Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Misc - 4 of 4
Author: Alexander E. Stevenson. J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA Title of Report: Cultural Resources Survey Repo rt—Develoment of Three Pro'ect Sites in the Renton Susnet Terrace Neighborhood Date of Report: February 2011 County(ies): King Section: 9 Township: 23 Range: 5E Quad: Mercer Island 47122-E2 and Renton 47122-D2 Acres: Approximately 3.89 acres PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) M Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? F1 Yes M„No Not Applicable Archaeological Site(s)llsolate(s) Found or Amended? 0 Yes M No TCP(s) found? I—I Yes N No Replace a draft? I—I Yes M No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? I-1 Yes # M No DAHP Archaeological Site #: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THREE PROJECT SITES IN THE RENTON SUNSET TERRACE NEIGHBORHOOD 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: Alexander E. Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA ICF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact: Christopher Hetzel 206.801.2817 February 2011 I F INTERKArlOkAL Alexander E. Stevenson, J. Tait Elder, MA, Melissa Cascella, MA, and Christopher Hetzel, MA. 2011. Cultural Resources Survey Report— Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood. February. (1CF 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................................................................................................................1-1 Personnel......................................... .......................................................................... 1-1 Location.....................................................................................................................1-1 Area of Potential Effects............................................................................................1-2 RegulatoryContext....................................................................................................1-2 Chapter 2 Environmental and Cultural Setting................................................................................... 2-1 EnvironmentalSetting............................................................................................................ 2-1 GeologicBackground................................................................................................. 2-1 Floraand Fauna......................................................................................................... 2-1 CulturalSetting ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 Precontact................................................................................................................. 2-1 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 Objectives and Expectations..................................................................................................4-1 ResearchMethods .... .............................................................................................................. 4-1 Archaeological Investigations....................................................................................4-1 Historical Resources Survey......................................................................................4-2 Chapter5 Results.............................................................................................................................. 5-1 Archaeological Investigations................................................................................................. 5-1 Kirkland Ave NE between 15th and 16th..................................................................5-1 2902 NE 12th Street.................................................................................................. 5-1 1104 Harrington Avenue NE......................................................................................5-1 Historic Resources Survey......................................................................................................5-2 Summaryof Results................................................................................................................ 5-2 Chapter6 Analysis............................................................................................................................ 6-1 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................. 7-1 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 7-1 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 7-1 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Contents Chapter8 References........................................................................................................................ 8-1 Appendix A. Photographs Appendix B. Shovel Test Data Appendix C. Unanticipated Discovery Plan Tables Table 3-1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects ............................ 3-1 Figures Figure1-1. Project Location .............................................. .............................................................................................. 1-3 Figure 1-2. Area of Potential Effects............................................................................................................................1-4 Figure 5-1. Shovel Test Locations at Kirkland Avenue NE Site........................................................................ 5-3 Figure 5-2. Shovel Test Locations at 2902 NE 12th Street Site........................................................................ 5-4 Figure 5-3. Shovel Test Locations at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE Site ........................................................ 5-5 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood �� ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations APE Area of Potential Effects APN Assessor Parcel Number BP before present CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Renton DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 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 SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer USC United States Code WHR Washington Heritage Register WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Database Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ��� ICF D0593.10 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 the redevelopment of three separate properties in the Sunset Terrace neighborhood (proposed projects). Each of the proposed projects is anticipated to receive 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 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 United States Code [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 USC 4321-4347) and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF International (ICF) conducted a cultural resources study for each of the three projects, consolidated in this report, to assist the City in fulfilling these requirements. The studies comprised archaeological investigations and historic resources surveys at each of the three project sites. The proposed projects would take place at three locations: on Kirkland Avenue NE between 15th and 16th streets; at 2902 NE 12th Street; and 1104 Harrington Avenue NE. Parcels at each of these locations would be redeveloped for either multifamily housing units, or, in the case of the Harrington Avenue NE property, potentially a building intended for institutional use (e.g., government office). Project Background Personnel 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. Alexander Stevenson 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 proposed projects are located in the city of Renton, King County, Washington, in the Northwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 23, Range 5 East (Figure 1-1). It is in an area known as the Sunset Area Community, situated in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard, east of Interstate 405. The project activities would include redevelopment of the following properties: Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Introduction the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street (Assessor Parcel Number [APN]: 7227802040); vacant lots on Kirkland Avenue between NE 15th and NE 16th streets (APNs: 7227800200, 7227800185 and 7227800190.; and • Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE (APN: 7227801781) Area of Potential Effects The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which the proposed projects 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 project activities at the three project sites (Figure 1-2). The depth of the anticipated ground disturbance would vary depending on the design the proposed development. 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 proposed projects require federal funding and, therefore, must satisfy the requirements established under 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 APE, fulfilling the requirements of NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, and to assess the potential effects of the proposed projects 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.)." Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 Z ICF 00593.10 I I l I J: y ek 19 !- � � sem. •, 1 , _� -�/�. i r �•, �• � _�sj .i '' 1 J+il j .-- s � • _ s } ++ �1' r � ice} •. •---+�� fir_ Is f iL:.J�7Pr;: K'�i '4' z�'::? .. .-. I .. �Y i ICF Figure Project Location and Area of Potential Effects Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood City Limits Area of Potential Effects+ _ ! � • ��. l N eM111a E ; ' � "t "L �,' S 1 , 1 ,r 0 1,000 2,000117 + I _,,:.•� r i� Feet_ r �' �y 0 200 400 �•- Y �. i r i= II 1 • r .. A' Fowar I I l I J: y ek 19 !- � � sem. •, 1 , _� -�/�. i r �•, �• � _�sj .i '' 1 J+il j .-- s � • _ s } ++ �1' r � ice} •. •---+�� fir_ Is f iL:.J�7Pr;: K'�i '4' z�'::? .. .-. I .. �Y i ICF Figure Project Location and Area of Potential Effects Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood t:.iCity Limits [=Area of Potential Effects N A 0 200 400 Feet ® Meters 0 50 too E W -'z Oki ..1% Rw 8 . -0 f • O _. Lry_ frw 12TH ST t' Ile Ar w w D w <.. "r1, def z r o g �w- ..+�+� 0 ` a •" - '� ,4.. � ,. � 6i '�� • ¢ , ���III `G] ye�y �—1 � 4 ice';- m "� � — W �r • s 5 Y,"h y `4 j 3W A IF4 At TT— =9 ! *Sw► 4N' �Z 7 Jz4 f - G Socrre: ,y of Reotoi L,SDA �)N Figure '%r Area of Potential Effects Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development 01 1hree Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Ne€ghborhood City of Renton Introduction 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 CEA) 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, effects 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 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of undertakings (acts which are federally funded, approved, or take place on federally administered lands) that have the potential to affect any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed or is eligible for listing in the NRHP. Under Section 106, the lead federal agency must provide an opportunity for the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), affected tribes, and other stakeholders to comment. 