracking Study. May. City of Renton and King County. 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan. April. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map Number 53033C0668F. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. August. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Region 10: the Pacific Northwest. Sole Source Aquifer Program. Available: <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Sale+Source+Aquifers/SSA>. Accessed: November 2010. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009.2008 Washington State Water Quality Assessment. Available: <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html>. Accessed: September 2010. . 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. February. 8.1.6 Section 3.4 City of Renton. 2009. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Element. Amended November 25, 2009. Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/06.%2OEnvironment.pdf>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. King County. 2009. Kinq County Surface Water Design Manual. Updated September 13, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandlan d/stormwater/documents /surfa ce- water-design-manual.aspx>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. King County and City of Renton. 2001. Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan. April. Updated September 14, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/cedar- river-lake-wa/may-creek/may-creek-basin-plan.aspx>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. StreamNet. 2010. Results of a database search for fish occurrence in May Creek and Honey Creek, King County, Washington. Available: <http://www.streamnet.org>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. National Wetlands Inventory. Available: <http://www.fws.gov/wetlands. Last updated: November 3, 2010. Accessed; November 8, 2010. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8 4 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 8. References, Index, and Acronyms 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. . 2010b. Salmonscape database. Electronic online database files detailing salmon occurrence in Washington State. Available: <http://wdfiv,wa.gov/mapping/salinonscape>. Accessed: November 8, 2010. 8.1.7 Section 3.5 King County. 2007. SEPA Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet, Version 1.7. Updated December 26, 2007. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/permits/info/SiteSpecific/ClimateChange.aspx#SEPA>. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2010. Transportation 2040: Final Environmental Impact Statement. March. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Light -Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel -Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2009. EPA420-R-09-014. November. 8.1.8 Section 3.6 City of Renton. 1997. Airport Master Plan far Renton Municipal Airport. August. Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. (FTA -VA -90- 1003-06.) Office of Planning and Environment. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2010. Site Day -Night Level Calculator. Available: <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm>. Accessed: October 8, 2010. 1985. The Noise Guidebook. A Reference Document for Implementing the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Noise Policy, Environmental Planning Division, Office of Environment and Energy. Washington State Department of Transportation. 2009. Annual Traffic Report, 2009. Transportation Data Office. Available: <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/an11ualtrafficreport.htm>. Accessed: October 08, 2010. 8.1.9 Section 3.7 Printed References Adapt Engineering, Inc. 2010. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Sunset Lane NE &e NE 10th Street (NW Corner), Renton, WA, 98056. August 25. Seattle, WA. City of Renton. 2008. Aquifer Protection Zones map for City of Renton. January 22. Technical Services Planning, Building, Public Works. Available: <http://rentonnet.org/internetapps/maps/index.cfm?fuseaction=products>. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-5 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Personal Communications Chapter 8. References, Index, and Acronyms Cappelletti, Cory. Fire Inspector. City of Renton Emergency Management Department, Renton, WA. November 15, 2010 -Email. 8.1.10 Section 3.8 City of Renton. 2009. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. 8.1.11 Section 3.9 City of Renton. 2009. City of Renton Comprehensive Pian. Renton, WA. King County. 2010a. King County Benchmarks: Affordable Housing. Last Updated September 28, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/strategy/PerformMgmt/RenchmarkProgram/AffordableHo using.aspx>. Accessed: September 29, 2010. .20 10b. King County Countywide Planning Policies. King County, WA. Available: < http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/permits/codes/growth/GMPC/CPP.aspx> Accessed: October 16, 2010. . 2009. King County Benchmarks Affordable Housing 2008-2009. Last revised: March 9, 2009. Available: <http://your.kingcounty.gov/budget/benchmark/benchO8/AffHsg/aff housing.htm>. Accessed: September 27, 2010. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2010. Covered Employment Estimates. Available: <http://www.psrc.org/data/employment/covered-emp>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. .2009. Vision 2040. December. Available: <http://psrc.org/growth/vision204O/pub/vision2O40-document>. Accessed November 27, 2010. Renton Housing Authority. 2010. Tenant Demographic Data Report. September 22. Renton, WA. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census Bureau, 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) and 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) data for Census Tract 242, Census Tract 254, Census Tract 255; City of Renton; and King County. April 1. Available: <http://factf;nder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_fang=ens. Accessed: September 27, 2010. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2010. Historical Fair Market Rents. Content current as of October 1, 2010. Available: <http: //www.hud.gov/local/sha red /working/r 10/emas/histwa fmr.cfm?state=wa#seattl a>. Accessed: October 1, 2010. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Available: <http://data.bls.gov:8080/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet;jsessionid=62303eeea7lf753f3c1 1>. Accessed: October 1, 2010. Washington State Office of Financial Management. 2010. Growth Management Act County Projections. Available: <http://ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/defaulL.asp>. Accessed: November 27, 2010. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 8-6 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 59110 City of Renton 8.1.12 Section 3.10 Chapter 8. References, Index, and Acronyms American Community Survey. 2009. 2006--2008 American Community Survey 3 -Year Estimate. Renton, City, WA. Available: < http://factfinder.census.gov>. Accessed: October 11, 2010. City of Renton. 2010. Demographics Summary Profile NE Renton 10 and 15 Minutes Drive Time Data from the Intersection of NE Sunset Blvd & NE 10th Street. June 24. Community and Economic Development Department, Planning/Technical Services, Renton, WA. . 2009. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. King County. 2010. King County Benchmarks: Affordable Housing. Last Updated September 28, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/strategy/PerformMgmt/RenchmarkProgram/AffordahteHo using.aspx>. Accessed: September 29, 2010. — .2009. King County Benchmarks Affordable Housing 2008-2009. Last revised: March 9, 2009. Available: <http://your.kingcounty.gov/budget/benchmark/benchO8/AffHsg/aff housing.htm>. Accessed: September 27, 2010. King County Assessor, 2010. Assessments Data Download. Available: <http://info.kingcounty.gov/assessor/Data Down load/default.aspx>. Accessed: July 2010. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2010. Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle, WA—Population, Household and Housing Estimates: 2009. March.Available: <www.psrc.org>. Accessed: October 11, 2010. . 2002a. 2000 Census, Characteristics of Housing, Vol. 1: King County Census Tracts. September. Available: <http://psrc.org/assets/1398/Housing_King.pdf>. Accessed: October 11, 2010. .2002b. 2000 Census, Characteristics of Income, Vol. 1: King County Census Tracts. September. Available: <http://psrc.org/assets/1405/Incorne_King.pdf>. Accessed: October 11, 2010. Renton Housing Authority. 2010a. RHA Communities Waitlists. Available: <http://www.rentonhousing.org/RHA%20Communities%2OWaitlists.pdf>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. . 2010b. Tenant Demographic Data Report: Housing Authority, City of Renton. September 22, Renton, WA. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmenta. 2010. Historical Fair Market Rents. Content current as of October 1, 2010. Available: <http://www.hud.gov/local/shared/working/r10/emas/histwafmr.cfm?state=wa#seattie>. Accessed: October 1, 2010. .2010b. Public Housing Programs. Available: <http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/programs.cfm>. Accessed: October 16, 2010. . 2010c. Choice Neighborhoods. Available: <http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/cn/>. Accessed: October 16, 2010. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 8-7 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 593.7.0 City of Renton Chapter S. References, Index, and Acronyms .2010d. How Do Housing Tax Credits Work? Available: <http://ww�v.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/training/web/lihtc/basics/work.cfm>. Accessed: November 26, 2010. —. 2010e. Community Development Block Grant Program—CDBG. Available: <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/7. Accessed: October 16, 2010. .2010f. HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Available: <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/>. Accessed: October 16, 2010. 8.1.13 Section 3.11 Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. Renton Housing Authority. 2010. Tenant Demographic Data Report: Housing Authority, City of Renton. September 22. Renton, WA. Renton School District. 2010a. Student Information Services—Ethnic Reports. Available: <http://www.rentonschools.us/Departments/Student_Information_Services/EthnicReports>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. —. 2010b. Nutrition Services—Free & Reduced Meal Reports. Available: <http: //www.rentons chools.us/Departments/Nutrition_Services/FreeReduced MealRep orts >. Accessed: September 15, 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Census Bureau, 2000 Summary File 3 (SF3) data for Census Tract 242 Block Groups 3 and 4; Census Tract 254 Block Groups 1, 4 and S, Census Tract 255 Block Group 2, City of Renton, and King County. Available: <http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/rnain.html?_Iang=en>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. 8.1.14 Section 3.12 City of Renton. 2009. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Renton Planning and Development Department, Renton, WA. ----. 2008. Report and Recommendations: Highlands Phase 11 Task Force. Available: <http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=10946. Accessed: September 20, 2010. 8.1.15 Section 3.13 Ames, K. M. and D. G. Maschner. 1999. Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. London: Thames & Hudson. Associated Press. 1958. Tacoma Gets Housing Blues; To Renton It's Not News. The Seattle Times. June 29. Seattle, Washington. Blukis Onat, A. R., M. E. Morgenstein, P. D. LeTourneau, R. P. Stone, J, Kosta, and P. Johnson. 2001. Archaeological Investigations at stuweyugw—Site 45K1464—Tolt River, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-8 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 8. References, index, and Acronyms Blukis Onat, A. R., R. A. Kiers, and P. D. LeTourneau. 2005, Preliminary Ethnographic and Geoarchaeological Study of -the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project. Report on file at Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. Blukis Onat, A. R., and R. A. Kiers. 2007. Ethnohistoric and Geoarchaeological Study of the SR 520 Corridor and Archaeological Field Investigations in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project including the Pacific Interchange and Second Montlake Bridge Option, King County, Washington. Report on file at Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, WA. Booth, D. B., K. G. Troost, and S. A. Schimel. 2009. Geologic Map of Northeastern Seattle (Part of the Seattle North 7.5'x15' Quadrangle), King County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Buerge, David M. 1989. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Chatsworth, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc. City of Renton. 1989. Community Profile. Department of Community Development, Long Range Planning Section, Renton, WA. Duwamish Tribe. 2010. Duwamish Tribe. Available: <http://www.duwamishtribe.org/index.html>. Accessed: September 30, 2010. Easterbrook, D. J. 2003. Cordilleran Ice Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and Alpine Glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington. Pages 137-157 in T. W. Swanson (ed.), Western Cordillera and Adjacent Areas. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America. Elenga, Maureen R. 2007. Seattle Architecture: A Walking Guide to Downtown. Seattle, WA: Seattle Architecture Foundation. Forsman, L. and D. Lewarch. 2001. Archaeology of the White River. White River Journal: A Newsletter of the White River Valley Museum. April. Available: <11ttp://www.wrvmuseum.org/journal/journal_ 0401.htm>. Accessed: July 25, 2006. Golder Associates. 1996. Geotechnical Engineering Study N.E. Sunset Boulevard Harrington Avenue N.E. to Union Avenue N.E. Sewer Interceptor Project, Renton, Washington, May 7. Prepared for the City of Renton, WA. 2003.Final Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Renton Sunset Interceptor Phase 11, Renton, Washington. September 2. Prepared for HDR Engineering, Inc. Greengo, R. E. and R. Houston. 1970. Archaeological Excavations at Morymoor Farm. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Kidd, R. S. 1964. A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Prospective ot'Three Occupational Sites. Unpublished A.A. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. King County Department of Assessments. 2010. Assessment Records for parcels 7227801055, 7227801400, and 7227801085. Available: <http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/cRealProperty/default.aspx>. Accessed: October 13, 2010. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8 9 ICF 593.14 City of Renton Chapter 8. References, Index, and Acronyms Kopperl, R. E. 2004. Cultural Resources Clearance Survey, SRS HOV Lane Construction, 48th Street to Pacific Avenue, Tacoma, Pierce County. Northwest Archaeological Associates and the Environmental History Company. On file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Larson, L. L., and D. E. Lewarch.1995. The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington: 4,000 Years of Hunter -Fisher -Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Seattle, Washington. Report prepared for King County Metropolitan Services by Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. Morning Olympian. 1909. Survey New Renton Seattle Highway. October 30. Olympia, WA. Mullineaux, D. R. 1965. Geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, WA. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Nelson, C. M. 1990.Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. Pages 481-484 in Wayne Suttles (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7 (Northwest Coast). Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Ochster, Jeffery Karl (ed.). 1998, Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Renton History Museum. 1975. Renton Highlands, aerial view looking west, Renton, ca. 1975. Electronic document. Available: <http://content.]ib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/imisrenton&CISOPTR =240. Accessed: October 13, 2010. The Seattle Times. 1959. Seattle Firm Supported for Housing Job. March 18:44. Seattle, WA. 1967. Obituaries: George W. Stoddard. September 29:16. Seattle, WA. Slauson, Morda C. 2006. Renton from Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, Renton, WA. Suttles, W., and B. Lane (eds.). 1990. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 8.1.16 Section 3.14 City of Renton. 2009. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Transportation Element. Renton, WA King County. 2010. Metro Transit. Available: <http://metro.kingcounty.gov>. Accessed: October 2010. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2010. Adopted Level of Service Standards for Regionally Significant State Highways. <http://psrc.org/transportation/destination203O/los/7. Accessed: October 5, 2010. Transportation Research Board. 2005. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington State Department of Transportation. 