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 apply HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. The Section 106 process is codified in 36 CFR 800 and consists of four basic steps: 1, Initiation of the process by coordinating with other environmental reviews, consultation with the SHPO, identification and consultation with interested parties, and identification of points in the process to seek input from the public and to notify the public of proposed actions. 2. Identification of cultural resources and evaluation of these resources for NRHP eligibility (the process for which is explained below), resulting in the identification of historic properties. 3. Assessment of effects of the project on historic properties. 4. Resolution of adverse affects which includes continued consultation with SHPO/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and other interested parties and mitigation measures, such as public outreach or data recovery excavation. 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. 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 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood �_5 ICF D0593.10 City of Renton Introduction protection from destruction or impairment." The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels, based on the following evaluation criteria (National Register of Historic Places 1997): A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or C. That embody 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 represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. The guidelines further state that "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 that it 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 N RHP. The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it could 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. The degree to which an action may 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 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1-6 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Introduction listed in or eligible for listing in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the state equivalent of the NRHP. 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 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; 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 processes—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. Other Archaeological Resource Laws Other state laws that govern the protection of archaeological resources include: • RCW 27.44, Indian Graves and Records, provides protection for Native American graves and burial grounds, encourages voluntary reporting of said sites when they are discovered, and mandates a penalty for disturbance or desecration of such sites. • RCW 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, governs the protection and preservation of archaeological sites and resources and establishes DAHP as the administering agency for these regulations. • RCW 36.70A.020 includes a goal to "identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical, cultural, and archaeological significance." Cities planning under the Washington State Growth Management Act must consider and incorporate this historic preservation goal. • RCW 68.60, Abandoned and Historic Cemeteries and Historic Graves, provides for the protection and preservation of abandoned and historic cemeteries and historic graves. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three 1-7 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Local The City currently does not have a local historic preservation ordinance. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 $ iCF00593.10 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 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 APE is characterized as a moderately glacial drift upland, composed of glacial till (Mullineaux 1965). In the modern era, the surface of the APE has been modified to accommodate for development. Flora and Fauna The APE is located in the Puget Sound area subtype western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) vegetation zone. Softwoods such as Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menzesh), western hemlock, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) are the dominant tree species in the region; hardwoods such as red alder (Alnus rubra) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are generally subordinate and found near water courses or riparian habitats. Garry oak (Quercus garryana) 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 (Sagittaria latifolia) and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Terrestrial faunal resources in the region include, but are not limited to, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), cougar (Puma concolor), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), black bear (Ursus americanus), squirrels (Scirius sp.), muskrat (Ondatra sp.), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Dalquest 1948). 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), and most recently by Kopperl (2004). The archaeological record and cultural histories of the prehistory of Puget Sound and Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three2 1 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting 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 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 BP). Increase socioeconomic complexity, exploitation of a wider range of 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 APE 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 APE along the Cedar River, no ethnographically documented villages or place names are known to exist within the the APE (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, whereas others remain enrolled with the Duwamish Tribe, although it is not a federally recognized tribe (Duwamish Tribe 2010). Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Historic Context Early Beginnings Environmental and Cultural Setting 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 (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 tunnel supports. 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 areas important to 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 settlement. 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; Pierce 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 Iaunched 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, took interest in the area. Renton, who had built an enormous and prosperous sawmill on Bainbridge Island, invested heavily in the area's coal and transportation industries. These investments allowed 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 backer (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 Cultural Resources Survey Report—development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2 3 ICF. 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting 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 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 II 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 and increased exponentially 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 population increases, 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, emerging as important sectors of the economy (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 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 established just south of the APE from 1909 through 1910. The route was first paved in 1920, becoming the principal highway between Seattle and the 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 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2-4 1CF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting of thousands of workers in the 1940s, however, housing development exploded. Many of Renton's existing residential neighborhoods were first established during World War 11. During World War II, 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 the Federal Housing Administration was initially created during the 1930s, it was not until the postwar era that the federal government enacted "the most significant housing legislation ever passed" to meet the growing housing needs (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 6 years (Lord 1977:10). In Renton, the federal government embarked on a series of housing projects (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 federal loans, grants, and other programs (City of Renton 1989:34). During this period, the Highlands development centered on housing projects while the North Highlands constructed a mix of 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). Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 2.5 ICF 00593.10 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. One historic resource, the building at 2615 NE Sunset Boulevard, was previously identified within 1 mile of the APE. The building's NRHP eligibility was not previously evaluated. Eleven previously completed cultural resources surveys and one archaeological site were identified within a 1 -mile radius of the APE boundary. A summary of these cultural resources studies is provided in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. Cultural Resources Surveys within 1 Mile of the Area of Potential Effects NADB # Authors/Year 1339887 Juell2001 1352447 Bundy 2008 1351994 1353126 1348842 Goetz 2008 Chatters 2009 Hodges2007a Report Title Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington Light Lanes Project 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 Recovery of Two Early 20th Century Graves from Renton, WA Cultural Resources Description Literature search and windshield survey of 1-405 corridor Survey of 1-405 corridor and shovel testing Excavated a total of six shovel probes Exhumed remains of young male and older probable female from residential area Monitoring of 20, 4 inch bore holes Cultural Resources None None None Site 45KI686; NRHP eligible, but site completely removed through excavation None Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 3 1 ICF 00593.1D City of Renton Literature Review and Consultation NADB # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources Assessment for through fill the Proposed Lowe's of Renton 1349666 Stipe 2007 Verizon Wireless Records search None SEA Renton Voc- and pedestrian Tech Cellular archaeological 1349929 1349789 1340681 1354969 Miss 2007 Hodges 2007b Cooper 2001 Elder et al. 2010 Tower Cultural survey Resources Review Archaeological Monitoring for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project Archaeological Resource Assessment for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project Antennas on an Existing Transmission Tower12612 Southeast 96th Street Cultural Resources Survey Report - Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard NADB = National Archaeological Database Monitoring of excavated trenches 29 backhoe trenches excavated through fill Survey around footprint of transmission tower and one shovel test Archaeological pedestrian survey; excavation of shovel probes; and historic resources survey None None None NRHP eligible property identified at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard One known archaeological site is located within a 1 -mile radius of the APE. Site 45KI686 is a disturbed historic internment, which contained European -American retrains in a coffin (Rooke 2008). The site is located northwest of the APE. The NRHP eligible property at 2825 NE Sunset Boulevard consists of a former Safeway supermarket building, situated southeast of the APE. It is eligible under NRHP Criterion C for its architectural design. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three 3-2 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood ICF00593.10 Chapter 4 Research Design Objectives and Expectations Review of existing archaeological records of the area within 1 mile of the APE 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., floodplains and lake margins). In contrast, the APE is located on a glacial till plain, which has a low probability for precontact 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 conducted in the vicinity of the 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. Where topsoil has been removed, it was 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 20 meter transects across each of the three parts of 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 each of the three parts of the APE. Shovel test pits (50 centimeters in diameter) were excavated in areas not covered in asphalt, concrete, buildings, or other impenetrable modern 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 (0.2S -inch) mesh hardware cloth. Upon completion of excavation, shovel tests were photographed using a digital camera and backfilled. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 4-1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Research Design Representative photographs are presented in Appendix A. Shovel tests were mapped using a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) unit Historical Resources Survey The historic resources survey involved examining and photographing buildings and structures in the APE determined to be 45 years of age or older. None were identified in the APE. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 4-2 ICF 00593.10 Chapter 5 Results Archaeological Investigations On February 2, 2011, ICF archaeologists Alexander E. Stevenson and Patrick Reed conducted an archaeological investigation of the three parts of the APE, under the supervision of J. Tait Elder, MA. The investigation included pedestrian survey of each of the parcels and the excavation of 12 shovel test pits (Figure 5-1). A summary of these shovel tests is included in Appendix A. Kirkland Ave NE between 15th and 16th A pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Five shovel tests were excavated in this portion of the APE (STP1-STPS). Three of these STPs (1-3) consisted of a weakly developed "A" horizon, in approximately 20 centimeters of coarse sand with rounded gravels. Below this, approximately 30 centimeters of a dark gray to black coarse sand with modern debris, such as bottle glass and brick fragments, were observed. These shovel tests were terminated in coarse olive brown sand with rounded gravels, indicative of glacial outwash. STPs 4 and 5 were similar in sediment characteristics but no modern debris layer was encountered within them, These STPs were terminated in gray brown glacial outwash which exhibited no evidence of soil development. 2902 NE 12th Street A portion of this parcel was covered by asphalt, concrete, and a building, which impeded excavation. Pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Two shovel test pits were excavated in this portion of the APE (STP6 and STP7). Highly compacted, gray glacial till was encountered at a depth of 9 centimeters below ground surface in STP 6. This sediment was not encountered in STP 7, which consisted of approximately 60 centimeters of fill, with a weakly developed "A" horizon. Below this fill level was coarse brown or olive brown sand with rounded gravels that extended to a depth of greater than 150 centimeters below ground surface and represented glacial outwash sediments. Weathering characteristic of a "B" horizon was noted throughout this profile, indicating that sediments probably represented a fill event. Gray brown glacial outwash sediments were noted from 1S0 to 175 centimeters below ground surface in this shovel test pit. No cultural resources were observed within either of these shovel test pits. 1104 Harrington Avenue NE A pedestrian survey revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Five shovel test pits were excavated in this area (STP8-STP12). A weakly developed "A" horizon was present at the top of each STP, followed by a layer of dark gray or black sediment with modern and historic debris. This debris included bottle glass fragments, brick fragments, and miscellaneous Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2051 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 5-1 1CF 00593.10 City of Renton Results metal. Based on the presence of melted glass and charcoal this debris had at some point been burned. Coarse brown sand with rounded gravels, representing glacial outwash sediments, was observed below this debris layer. Weathering characteristic of a'B" horizon was noted in three STPs (10, 11, and 12) to a depth of approximately 65 centimeters below ground surface. Evidence of this soil development was not observed within the other STPs (8 and 9) as a result of historic and modern debris. STP 8 was terminated on highly compacted sediment, The remaining STPs were terminated in gray brown glacial outwash which exhibited no evidence of soil development. Historic Resources Survey The reconnaissance -level historic resources survey revealed the presence of only one developed property within the APE. This property was the Renton Highlands Library located at 2902 NE 12th Street. The building is less than 50 years old, according to the King County Tax Assessor. Summary of Results A pedestrian survey of the APE revealed no surface evidence of archaeological deposits. Shovel test pit excavations revealed the presence of modern/historic fill events in two portions of the APE (Kirkland Avenue NE and 1104 Harrington Avenue NE). A weakly developed "A" horizon was noted in each of the three portions of the APE, and the presence of "B" horizons developed within glacial outwash sediments was also noted in each location. A heavy amount of landscape disturbance was noted as evidenced by soil development and debris deposits in fill contexts. No NRHP-eligible buildings were identified within the APE. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 ProjectSites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 5 2 ICFOD593.10 CAIG� k z v > .�y o. Tt a :.., NE15TH'Sr'='- r W -. 0 'A R r. W NE 15TH PL x.., 4 �yft _ � x - Sourr:e: G•,y of Renta s; US[7,� (209) - :;. Figure mr Shovel Test Locations at Kirkland Avenue NE Siteite Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood Area of Potential Effects Shovel Test Pit t, s N - 7 0 .00 200 w �, Feet Q w Meters - 0 20 40 Z `. ifR _ r 1 e _ a AM"*` r w LU NE 13TH ST Aw 4. 0.0 a, t � _; NE 12TH ST F A LENWOOr# AVE NElow- Aw — � a Savrce: C,ty of Renton; USDA (2009 -- k: r Figure '.r Shove[ Test Locations at 2902 NE 12th Street Site Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of 1Firee Projeet Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 0 20 40 4 �r +.. aw (a ,,I .. a Yom" 44 *WiF ` w Iz ., A k� L ' - -�k "�" Y�� - .ally �,'SAP' 'r .. , •�yr7 ^Y:. C `T Source: City of Renton: USDA ;2HG9) ICF Figure 5-3 Shovel Test Locations at 1150 Harrington Avenue NE Site Cultural Resources Survey Report - Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood Chapter 6 Analysis Archaeological investigations in all three portions of the APE revealed that the modern ground surface has been heavily modified. The parcels on Kirkland Avenue were bulldozed after RHA took ownership of the land (Mcarty pers. comm.). The presence of weakly developed "A" horizons in each site with little to no other soil development indicates the removal or disturbance of previously developed soils at each location, The presence of historic and modern debris in fill context provides further evidence that the APE is a heavily modified and disturbed landscape. 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 has been modified, archaeological excavations revealed weakly developed or absent "A" horizons, and Pleistocene -age sediments are found just below ground surface, the likelihood of discovering intact cultural resources at any of the sites is considered very low, and any discovery would be on or just below the surface. Cultural Resources Survey Report --Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 6.1 ICF00593.10 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions No archaeological sites were identified during the archaeological survey of the APE. Archaeological excavations at each of the sites revealed mixed or imported sediments or soils that would not have the potential to contain archaeological resources. The potential for the discovery of archaeological deposits with in the APE is considered very low. No NRNP -eligible buildings were observed in the APE. Based on the cultural resources investigations, the proposed projects would have no effect on any known NRHP-eligible archaeological resources or historic resources in the APE. Recommendations Because a predevelopment "A" horizon was not identified in the APE, no further archaeological investigations are recommended. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground - disturbing excavations, the contractor will halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. For DAHP contact information, see the Unanticipated Discovery Plan (Appendix B). If human skeletal remains are discovered, the King County Sheriff and DAHP will be notified immediately. if archaeological materials are uncovered during excavation, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify the City, DAHP, and affected Indian tribes, as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan (Appendix B). Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three 1 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1CF 00593.30 Chapter 8 References Ames, K. M. and D. G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast. Their Archaeology and Prehistory. London: Thames & Hudson. Blukis Onat, A. R., M. E. Morgenstein, P. D. LeTourneau, R. P. Stone, J. Kosta, and P. Johnson 2001 Archaeological Investigations at stuwe'yugw—Site 45KI464—Tolt River, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, WA. 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. 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 1 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—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood $-1 ICF00593.10 City of Renton References 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 AMEC 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. SE54XC005A. 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 137-157 in T.W. Swanson (ed.), Western Cordillera and Adjacent Areas. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America. Elder, J. T, Melissa Cascella, and Christopher Hetzel 2010 Cultural Resources Survey Report - Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard. On -file at Washington DAHP, NADB#1354969. 