2009a. State Highway Log. Updated March 8, 2010. Available: <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/statehighwaylog.htm>. Accessed: October 4, 2010. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-10 iCF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter S. References, Index, and Acronyms . 2009b. 2009 Washington State Collision Data Summary. Available: rhttp://xv,,vw.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/accidentannual.htin>. Accessed: October 6, 2010. . 2009c. 2009 Annual Traffic Report. In cooperation with the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Available: <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and-ZIP-Files/Annual-Traffic-Report-2009.pdf>. 8.1.17 Section 3.15 Printed References City of Renton. 2010a. City of Renton GIS data. 2010b. Parks and Trails webpage and Recreation webpage. Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/living.> Accessed: September 2010.. 2010c. "What's Happen iRq... Fall 2010." Community Services Department 2010d. Docket 453 Staff Report. September 29. . 2009. Renton Trails and Bikeways Guide Map. June. Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Living/CS/PARKS/bikcandtrailsmap.pdf>. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census tract GIS shapefile data for city of Renton, WA. Available: <http://psrc.org/data/gis/shapefiles.> Personal Communications Betlach, Leslie. Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director. City of Renton, Renton, WA. October 28, 2009, and September 29, 2010—Emails to Kristina Evanoff, CH2M Hill, providing City of Renton parks and recreation level of service data and Sunset Area Park Facilities and Participation Numbers 2008-2010. 8.1.18 Section 3.16 Printed References City of Renton. 2010. Waste Services and Collection. Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=304>. Accessed: September 21, 2010, 2009. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Renton, WA. 2008. Renton Public Library Master Plan Study 2008-2013. Available: <http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Living/CS/LIBRARY/RENTONmasterplan 1.pdf>. Accessed: November 12, 2010. City of Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department. 2010. Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department Annual Report 2009. Renton, WA. City of Renton Police Department. 2010. Renton Police Department Annual Report 2009. Renton, WA. King County. 2009. Draft 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Seattle, WA. Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SFPA Environmental impact Statement 8 11 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 8. References, Index, and Acronyms King County Library System. 2010. Draft 2010 Library Service Area Analysis Greater Renton Area. September. Renton Housing Authority. 2010. RHA Communities Waitlists. Available: <http://www.rentonhousing.org/RHA%20Communities°/02OWaittists.pdf>. Accessed: September 2010. Renton School District. 2010. Boundary Maps -Available: s http://www.rentonschools.us/Departments/Transportation/BoundaryMaps>. Accessed: September 20, 2010. Renton School District and Greene Gasaway Architects. 2008. Renton School District Six -Year Capital Facilities Plan, 2009-2015. Renton, WA. Prepared for Renton School District, Renton, WA. Valley Medical Center. 2010.2009 Annual Report. Renton, WA. Personal Communications Flora, Bill. Deputy Chief. Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department, Renton, WA. September 20, 2010—phone conversation. Gropper, Mark. Executive Director. Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. September 20, 2010— phone conversation. Marsalisi, Chuck. Deputy Chief. Renton Police Department, Renton, WA. September 10, 2010— phone. Matheson, Randy. Executive Director, Community Relations. Renton School District No. 403, Renton, WA. September 15, 2010, and November 18, 2010—phone conversation and email. 8.1,19 Section 3.17 City of Renton. 2009. Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. January. City of Renton and R.W. Beck, Inc. 2005. City of Renton Water System Plan. September. Seattle, Washington. Prepared for the City of Renton, WA. 8.1.20 Section 4,1 City of Renton, 2010. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards. 8.1.21 Section 4.2 American Public Health Association. 2007. Breathe Easy Homes at High Point: The ultimate indoor asthma trigger reduction strategy. Presentation at the 135th APHA Annual Meeting & Exposition (November 6, 2007). Available: <http://apha.confex.com/apha/135am/techprogram/paper_163247.htm>. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8 12 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter S. References, Index, and Acronyms Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxics. Last revised: February 3, 2006. Availahle: <http://www.f iwa.dot.gov/ENVIRONMENT/airtoxic/020306guidmem.htm>. Accessed: March 1, 2007. Bing County. 2007. SEPA Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet, Version 1.7. Updated December 26, 2007. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/property/permits/ info/SiteSpecific/ClimateCllange.aspx#SEPA>. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2010. Transportation 2040: Final Environmental Impact Statement. March. . 2009. Air Quality Conformity Analysis: 2010-2013 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. September 3. Seattle, WA. .2007. Destination 2030 Environmental Impact StatementAddendum. March 5. Seattle, WA. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2007. Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. Updated August 15, 2007. Sandel, Megan. 