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/journal- 0401.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. 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. Greengo, R. E. and R. Houston 1970 Archaeological Excavations at Marymoor Farm. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Hilbert et al. 2001 Ways of the Lushootseed People Ceremonies & Traditions of North Puget Sound First People, Third Edition. Seattle, WA: Lushootseed Press. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood $ ICF 00593.10 City of Renton References 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. Kidd, R. S. 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. Kopper], 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, Icing 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 National Register of Historic Places. 1997 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Originally published in 1990. Revised in 1991, 1995, and 1997. Available: <http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/builetins/nrbl5>. Cultural Resources Survey Report— Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 8-3 ICF00593.10 City of Renton References 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 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=/lctext&CISOPTR=15 74&REC=147. Accessed: October 12, 2010. Renton History Museum 1975 Renton Highlands, aerial view looking west, Renton, ca. 1975. Avaialble: <http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item-viewer.php?CJSOROOT=/imisrenton&CISO PTR=2407. Accessed: October 13, 2010. Rooke, Laura C. 2008 Site form 45KI786.On-file at the Washington DAHP. 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—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 8-q ICF00593.10 Appendix A Photographs Kirkland Avenue NE and NE 16th Street: Overview Looking South, Site of Demolished Duplexes Cultural Resources Survey Report ---Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A_1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Appendix A STP2 with Typical Deposits for this Area Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three A-2 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood ICF00593.10 City of Renton Appendix A Renton Highlands Library Cultural Resources Survey Report --development of Three A-3 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood ICFQ0593.10 City of Renton Appendix A STP7 with Auger through Compacted Deposits Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three A-4 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood ICF00593.10 City of Renton Appendix A •�� „OI I J LUII i -+venue Nt and Harington Place NE Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A-5 February 2011 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Appendix A A11.9 "W76191, STP12 in Park: Typical Deposits for this Area �.f .r E }�l F A11.9 "W76191, STP12 in Park: Typical Deposits for this Area Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2012 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A_6 ICF 00593.10 �.f E Ar F -t Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2012 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood A_6 ICF 00593.10 Appendix B Shovel Test Data Test # Width Depth [cm] (cm) Soil Description Artifacts [Yes/No] Comments 1 40 0-25 Dark brown to dark gray coarse, poorly sorted Yes Burned glass, glass sand with some rounded to subrounded bottle fragments, brick gravels; burned wood, charcoal, etc. fragments, marble; modern fill 25-44 Grayish brawn poorly sorted coarse sand with No Glacial outwash rounded to subrounded gravels 44-80 Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No Glacial outwash rounded to subrounded gravels 2 43 0-19 Brown-gray coarse poorly sorted sand with Yes Toothbrush, little to no rounded gravels, fragments of wood, rootlets "A" horizon 19-47 Grayish brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No Glacial outwash rounded to subrounded gravels; rootlets 47-78 Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No Glacial outwash; rounded to subrounded gravels terminated in primary ....... .. .. - deposit 3 45 0-15 Dark brown sand with slight silt content No "A" horizon 15-50 Gray brown poorly sorted sand, coarse, with Yes May be a slight B some rounded to subrounded pebbles glass from Pepsi bottle 50-55 Black coarse sand burned abrupt upper No boundary 55-57 Light gray sand highly compacted some No Glacial outwash; subrounded gravels, abrupt upper boundary primary deposit 4 0-11 Dark brown, brown coarse sand with little silt. No "A" horizon some rounded to subrounded gravels, grass/moss rootlets 11-28 Grayish brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No Charcoal flecks rounded to subrounded gravels 28-90 Orange brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No Glacial outwash rounded to subrounded gravels 90-98 _.... Dense gray/olive mottled sand-coarse No Glacial outwash 5 0-11 Dark brown poorly sorted sand and silt No Weak "A" horizon 11-38 Gray-gray brown coarse sand with few No Glacial outwash rounded to subrounded gravels 38-40 — Dense gray/olive mottled coarse sand No Glacial outwash 6 - - 0-9 - Bark-landscaping duff No Fill 9-13 Very compact coarse sand/clay till No Glacial till . 7 0-50 Olive brown poorly sorted coarse sand with No Glacial outwash; rounded to subrounded gravels; large root Fill/distrubed Auger 50- Same as above; jumbled fill Yes Aluminum foil at 55 cm 150 150- Light gray brown poorly sorted coarse sand, Yes Glacial outwash; 160 slight silt content, some rounded to primary deposit subrounded gravels Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood B-1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Appendix B Test Width Depth Artifacts # (cm) (cm) Soil Description (Yes/No) Comments 8 40 0-10 Dark brown, moderate grain sand with No Weak "A" horizon rounded pebbles to gravel 10-25 Dense/very compact orange-ish brown sand No "B" horizon with gravels; rounded to subround 25-37 Very dark brown to very dark gray, extremely No Fill; terminated due to compacted coarse sand compactness 9 0-18 Dark brown medium -coarse sand with high Yes Weak "A" horizon; organic content bricks, glass; Fill 18-34 Dark olive brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted No Fill rounded to subrounded gravels; diffuse; abrupt lower boundary 34-53 Dark brown- black coarse sand with burned Yes Numerous glass material fragments, brick; fill 53-92 Olive brown coarse sand with few subrounded No gravels 92- Olive brown coarse sand with few subrounded No Glacial outwash; 130 gravels terminated on cobble 10 0-19 Dark brown med-coarse sand with dense No "A" horizon rootlets 19-68 Dark olive brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted; Yes Glass fragments to 30 rounded to subrounded gravels cm 68-89 Gray brown, coarse sand, poorly sorted; No rounded to subrounded gravels 90 Gray/olive mottled coarse sand No Glacial outwash; dense/compact primary deposit 11 0-20 Dark brown coarse sand with organics Yes Glass fragments; Weak "A" horizon 20-23 Olive brown coarse poorly sorted sand fill Yes Glass fragments; "B" horizon 23--41 Dark gray brown coarse sand, poorly sorted fill Yes Glass fragments 41-60 Olive brown coarse sand with some rounded to No "B" horizon subrounded gravels 60-75 Light olive gray coarse sand No Glacial outwash; primary deposit 12 0-18 Dark brown coarse sand with rootlets No "A" horizon 18-49 Olive brown coarse sand, roots dense rounded No "B" horizon gravels to cobbles 49-67 Olive gray to brown coarse sand, moderate to No compact with rounded to subrounded gravels to cobbles 67-77 Very compact gray to olive gray coarse sand No Terminated due to and larger gravels gravels and compactness Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three B 2 February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Terrace Neighborhood ICF 00593.10 Appendix C Unanticipated Discovery Plan Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during the Redevelopment of Properties at Kirkland Avenue NE Between 15th and 16th Streets, 2902 NE 12th Street, and 1150 Harrington Avenue NE 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, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains are forensic or non -forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non -forensic, the King County Coroner will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. DAHP will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American or Non -Native American. DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains. E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood 1 ICF D0593.10 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 Sheriffs Office Headquarters 516 Third Avenue, Room W-150 Seattle, WA 98104-2312 Phone: (206) 296-4155 (non -emergency) Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Appendix C Cultural Resources Survey Report—Development of Three February 2011 Project Sites in the Renton Sunset Neighborhood C 2 1CF 00593.10 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: CH2MHill Project Manager Contact: Roger Mason 425-453-5000 November 2010 ICF International and CH2MHill. 2010. Summary of the Scoping Process: Sunset Area Community Environmental Impact Statement. November. (lCF 00593.10.) Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton and Renton Housing Authority, Renton, WA. Contents Scoping Summary ............................................................................................... ....... 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 HIED 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. I 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 oft he Scoping Process 1 November 2020 U 00593.10 Clty 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 a way 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 Z November 2010 ICF 40593.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community E15 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. RHA also plans development of other RHA -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 8 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 12th Street and Harrington Avenue NE as particularly had, 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 ICF 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 be 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 Barrington 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, Ig.hahnCDkingcounty.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 of the Scoping Process 5 November 2010 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community EIS Table 1. 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 -DDT -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 he (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 2% 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 EES 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 1CF 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 Planned Action Study conduct Phase I and Phase 11 environmental site Area. In addition, a Phase 1 site assessment was assessments. completed on one vacant property that is part of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Based on criteria provided in the HUD Guidance, 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 a 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 ll 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 of the Scoping Process 7 November 2010 ICF 00543.10 City of Renton Sunset Area Community EIS 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 EES. 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 lNOAA 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 be 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 $ November 2010 ICF 00593.10 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 EIS 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 RDD. Summary of the Scoping Process 4 November 2010 ICF 00593.10 Attachment A Scoping Notices and Scoping Document Summary of the Scoping Process November 2010 ICF 00593.10 CilF td Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scope File Number i_U10-052 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 1010 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 2010 additional new affordable housing units and potentially 304 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 neer public library; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and/or green infrastructure. Adjacent Area. Asa 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 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. 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 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 21'` Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. Lead agency for SEPA and NEPA Compliance 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 Act and implementing regulations (RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c), WAC 147-11) 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 afterthe scoping meeting and conclusion of the comment period. It may address alternative land use mixes, infrastructure options, or other features. 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 98055. Written and oral comments will be taken at this meeting. Responsible Official City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Gregg Zit0rermph, Administrator Date � Public Works Department 0/c� Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Community Services Department Publication Date: August 13, 2010 Contact Person Mark Peterson, Administrator Date Fire,&ncy Services Alex Pietsch, A inistrator Da He Department of tommunity & Economic Development Date of Decision: August 9, 2010 For more information, see the project website at: sunsetarea.rentonwa.gov, or please contact: Erika Conkling, AICP Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S_ Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-6578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econkling@rentonwa_goy 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: LU10-052 3 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010/Notices 57051 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA -1932 - DR; Docket ID FEMA -20t0-00021 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -5443 -N -01l 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 20472, (202) 646-3886. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William). Doran III, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster, This action terminates the appointment of Michael R. Scott as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster_ The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brawn Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Hnusebolds; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants --Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97,039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Ma nagemen t Agency. JFR Doc. 201D--23332 Filed 9--tG 10; 8:45 an] 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 the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under section 9 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 14378), 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 Washington State 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 CFR parts 1500-1508. All interested Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, groups, and the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. If you are an agency with jurisdiction by law over natural or other public resources affected by the project, the 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 October 18, 2010. Any person or agency interested in receiving a notice and wishing to make comment on the Draft EIS should contact the persons listed below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The primary contact is Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6578 (voice) 425-430-7300 (fax), or e-mail: econkling@i,entonwo.gov. An alternative contact is Mark Santos -Johnson, Senior Economic Development Specialist, City of Renton Department of Community & Economic I7evelopMent, 425-430-6584 (voice), msantosjohnson@rentonwa.00v, available at the sante address arid 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 Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE. for housing and associated services. Sunset Terrace was developed in approximately 1960 though the rest of the neighborhood largely developed between the 1940s and 1970s. Conceptual pians propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed-use residential and commercial space and public amenities. R is expected that with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by Renton Housing Authority, that up to 200 additional new affordable housing units and potentially 300 new moderate income to market rate housing units could be created. There would be a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public. housing units. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and may include the following: a community gathering space or "Third Place"; a new recreation/ community center; a new library; a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and/or green infrastructure. As a result of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the neighborhood will be catalyzed. Supporting both Sunset Terrace and neighborhood redevelopment will be civic investments including: planned or anticipated upgrades to Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) and other local streets, stormwater drainage systems, parks and recreation facilities, 57052 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 180/Friday, September 17, 2010/Notices education facilities, and a new public library. The Sunset Area contains many_ public amenities and publicly -owned parcels creating significant opportunities for partnership and integration of civil infrastructure improvements. The Ci ly of Renton has already undertaken significant effort to prioritize strategies for public investment in the Sunset Area through the work of the recently approved Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. Sunset Terrace's redevelopment provides the opportunity to evaluate the neighborhood as a whole and determine what future land use redevelopment is possible and what public service and infrastructure improvements should be made in order to make this a more vibrant and attractive community for residents, businesses and property owners. The EIS will address the primary proposal of the Sunset Terrace area redevelopment as well as evaluate secondary proposals such as neighborklaod 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. it may address alternative land use mixes, infrastructure options, or other features. Probable Environmental Effects The lead agency has preliminarily identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: aesthetics; air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions; earth; energy; environmental health; environmental justice; historic/ cultural resources; housing; land use; noise; parks and recreation; plants and animals; public services, including public education, safety, health, and social services; socioeconomics, including demographic, employment, and displacement; transportation; utilities, including wastewater, stormwater, water supply, telecommunication, natural gas, power, electrical; and water resources, including groundwater and surface water. Lead Agency This HIS will be a joint National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document intended to satisfy requirements of federal and state environmental statutes. In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise to apply HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. Questions may be directed to the individuals named in this notice under the heading "For Further Information Contact." Dated: August 23, 2010. Mercedes Marquez, Assistant SecretaryforCornmunityPlanning and Development. IFR Doc. 2010-23181 Filed 9—m—io; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67—P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -0375–N-06] 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.: September 17, 2010, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech -impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88 -2503 -OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week. Dated: September 9. 2010. Mark R, Johnston, Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Special ,'veeds. JFR Doc. 2010-22918 Filed 9-16r1o; 8:45 aml BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR -5442-N-01] Notice of Single Family Loan Sale (SFLS 2410) AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary 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 notice also generally describes the bidding process for the sale and certain persons who are ineligible to bid. DATES: The Bidder's Information Package (BIP) was made available to qualified bidders on August 31, 2010. Bids for the loans must be submitted on the bid date, which is currently scheduled for September 22, 2010. HUD anticipates that award(s) will be made on or about September 22, 2010 (Award Date). ADDRESSES: To become a qualified bidder and receive the BIP, prospective bidders must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. Both documents will be available on the HUD Web site at http:ll wv`-w.hud.gov/offices/hsg/comp/`2.q.qet/ sfam/sfls.cfm. Please mail and fax executed documents to HUD's Asset Sales Office: Asset Sales Office, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 3136, Washington, DC 20410, Attention: Single Family Sale Coordinator, Fax: 202-708-2771. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lucey, Deputy Director, Asset Sales Office, Room 3136, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2625, extension 3927. Hearing- or speech - impaired individuals may call 202-708- 4594 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers. 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 10th 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 21" 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 I Figure 1 Sunset Ares Planned Action/E!S Study Ares:, CF �ity or Renton SLmetEl5 SUNSET PLANNED ACTION/ EIS FILE NUMBER: LU10-052 What is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)? An FIS 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 Conceptuol 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 econ kl ing@ rentonwa.