2009. Healthy homes. Alliance for Healthy Homes and the National Center for Medical Legal Partnership/Boston Medical Center. May 6, Available: <http://www.nlilic.org/detail/article.cfm?article-id=6087&id=46>. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008a. Leading the Way: Implementing Practical Solutions to the Climate Change Challenge, Ecology Publication #08-01-008. November. .2008b. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Implementation Working Group: Report to the Climate Action Team. Appendix G. SEPA Mitigation Strategies for Climate Change Impacts. 8.1.22 Section 4.3 City of Renton. 2009. City ot'Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Renton, WA. Herrera Environmental Consultants. 2006. Gene Coulon Park Microbial Source Trackinq Study. Draft. Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, WA. King County. 2009. King County Washington, Surface Water Design Manual. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. 1998. King County Washington, Surface Water Design Manual. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. 8.1.23 Section 4.4 King County. 2009. King County Washington, Surface Water Design Manual. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. Worthy and Associates. 2009. Renton Urban and Community Forestry Redevelopment Plan. Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, WA. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement $ 13 ICF593.1u City of Renton 8.1.24 Section 4.5 Chapter 8. References, Index, and Acronyms City of Renton. 2009. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 12: Utilities Element. Adopted November 1, 2004. Ordinance 5099 & 5100. Amended December 8, 2008. Renton, WA. King County. 2007. SEPA Greenhouse Gas Emission Worksheet, Version 1.7. Updated December 26, 2007. Available: <http: //www.ki ngcounty.gov/property/perm its/info/Site Specific/Climate Change.aspx#SEPAL. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2010. Transportation 2040: Final Environmental Impact Statement. March. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. NW Energy Start Homes Program. Available: <http://www.northwestenergystar.com/7. Accessed: October 15, 2010. .2009. Light -Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel -Economy Trends: 1975 through 2009. EPA420-R-09-014. November. 8.1.25 Section 4.6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2010a. Site Day -Night Level Calculator. Available: <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/dnicalculatortool.cfm>. Accessed: October 8, 2010. —. 2010b. Barrier Performance Module. Available: <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/environment/calculator/mitigation.cfm >. Accessed: October 20, 2010. 8.1.26 Section 4.7 No references. 8.1.27 Section 4.8 No references. 8.1.28 Section 4.9 No references. 8.1.29 Section 4.10 Gropper, Mark. Executive Director. Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. October 4, 2010—Email to Lisa Grueter regarding relocation assistance for duplex residents. 8.1.30 Section 4.11 No references. Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-14 ICF 593.10 City of Renton 8.1.31 Section 4.12 No references. 8.1.32 Section 4.13 Chapter 8, References, Index, and Acronyms Bundy, Barbara E. 2008. Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase I Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project. Report No. 08-23, Cultural Resources Program. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Services Office. Chatters, James. 2009. Recovery of Two Early 20th Century Graves from Renton, Washington. AMEC Project No. 8-915-16415-0. Bothell, WA. Prepared for James H. Jacques Construction by AMSC Earth & Environmental, Inc. Cooper, Jason. 2001. Antennas on an Existing Transmission Tower 12612 Southeast 96th Street. SESUC005A. Bellevue, WA. Prepared by Jones & Stokes. Goetz, Linda Naoi, Kara M. Kanaby, Douglas F. Tingwall, and Thomas C. Rust. 2008. Dayton Avenue NE/NE 22nd Street StormwaterSystem Project, Renton, Washington. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Landau Associates for BHC Consultants. Hodges, Charles M. 2007a. Cultural Resources Assessmentfor the Proposed Lowe's of Renton Project, Renton, King County, Washington. NWAA Report Number WA 07-014. Seattle, WA. Prepared for PacLand by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. . 2007b. Archaeological Resource Assessment for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project, City of Renton, King County, Washington. NWAA Report Number WA06- 055. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Juell, Ken. 2001. Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington Light Rails Project. NWAA Report WA01-6. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Miss, Christian J. 2007. Archaeological Monitoring for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project, City of Renton, King County, Washington. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Stipe, Frank T. 2007. Verizon Wireless SEA Renton Voc-Tech Cellular Tower Cultural Resources Review. Bothell, WA. Prepared for Verizon Wireless by Tetra Tech Divisions, Inc. 8.1.33 Section 4.14 City of Renton. 2009. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. May. Muench, S. T., J. L. Anderson, J. P. Hatfield, J. R. Koester, and M. Soderlund. 2010. Greenroads Rating System v1.0. J. L. Anderson and S. T. Meunch (eds.). April. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 8.1.34 Section 4.15 City of Renton. 2010. Docket #53 Staff Report. September 29. . 2003.2003 Long -Range Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Sunset Area Community planned Action 8-15 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Ervironmental Impact Statement ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter S. References, Index, and Acronyms City of Sammamish and Issaquah School District No. 411. 