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: LUI0-052 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 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 forthe 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; LU10-052 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 SR 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: LUIO-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 oft he Scoping Process November 2010 ICF 00593.10 r rf 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)430-5578 voice (425)430-7300 fax econklingg rentonwa.gov 0 0 z m CO C J 0 0 -0 < co E o 4-0E �� cn C:cnou, 3(1) E C) cm: E c: -E.0 c) au 0 0 4-0 (�.> � CL) °� w E� .— c.0) Q u-) ca CL o > o U) a) z� co Q W z U) O LLJ Cl) O QL 4) v W _ o Jc O � a--' }' OO OU) W Ca 4-0 � D � V3 IZ— �C �..... W OM . - 4) Q �-0 �0 ..��0 U� �•� OLS. 0-"-4 0 Cam N 0 � �� �cn a) a �0 m C:cn=0 F 0� cn n o' m(N �cUaO )cn Or �_0 Cu (D CL Dw DO 000 4-� CL U) � -- � � U �U0cm E (f) �A-, Q- 0 po�/) O W-0 3 U } coV3 U) Q ■ E i f � t c 2 u 3 M _ t �E�s v E c 0 - LU > (1) 0 -6-1 M c C: -*-a U) � (D Q a o �w U)o -0 �: Q o a` •� 0 o u) a- -� CI) I I U) v .o (D U) U) E o C: :3 C: o U) �C:m a) U) o� wc, C �O 0 ` > cn 0(Q m oS. <0 E 0-M c— W C: p D C/)co �Cu ��0) 44-C: � 0 E -0 C: _ t �E�s -&--a E a) > o:tf o �C E ]' � a>) 4 V Q � 0 '> a) •— .�0 -- > �>; �U • '''' L -0 � o Co L- a a) cz C :3+,. Q- C— - • 0�' ��—�0� CSU) • .�--� �- co r D 0 m 0 a) () a) w }' ca (nU I U C: a) v p co a) cn ) a) E acv cmC/)o -0 E 0- (DU)� a) Ca .2 E m a) a) C:� U) » 0 o 70 0-U)❑<._Q- CL _c:Z Q I 1 I cc f S v ' cr- %CO LU 2i �..: - � ■■ ':+:. g 5.,, ik.N L�' �r n�•�i4{ t f •• Lam] � s. t �,� -� ` i ti.,.. a� .•.�w: ,yam �� ?a s in �r r j£ • M �a• )¢�,-q �'FrrW &4 �i a ...'� .w � "� yyf r • i^ .yq .'dr P".'MwtiLY".�� n'at � ♦ � � � + e �� 'f h !.•+. �1,'."a`'_^1- � �, �. y�+r +fp er p. A; .e � `'."'.a a � Ar `_" • tye�" r +. .. •�'� r ".....h+.' ,� s.�.* � _ � as .`a`/°iM " '! �� '_"� i� � ! • S.a05 ll4 �Si? I`�P.e P€y�E_ '� `' )� ... .. -. _ �..t .- ... .- a) '.d 4.1 �o CIO CL ^L^,, co 2 to c a) a) c E 0 > 0 0 > L- 4- 0 - 4- 0 J � L 0oa� ate• J Q m L- a) 0 0 J 2 _ c 0 0 Q (D c� 0 c� 0 L Q cU (1) C.) M N �0 � 70 • iE ■ 5 Ei, 4-0 a� E 0 � 0 � o U � v � �o .-- > C:• � 0 0 0 m _0� ' -, L > 4-a N M (+a Z3 0 au > > >0 m �ZZ� a)a)a)0�� <Q< U) CO E co > CIO CL ^L^,, co 2 to c a) a) c E 0 > 0 0 > L- 4- 0 - 4- 0 J � L 0oa� ate• J Q m L- a) 0 0 J 2 _ c 0 0 Q (D c� 0 c� 0 L Q cU (1) C.) M N �0 � 70 • iE ■ 5 Ei, � © D � t] G� U U �� O � O �l O O .r. � 3 1'V '.V rl N �' y Z € ' �3 U) U) U) -.. p pE a C:x cn o :3o cn cn 0 (Da)-0-�a�cu) c� ��'o�oo E70 m � o CD 0 C) � o 1 °3 c 0 o E o ca C: o rn •E o _0 > as C:F��a�' LD E o E�. (10 � -• C6 u) a) cn o -0 (n4 � � -+-p 0 .a.0 c� � ° (1) C: _ > C: U) a -j E 4-5 (D 70 C .L (D C •CCS c •- � m : 0 CCS � o C a_ (D E > C) -:D z o 0� �c L z 0 E' yr O -D E 4- . C 0C: CY D NEZ C/) 0 - {� � v >}, C6 v 4-a � Q (1} -se - CU 4--+ _Q � O � � .cn LQ} L O O >v Q4Z3 L c CLC/) O? cu E -o ❑ }, -L- M M C: U) O cncv Eos C:o o 4-. cam c vo o �.a _0 a o v_Q 'C E 79 CO o j .. �� (D E O M(D0 ' = L CD (� v � U) a) �a Z3a)0 (D U) r 0 - {� v >}, � v � � - CU 4--+ _Q � O � � .cn LQ} �Q iC) L O? O ❑ O C: V J U C:o o 4-. }, c U _0 Cn D 'C o j .? 4 0 0 a I I �20 LU CL 0 -0 CD 0 LL w CL V ---- - - - ------- 0 E . . . . . . ................ ... .. . 4) 0 WE J: E Z ia- ..... ..... o E < Im, 'Ell .-0 -a 0, .a E 00 CL W Q 2L N c () 0 < T z c r 0 4- F As 0 -0 CD 0 w CL V t a- 0 E 4) 0 WE J: E Z ia- E o E < Im, 'Ell .-0 -a 0, .a E 00 CL W Q 2L N c () 0 < T z c r 0 4- F As cn r R5 w w - 0 m = 0 — 0 C, fl C> u y Ci Z C -0 CiL 0 E C<L z5 CL cc a. d iA tr 1= N t1 V1 LL • CD • T3 CN �- 0 .O p M T- O O U .� .� N • 4-, C: 0 0 E ❑. ,L E _0 ' 10 a) 0 a • 0 W -0 W ,U a- C: d CL • ILL I I EO E 0 v v U) v U? o cn ca > v � ° ca o � � U C 7. 0 a --r {a �.} cu i.� m . E !E _9 E .cnC:C:`CU (D 0 0- a) a) _0 En 0 0 0 as cr .� 0 0-0 cu � a� U) O U) O 0 m a� 07 O U a QL m U 70 V) E a) 0 0 'co 0 L- 0 •° 0-00 a) cco M vQ — N uj O m _0 •Q U a) -�-, m � c6 L •0 O • 0 a).0 0 c6 U) E O L (D a) U Q U O -0 0 0 0 0 0 C3)M � U a) O)o o E _0M�am°�a oma) 0O ca .� � '�- O U� c� � o O U) to O U O � s.. L — ,� L O U t6 Q< O J O J CCS -a � J 70-C Q u} � < • • • {if n v C v W NO 4-0a E m v a t 0- W U) � v Q T) .CU -0 n E W d ■ .C) co O U cu v L v a ca a 0 a_ cu 16 cn W ■ fn O O U) a) v O O v � cr v L � cn cn a v DO ' 0- C3 U U � co •cn O Q.. n W W U) ■ .m T v c ► E O U }' C Q � v C a) .v a) 'U co v Co E c� m v .5 ❑ a 0-0 - cn 0 v v � O. U a Q !y •....Raft.cc i 4ir lsi.y:• .,,oxo '++F /^1 3iI3J- x i »_'a•r - 111 Lij 1 �� � � � s` "k • _.c iw i n° 4 •..w .r.t. Sr qp� � �I � f• cr- rr*i.- r'^� b 0 j X,4 E-',►� "....may .�.,�„�.........>,� y ;^ =� d y ��'� i o-ti.c. wx.. � �tlY 1p . � ��, �i'�ry�" �...�p,�; ��ww•u�k �w4k°+ ry •�f�!`�9" � Q r .• x 4 � .�.. 1 •-,. E �- I a �' �° _ ` moo: 4�' } � �, t '* >� '< •1 _ r w .a G� ioMf ,err / y � ' p �, F x x x a s a s � ■ � _ ,• s rsrr [ ° • / k .'_ „ � d-y r �r"`k��a�;li�p � { � C «.13.r_ ,�w ti m•ar �. r» �,� _, ; 4q�nwl�s d� � ��. � �•. y«• �F � rN.Efr.• 5 �� I[�y. •`� ��Y i � � �LS�r} « � ¢ � r t t / rE s �'..4 ,'ffi �Y, � .a ,E � 1 3. �� � ._dr1 � �y'�". �^° • \„ .�e+ i e � \./ i' i �'i I ��' R'" -� r � x1. `l� x�. � zwRr.r s -t" ��it Fes: �, �.Q i � _► � F ++.w Va�.a ,! '•f MY� •"'+P! .kw,�,,,�i: E Yr�I � .� s t' ! v"Sa '.Tv\,. �„� tii ,R �,P ¢ �t� .4 l „r.lf. )'^'xr"l•^,i a 3 � .. i fs+re • �+w i1'^! � �+RMx1� £� F•. . ® ' = ..1 RRre�°r+_ � RwFt a � e olvk Ln .e+r�i t,.... � .:...,. !-.s+ •, �a-a.�e,.R f°•-.+rs. � � �_:��i ms's .'. : i• L �� ' � •t „« �'�: fF.r+'�,,,r . +ns.a = p�' 4-r `- - f.-"`i . *..ream. '•aa...... �y r+'°y ilE 6 rr.�.^` ° v_�f : t' i .a s,,, �>o�•,tw wfv r ■, ,. ■ , .r> > ? r.-...�...: r». �.. d•�..,-.-d. r • s t a l 8``� • ,.E �y ~F.. +«.+ ' .��; s.; s.rx"ne.•w .. ar. ..a..y. p•.w�►t..iSa. �"s• A : __, `';,�%� a £� � o f �.. M � L._ s +r �s w.' i�., ^;tl•� � �rw � q ! iiM.,_ .+...5k �„ �a� h s. �qP++� F,s ...,. ... ..e. �... .ems �. serR' :-i...s ..9 �» `•r?�: i,'4"4' �}..��5.:•_ '�4w..r�wwE-. �*` ri• � �`j '�: �I ��� � :,..y r".r a..,^ti,. ...:a"! ta--"�*'�'".-'��� � 5,... �� rw '":'°•'r. ;.p3 .e+ - "a .r.. e. RR.ni s-� r4eT -. .,, r,, *•^�••.y: aRe•�...r..xea..',•^ ��.«'�' i� -w' s' �lii'�:�i° �° � ;_a'JS '1 xj b �s*%. 3tJ 3rtH 30JNOW k 7' t'gll�F J3 xs 3h VCd NCWf got ".% — �wP % aN�3r�cooA x � D 3N JAt Q451771a171 ._ --.q rwu��a�snrai w�a,.+ _g rdf AN 3hv3(30P 3N 311H XON 3N 3!V Go DA S' 3hV 000h'dJ3i9� x 'M^!F+„sE �So aMe+aF $Txh"w - ��€ t;�„ g .r � �-�,.�'�°-:•�d� 3N:rr, Nawg3 t y Nana sVWti� 141. e YYPP F+E �x A a q - - 3 N-31FVN 33 GN JOYS IR' a'.,.'y �i�as"�It4rti..�..�_�5� i 0 In i -4 y t� O (3) Q 71 4-J U t7�? L CJS] O O o o a (L) Ln -� Ln -� o o o 4-J w w w x x a a cn E- o 0 4N L aJ 0 0 a� u VI �� a4-1cz 0 U Q Z > _co • 1 Rev, 0 m r ' of 0 m U CL- > :Q 3 a.i In -0 > U _ U) -� () ►O (1) (3 0- - N — to ID �m M a) 0 0 c -0 0 CV CIO. � 0 Mme ' Z3 > > >— c E � cn 0 co CL co N 0 cQ C� m 3 C� (DO o m• `< ♦ .� E `0� ♦ • co 0 m r ' of 0 m co 0. o C/) E(D. � 0-10 70 0 o M .— m O O En O cu O N O N Cam +L`' E Ej U O o o Q) O Z3�, o • ���� rll (n N N x (D �-vO C: C 0- o in E ■ O c c/) � C O �O m �O M-- Co (1)-0-0� (D+� L. O m E o O -D =� O♦., O. M M 0-00 U) m> U• U) N C7 (D O M >0 c a U) U) U CL CU o �E � a o a :0 o cu .0-0 o v �u a� c�m (n� moo M� a).�w�ww.jz❑ . CJ) U)> W co 0. v U ,O -cn - .� U v ,c: CE v C •O o N (U Z5 � ° c� cu o s.r U) •� v o v o -O .� E v � 'U a) v f— v ov v c� O0.1 x c C) v O X m C: .v 0 � > � o c` a t S O cu �' O a a vC:3 x , -0 N o 0v C:U � N m •L _ c L m U o .v c ° E a� � v O m v w — O U -a �•' v c� 'U c� Q) v v 0 w Q o � v v U) C E to rZ C:rZ Oco co � o �j � .� 0 -a� v =cu W v O N m Q) -a v F-0 v U) v O •` v D of v _0m � cB 3 vi (moi) o J O' X O-0 v v p v 0 C: v L c� v co > U >, a C ,p •U U cv � [� Q O U o _ _ ❑ ,O U 7+ •O 'U (� -� a c v ,o Q �° m � v U) v C: U) (}� p .v >1 C O a) m �> -O 0- c x U)a) :3 O U Q? L U w N L '> N •� O. D O � Q) U E - a O cu 0 m o'6) - j0 � a) - L (� C � _0 N (6 U 0 4) 'o W '0 p M c� O Q) -. V O � � � a .a) . � M z3 mEc-Z0 �� (13�,-D 0 V `Cj (D O ca t� — _ o o > aD ca a) a) a) v �c, c � L L -o a) 70 L m CU O o .o C) :3 LU -0 C ��U�'•Wo o OU� � � cu o to pS?�.cc 'o-oo M cn�vQ�� cn �EL m _OL) � j'� u)-5 c/)(!) W.c m CU U C: C: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ....... _ N OL .c .0 m t!} N • .p CL O (6 14 L— .p QU N U U) Q En O U co 0- E E CD O V- C) NO •c N O Q �C) Q) O � N � O O U) � 0 U a 4-0 (� j5O � U c O � _ U O U � n U) O�CU•O ja cn a cz N C1 O O Cn M O+ can m W d- U) OE 0 m CZ Lo =3•—�oa� Q U cn o E ❑Q\.,,\, O U co 0- E E r O NO .7 O Q � O O � N � O U � � � O � _ U O � LL cn a cz (D Eca) can OE 0< Scoping Meeting Sunset Area Planned Action US September 1, 2010 Neighborhood Land Use Alternative Development Matrix ALTERNATIVE 1. No Action Public Facilities, Services & Development Pattern Supports Land Use form and Location Housing Employment Infrastructure Interconnection/ Walkability S[an�lone commerrial: clustered Single Family Redevelopment Small Retail Redevelopment 1 Library- sinift purpose site No improvement corn texts N.—i{y residential min— scale, stacked Primarily residential: urban scale, stacked.- -.-` . .. "Befall Pedestrian -oriented devem t: lopenminimize wnhouses Flat and/or towith structured Multiplex plez Redevelopment Lot Consoiidatron Library -integrated Imo mined use setbacks, promote public realm, structured parking._ arkin . development parking _ hlorlZontal Milled use _ Vacant Inri€{ Development 5hnpping (inter Redpi New Centers Community Center, Senior Transd-nrienied developments density T crud tired development: di- - development Center supports, transit integrated spp.tis. trawat wdegrated Vertical W Red tlse Centers: Community Center, Senior New parkland to support increased Horitontal Mixed use Vertical Mixed Use Homeownership Opportunities Local serving retail & services i residential capacity. Vertical Mixed Use parks & Reaeatim, Integrated with Mael er Local serving retail & services Urban Intensity Focused Around Key -- - - R�ional stfvnt%rretaH &'services - - - & Nodes, e.. Sunset Terrace, Institutions ental Opportunities Rel serving retail -.res Planned Development Urban Intensity Focused Around Key Urban Intensity Focused Aiong Corridor. - - - Reg�onaE serving rel ail&services Pasks & Recreaborr. Integrated with Mastts�r Parks & Recreation. Optimize Gty/School - Suncat Boulevard Market Rate Facilities _ _ _ Urban Intensity Focused Along Corridor: AHordi Parks & Recreation: Integration with Parks & Recreation: Optimize Coo ty/Schl Parks & Recreation: Integration with Sunset Boulevard Re ional Drain. , Facilities Facilities rug Drkg. Facilities Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact iutired runout land Use Pattern Supports lour lrripact Mined Income Development, Green Streets Affordable Sunset Terrace Redevelopment ;Gwen Streets' Education - 5pecmm of Ages 'SunsetTrierrace RedeveiaprrrerN Family Village Red evelopmert Ed,"'Id, ;Spxixdtrunr: of Ades - integrated Social Services Mixed Income ALTERNATIVE 2. Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Public Facilities, Services 8 Development Pattern Supports Land Use Form and Location Housing Employment Infrastructure Interconnection/ WalkabiFity Stand-alone commerdal: clustered completes Primarily residential: urban scale, stacked.- -.-` . .. "Befall ppm xe5 Single Gamily RedeveloFment Smak Retal Redevelppmenl Library -single purpose sRe Nnimprnvement Primariky residerrcial: urban sraie, stacked setba9rs,pro+nwte public realm, szrucbured arkin . Pedestriamprientcd deveiopnrem, minimize flat and/or tcwnerouses with structured Multiplex RedevelopmentUbrary-integrated Retail lot Consolidation Imo mined use bacpubic setks,proni realm, structured parking. T crud tired development: di- - development parking spp.tis. trawat wdegrated Vertical W Red tlse Centers: Community Center, Senior 7ransitrnented deveioRmeni: density Horitontal Mixed use Vacant Inrils peveiapment I Shopping Centel Redevelopment Center supports, transit int rated Vertical Mixed Use Homeownership Oppomsnities Local serving retail & services New parkland to support increased -- - - R�ional stfvnt%rretaH &'services Parks & Recreation: Integrated with lAaster Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, Institutions - Urban Intensity Focused Around Key Rental ppportvnities - - - Reg�onaE serving rel ail&services Pasks & Recreaborr. Integrated with Mastts�r Nudes, e. Sunset Terrace, InsGtuti«rs Sansei 6autevnrd . . .. Planned Develppmerd Fanlihes Urban Intensity Focused Along Corridor: . Affordable" Parks & Recreation: Optimize Coo ty/Schl Parks & Recreation: Integration with Sunset Boulevard Market Rate Facilities rug Drkg. Facilities iutired runout land Use Pattern Supports lour lrripact Pairs & Fecreat— Integration with Affordable R - nal Dra'vsa a sacidtes ;Gwen Streets' 'SunsetTrierrace RedeveiaprrrerN Land Use Pattern Supports Low Impact Ed,"'Id, ;Spxixdtrunr: of Ades - Mixed Income FamRyvillage Retievetopmeni - Development, Green Streets intggrated 5ocral Soviets Sunset Terrace Redevelopment _ Education - Spectrum of Ages Family Vihage Redevelupmenl Integrated Social Services Ai_TERNATIVE3, High Intensity Improvements: 1pu6i'tc Faidiities, Services & ;' Development Pattern Supports taut Use Form and Loci thm Housing limployment infrastructure intermnnectiw Walkabikty ; Stand-alone mmmeraak clustered Single Family Redevelopment Small Retail Redevelopment Uhrary -single purpose site No improvement completes Primarily residential: urban scale, stacked.- -.-` . .. "Befall "' Library Integrated fuss, fixed use Aetlesirfan-nrerued cleveJiypmertt: trrinim' ilataM/or townhouses with structuredMuhipkt nMevekpmett k.dt Cunsdlidatian - developmezti setba9rs,pro+nwte public realm, szrucbured arkin . Honzoatai Nixed use Vacant Will Development .. steicenter Aetlevelopment New Cenhers: [wnmunity Cerr[er, Senior T crud tired development: di- - spp.tis. trawat wdegrated Vertical W Red tlse npmedwnershpi opportunities teem serving retaa & services I'le� ' parkland! to support increased - - - residentialArt Urban intensity Focused Around Key- Bernal Oppoltunitlers -- - - R�ional stfvnt%rretaH &'services Parks & Recreation: Integrated with lAaster Nodes, e.g. Sunset Terrace, Institutions Pknntred Oevelapmert Urban Interim" Focused Aiong Corridor: -Marke[9tate.' - Parks & Recreatiorc {ipiimine. [ityjSchool __.. .. Sansei 6autevnrd . . .. Fanlihes . Affordable" Parks & Recreation: Integration with _ rug Drkg. Facilities iutired runout land Use Pattern Supports lour lrripact ;Gwen Streets' 'SunsetTrierrace RedeveiaprrrerN Ed,"'Id, ;Spxixdtrunr: of Ades - FamRyvillage Retievetopmeni - intggrated 5ocral Soviets Scoping Meeting Sunset Area Planned Action EIS September 1, 2010 Sunset Terrace Alternative Development Matrix ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action .. ...... ..[a: ._.., . _, . ;_,... Street Network, Street Network, Housing Development Housing Development Urban Form Sunset Terrace Amenities Pedestrian Realm Non -Residential Development Infill on vacant RHA properties No improvemenl No improvement No improvement None - .: i fors detsvity along Sunset -Bind .. .. .Herr oyer, space, e.g. active, garden, other Improved inond crossing at Sunset Improved im ersectino and crossing at 5,inset t'7 Public Hn g repiaremet (100 .,.its) l l Puhhc H.—In Iacamenl loo units) g iep ( To dem I Ion Sunset Rlvd y a g New en s arrive, den c0 -r p pare' a -g. 8a' i3hvd and Harrington Nei hhorhnod Belad g New affordable and market rate ..its 1250 Focus density at Sunset Blvd/ HarringtonNew Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington I stand alone Highlands Lib -.,y at Suruet 350) intersection and north on Harrington New rainwater park Green wnnedion/ bioswale along Harrington Terrace New affordable and market rate units 145l Lase townh-roes to transition to residential Third Place Pla" with 'w c or command New hiasole path an Sunset Blvd east of New Mn d -Use Highlands Library at 5unset SSnj neighl building Ha,ringmn Terrane Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and apartments Third Place incorporated into new retail Close portion of Harrington as green office Build Sun -IT sire to 2onetg e.apxiiy Flexihle Community Services Center street/open space Build Sunset Terrace site to inning capacity Fle><ihle Comm.mly Services Carter Transpo Hub: Improved hus stops, carsi . _ Community Center and hike story e Community Center - ALTERNATIVE 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements .. ...... ..[a: ._.., . _, . ;_,... Street Network, .. Housing Development Urban Form Sunset Terrace Amenities Pedestrian Realm. Non -Residential Development Infill on vacant RHA properties No improvement No improvement No improvement None 1:1 Public Housirt replar,9yrem lion usual - .: i fors detsvity along Sunset -Bind .. .. .Herr oyer, space, e.g. active, garden, other Improved inond crossing at Sunset .::. .. .. - - Neighborhood Retail t'7 Public Hn g repiaremet (100 .,.its) Focus deiy Inn 5unset Blv rw open spa, e.g. ade, garden, other Blvd and Narrin o n Neighborhood Retail New affordable and market rate units (250- Focus density at 5unset Blvd/ Harrington New rainwater park Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington New stand alone Highlands Librarys 5unset 350) Imersection and nosh on Harrin New rainwater park Green connection/ ialong Harrington New hillside path on Sunset Blvd east of Terrace New Mixed I1 se H.ghlands Library at Sunset New aff.rd.h4 and market rate units (450. the townhomes to transition to residential Third Place Plaza with civic or community 550) hhorhood b.rWi.g Ham ton T- Neighborhood residential infill Disperse townhomes and apartments Third Place incorporated Into new retail Close portion of Harrington .1greery OHKe . _ .. : - street/Open space Build Sun -IT sire to 2onetg e.apxiiy Flexihle Community Services Center Transpo Hub: improved bus stops, carsharing, Build Sunset Terrace site to zoning capacity nerible Community Servi[esfenter and bike story e . _ Community Center ALTERNATIVE 3: High Intensity Improvements `. .. ...... ..[a: ._.., . _, . ;_,... Street Network, ..... .. tEouslrlg Development urban Foran Sunset Terrace'Amenities Pedestrian Realm Non -Residential Develfspment, InfiBohvacarrtRHAproperties No improvement No improvement No improvement None 1:1 Public Housirt replar,9yrem lion usual - .: i fors detsvity along Sunset -Bind .. .. .Herr oyer, space, e.g. active, garden, other Impraaed intersection." crossing at 5unset .::. .. .. - - Neighborhood Retail r Blvd and Harr' - - n - New affordable and market rate units (250- Focus density at Sunset l Harrington New rainwater park Green connection/ bioswale along Harrington New stand alone Highlands Library at 5unset 350 intersection and north on Harrington Use 1—homes to Harunion m residential Third Place Plata with uric or community New hillside path on Sunset Blvd eart of _ Terrain Nee w Miged-Use Higid—ds library at Sunset; NeW aftoidaWe-and market iru,i[s I454 55A reighborl—id holding Harrio n Terrace Neighborhood leaden i� infdl- riksperse torvnhonles and apaitrisents ltrird Place irxoryorated into stew retaB ❑ose poniun of Harrington as green i, Office . _ .. : - streetlopen space i Build Sun -IT sire to 2onetg e.apxiiy Flexihle Community Services Center -� : Transpo Hub: improved bus stops, carsharing, and hike storage . _ Scoping Meeting Sunset Area Planned Action EIS September 1, 2010 Sunset Boulevard NE Alternative Development Matrix ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action Traffic Capacity and Community Based Design Access Management Operations Improvements Pedestrian Walkability Amenities Bikes Transit Enhancements Measures No mprovements Nomp—ements Normpro ents Noimpru cots No improvements Nolmprovemerts preserve existing street trees Bike route signage New shelters Consolidate driveways Optimize traffic signal timing Pedestrian wpportive signals {countdown heads and audible signals) Optimize traffic signal timittg Special design of transit zones Reserve existing stree[vares Left turn storage lengthened to meet i Improved side street sidewalk plant new street bees in landscape Ct,rhed median to restrict left turns Iwitrddown heads and audible signals] hike storage lockers throughout the corridor including design year LOS conncaions to intersections _ stripalongcorridor Improved ade street sirlewapc ",mg, shelters, street furniture. from driveways design year 105 connections to intersectirins Special concrete h., pad In roadway at torridor rr iture. from driveways throng, traffic signal interconnection and pedestrian reiuges to median coordmation Use special paving for crosswalks Bicycle detection at signals _ _ Narrow inside lanes, widen outside transit stops Landscaped medians Strategic rapacity improvements at Narrow lanes and reduce cr using - _ -_ _ intersections distances Use s - I thin intersections Petra paving wi lane m accommodate bikes Transit Si nal Prior g tty hSP) Directional left -turn pockets mid block - - lane to accommodate bikes .. drstartces - Use specW paWng wrtMrn JidersseGora. New local transit service connecting Transit Signal P—Ity{TSI : Oiractranal kht-tumpodcets mid -block Realignment of skewed intersections Bulh-out curh returns ar minor streets Way finding and signage Narrow lanes, stripe a bike lane across SR900 to Community Provide U turn accommodations Real' nment of skewed irdersections g across 5R9o0 to Lumri Provide U-turn accommodations (requires WSDOT approval)Center/Library across SR906ioCanmirtslty4-Provide U-wmacswnmoda[iarrs Roundabout features at imersecbuns Hillside walk paved path and planting Incorporate Art Provide multi -use trail along the Hillside—Ilicuvedpatbaodplanting Business Access Road EB from 10th P'ro'm multfwse trail along the _..�..___.._._._.