2006. Interlocal agreement with Issaquah School District for join use, development and maintenance of city and district properties for recreational and athletic uses. Available: <www.mrsc.org>. Accessed: October 2010. 8.1.35 Section 4.16 King County. 2009. Draft 2009 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Seattle, WA. Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA, 8,1.36 Section 4,17 City of Renton. 2009. Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. January. HDR, Inc. 2009. Water Distribution Storage Planning Study. January. Bellevue, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton, WA. R.W. Beck, Inc. 2005. City of Renton Water System Plan. September. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the City of Renton, WA. 8.1.37 Section 4.18 No references. 8.1.38 Section 4.19 No references. 8.2 AADT AASHTO ACM ADA ADD ADT AMI ASTs BM Ps BP Btu CAFE CERCLIS Acronyms CERCLIS-NFRAP CESQG CFR annual average daily traffic American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials asbestos -containing materials Americans with Disabilities Act average daily demand average daily traffic Area Median Income Aboveground stationary storage tanks best management practices before present British thermal units Corporate Average Fuel Economy Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned conditionally exempt small -quantity generator Code of Federal Regulations Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8-16 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter S. References, Index, and Acronyms CIS Community Investment Strategy City City of Renton CN Center Neighborhood CN Commercial Neighborhood CO carbon monoxide CPPB King County's Countywide Planning Policies CSCSL Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites List CSCSL-NFA CSCSL-No Further Action CV Center Village DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DART Dial -a-Ride-Transit dB decibel dBA A -weighted decibel du/acre dwelling units per acre Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EDNA environmental designation for noise abatement EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EIS environmental impact statement EMS emergency medical services EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPCs Energy Performance Contracts ESA Endangered Species Act FAZ forecast analysis zone FHWA Federal Highway Administration FO NSI finding of no significant impact FTE full-time equivalent GHG greenhouse gas GMA Washington State Growth Management Act GPS global positioning system HCM 2000 Highway Capacity Manual HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning Interstate ICR Independent Clean -Up Report Ldn day -night level LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Leq Equivalent sound level Leq 1h 1 -hour A -weighted equivalent sound level LID Low Impact Development LOS level of service LQGs large -quantity generators MP mile post; Sunset Area Community Planned Action 17 December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement ICF 59110 City of Renton Chapter B. References, Index, and Acronyms Mpg miles per gallon MSATs mobile source air toxics MTCA Model Toxics Control Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFA no further action NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NN Neighborhood Networks NO2 nitrogen dioxide NO1 Notice of Intent NOx nitrogen oxides NPL National Priority List NRHP National Register of Historic Places OWSC one-way stop control; AWSC = all -way stop control PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PDD peak daily demand PHAs Public Housing Authorities PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in size PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in size PPM parts per million PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency PSH 2 Primary State Highway 2 psi pounds per square inch PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council R-10 Residential 10 R-14 Residential 14 R-8 Residential 8 RC Resource Conservation RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 RCRAlnfo Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information RCRA-NonGEN RCRA non -generators RCW Revised Code of Washington RHA Renton Housing Authority RLD Residential Low Density RMC Renton Municipal Code RMD Residential Medium Density RM -F Residential Multifamily ROD record of decision ROSS Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency RS Residential Single Family Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2010 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 18 ICF 593.10 City of Renton Chapter 8. References, Index, and Acronyms RSF Residential Single Family RTP Regional Transportation Plan SARA or Superfund Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SHPO Washington State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 sulfur dioxide SQGs small -quantity generators SR State Route SRI Shelter Resources, Inc. TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMDL total maximum daily load TOD transit oriented development TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal USC United States Code USTs underground storage tank VCP Voluntary Clean -Up Program VMC Valley Medical Center VMT vehicle miles traveled VOCs volatile organic compounds WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WHR Washington Heritage Register WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database WRIA Water Resources Inventory Area WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Sunset Area Community Planned Action December 2410 Draft NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement 8 19 1CF 593.10