-_.... Halsrde walk pawtd path and plargir Rosiness Art—Read EB from 10th I corridor. Street to Monroe Ave Widen to add Business ACCesi/l mrsit Sunset Blvd to accommodate S' corridor. - Lane Multi -use trail along project corridor Garden l Art Trellis 'Widen bike lanes Benches, trash and recycling - Garden 1 Art Trellisbike Lane Mutt! -use trail along project corridor Realign skewed intersections and hike an::, reduce crosswalk distances ceptacles Realign skewed intersections and Beni(,trash and recycling Comfortable separation of pedestrians Realign skewed intersections and ' Benches, trash and recycrtng_ reduc walk distances From vehicle traffic (landscape buffer) Improve corridor roadway lighting mdurieraoi—a€kdotancex receptacles Widen sidewalks to meet Complete Lnmfortable separation of.pedernians Streets mr{R It sidewalks and 8 pedestrian scale Special pedscale ligfiting Improve corridor roadway lighting vehrdle tratTic (landscape buffer} o'Fe cdrridar roadway lightrr>ff-.- knipafrom ft landscape strips) Widen sidewalks to meet Complete _ Widersadew I to meet complete. Streets minimums IS ft sidewalks and it Surveillance cameras for increased Streetsmarsdwms{`aFit vdewelksarid spediial pkeSe3ttixuacaYe ligtitirtg It landscape stripsl —fly and/or emergency response. j ftlandsim seri ALTERNATIVE 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Traffic Capacity and Community Based Design Access Management Operations Improvements Pedestrian Walkability Amenities Bikes Transit Enhancements Measures Nu mpm merits No improvements No improvenients_ No improv encs No iorprrivernent, No improvements Pedestrian supportive signais Optimize traffic signal timittg Pedestrian supportive signals Reserve existing stree[vares bike route signage New shelters;Consolidate driveways Iwitrddown heads and audible signals] Leh Into storage lengthened t. meet Improved ade street sirlewapc Plant new street trees in landscape zones Speraal design of transit Curbed median to restrict, feftturns design year 105 connections to intersectirins step along corridor Bike storage lockers torridor rr iture. from driveways throng, sbip�nif �rndor '- Bike storage lockers i _ Use special paving For crosswalks Bicycle detection at signals shelters, paving, shelters, street Furniture. Special concrete bus pad in roadway at; Landscaped medians Traffic signal iMermnnection and Pedestrian refuges in median coordination Pedestran refuges in median : tcanstt stops Transit Signal Priority (TSV} Directional Ieh-min pockets mid-dlock Strategic capacity improvements at Nanow Ian s and reduce crossing _ ___ Use special paving within otersections�l Narrow inside lanes, widen outside s_ m inter ectio distances - - lane to accommodate bikes .. drstartces - Use specW paWng wrtMrn JidersseGora. lane to arivmmirrid v es Transit Signal P—Ity{TSI : Oiractranal kht-tumpodcets mid -block Narrow lanes, stripe a bike lane New local transit service corwecting Reallgnmenl of skewed intersections Bd6 out curh returns at minor streets Way finding and signage Real' nment of skewed irdersections g across 5R9o0 to Lumri Provide U-turn accommodations , -. across SR906ioCanmirtslty4-Provide U-wmacswnmoda[iarrs (requires WSDOT approval} Center/Libra Roundaboutieatures at intersections Hillside—Ilicuvedpatbaodplanting Incorporate Art P'ro'm multfwse trail along the _..�..___.._._._.-_.... Halsrde walk pawtd path and plargir Rosiness Art—Read EB from 10th Pros4tle multi -use trail alongthe Business Access Roac1LBfrcri corridor. Street to Monroe Ave corridor. - Widen Sunset Blvd to accommodate 5' Widen to add Business Accm,'Fran MW Widen to add eusmess Accessfl ransh - Garden 1 Art Trellisbike Lane Mutt! -use trail along project corridor Garden / An Trellis hike an::, � lanes Realign skewed intersections and Beni(,trash and recycling Realign skewed intersections and ' Benches, trash and recycrtng_ reduc walk distances receptacles mdurieraoi—a€kdotancex receptacles Comfortahk separairon of pedestrians Lnmfortable separation of.pedernians iron vehicle haNic (landscape 6uHerl Improve corridor roadway lighting vehrdle tratTic (landscape buffer} o'Fe cdrridar roadway lightrr>ff-.- knipafrom Widen sidewalks to meet Complete _ Widersadew I to meet complete. Streets minimums IS ft sidewalks and it Special pedestrian scale lighting Streetsmarsdwms{`aFit vdewelksarid spediial pkeSe3ttixuacaYe ligtitirtg It landscape stripsl j ftlandsim seri Surveillance cameras tot increased Surveiftediera,' asfor increased security and for emergency response. -. . ALTERiHAiiVE 3 ' High I.ntenslty Improvements . TraffitCapaciiy and Convnun4ty Based Design Ma .ntagement Operations Improvements Pedestrian wa&awlity Amenities Transit Enhancemerift - Measures No improvements No improvements No improvements No imptayemerrt. No improvements Na improvements Optimize traffic signal timing Pedestrian supportive signals presersre txmtrtrgstmer brew Brice rtwte sl6n New shelters ' [ntrceiidat driveways loountdown heads and audible signals} Left tum storage lertgtfrened to Mee'. Imptovcdsde street sidewalk silent new street treat- to ndarape f �r�tra 'oma' Curbed rriedran W restrict Ii nems design year tos connections W intersections sbip�nif �rndor '- Bike storage lockers throughuutthear,sridarnitlti ig ihelferi streAtfirrritture. iperzei mncrele hos pad.in roadway at }ram dd mays . . ' ?n-If—ignal -ne—motion ertd coved'nation Pedestran refuges in median tfsrspecia pavirtgforerusrwalks Bicycle detection at signals tratrsil Landscaped medians Strategiccapt ity improvementsat Narrow)arses and reduce crocsitg i Narrenvireude is es 'den . iside - - intersections .. drstartces - Use specW paWng wrtMrn JidersseGora. lane to arivmmirrid v es Transit Signal P—Ity{TSI : Oiractranal kht-tumpodcets mid -block stripe -Narrefulres New local transit sc-melee edintiectirig .. f Real' nment of skewed irdersections g Bulboutcurb returns at minor streets ng rgnag Way rmdi and s- , -. across SR906ioCanmirtslty4-Provide U-wmacswnmoda[iarrs a prkvaane (requires tArSffp7 approval) Center/33brary' I Roundabout features at intersections _..�..___.._._._.-_.... Halsrde walk pawtd path and plargir Incorporate An Pros4tle multi -use trail alongthe Business Access Roac1LBfrcri corridor. Street to Monroe Ave Widen to add Business Accm,'Fran MW Multi -use trod along project corridor - Garden 1 Art Trellisbike _ iden Sunset Blvd to accommodate 5' Toru � lanes Realign skewed intersections and ' Benches, trash and recycrtng_ mdurieraoi—a€kdotancex receptacles Lnmfortable separation of.pedernians vehrdle tratTic (landscape buffer} o'Fe cdrridar roadway lightrr>ff-.- knipafrom Widersadew I to meet complete. Streetsmarsdwms{`aFit vdewelksarid spediial pkeSe3ttixuacaYe ligtitirtg ftlandsim seri Surveiftediera,' asfor increased -. . --nity.a-d rimergency response. Scoping Meeting Sunset Area Planned Action EIS Seotember 1.2010 Stormwater Manaaement Alternative Development Matrix ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action Parcel -Based Stormwater Sunset Tel Stormwater Conveyance Improvements Water Quality Treatment Open Space/Sub-regional Requirements Techniques in ROW Flow Contri BMPS in ROW Bli in ROW Facilities Meet Lode Requirements Dn-site Meet Code Require ents On site m Noimprav tri No improvements Na improvements No improvements Incenti-e Green St—n—ter Downspout Disconnection Rebuild Curb & Gutter Permeable Pavement Sidewalks Media Fitter Vaults Rainwater VdrkS le.i gardens) Infraslrugure Retrofits iigtwrr[er Rar3;s 1C,&tarn gaslrjriEt'-. Wrastructore Retrofits Downspout Disonnecten Rebuild Curb&Gutter Require Green Stormwate r Media Fiher Vaults Rainwater Parks le.g. rain gardens) Require Green Stormwater Infrastructure where Infiltration is Pop-up Emitter fo: 17ownspouts Grass -Swale Conveyance Permeable Pavement In Parking Stalls Rioretention planter Regional Detention Ponds Feast hie Regional Detention Ponds Bioretention Swale/Planters with Permeable pavement in 1 ravened diiorrteotion planters- ... .... [-hggianafDefetrtlon'Rorods- Require Green St°rmwascr Intrastructu rc'mduding non- Raingardens for Residential Unhs Curb Openings Way Rain Gardens m medians Underground Detention infiltrating practices Infrastructure induding nom Rain Csardetrstn meds" Rain Gardens in medians Require On-site Green STormwater infiltrating Curb Openings Nay I Permeable Pavement Water Quality Sportsfield/Playlicld Detention Infrasiructrue for WQireatirri Permeable Sidewalks Build/Rebuild Storm Drain Pipes Bioretention Swales 7reatment parcel rtormwater treatment (detention during wet season only) New Rainwater Park at Sunset Require On-site Retention toAll .. Performance Standard (e.g. 2 -year) Permeable Pavement Driveways Infi—vintrue for WQTreatment Rioretention Planter with Detention within ROW Terrace Allow Zero Discharge of Runoff Off. Require On site Retention to Permeable Pavement Driveways Bioretenbon Planters with Detention Allow parcel stormwater treatment Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Site Cisterns for Residential Units -wittun ROW' Rain Gardens in medians Terrace Use Allow Fee In lieu of Providing On-site Green Roofs Detention Swales Detention Site Cisterns for Residential Units Rain Gardens in medians u e Allow Fee In -lieu of Providing On-site Green Roofs Detention Swales Underground Cisterns for Street Detention Swales _ I Impervious Area Caps Harnirri Street Green Connection Develop narrow street standards to Underground Cisterns for Street Effective Impervious Area Caps Green Parking Lot Standards Rainwater Harvesting Harrington Street GreM Connection reduce rmpervrous Covera e Develop narrow street standards to Detention TanksfVauhs within ROW Green Parking Lot Standards ALTERNATIVE 2: Mid -Range Intensity Improvements Parcel -Based Stormwater Sunset Terrace Stormwater Conveyance improvements Water Quality Treatment Open Space/Sub-regional Requirements Techniques in ROW Flow Control Bill In ROW BMPs in ROW Facilities Meet Code Requirements On-site Meet Code Requirements On -rile No improvements No improvemenls No improvements No improvements Irrrent+ eGreen Stormwater Downspout Disconnection p°° Rebuild Curb & Goner - Perrteahle.P.avehKSidervas Media Fdler Vaults iigtwrr[er Rar3;s 1C,&tarn gaslrjriEt'-. Wrastructore Retrofits Downspout Disonnecten Rebuild Curb&Gutter Permeable Pavement Sidewalks Media Fiher Vaults Rainwater Parks le.g. rain gardens) Require Green Stormwater Infrastructure where Infiltration is Pop-up Emitter for Downspouts Grass -Swale Conveyance Permeable Pavement in Parking 51a11s Bioretention planters Regional Detention Ponds Feasible diiorrteotion planters- ... .... [-hggianafDefetrtlon'Rorods- Begone 6rcat 9tacmwater BiaoetemkpryyMatq/1Yd�rters whi Require Green Smrmwater &oreoention Swale/Planters with Pertr ie pavement in Travelled UnFrast� ng kdudrir Raingardens for Residential Units Infrastructure induding nom Rairrgardens for Residential Units Rain Csardetrstn meds" Rain Gardens in medians Underground Detention infiltrating Curb Openings Nay - ___ per+inaiii eSde lka � - i2ebsrad Sl m1)ram Pipes "��ei �� Permeable P—ment Water Quality Require Dn-site Green St.—water l .. Permeable Pavement Water quality Sponsfield/Playfield Detention Infi—vintrue for WQTreatment permeable Sdewalks Build/Rehuild Storm Drain Pipes Biore[.erdion des Swe Treatment Idetenti°n during wet season onlyl Require On site Retention to Permeable Pavement Driveways Bioretenbon Planters with Detention Allow parcel stormwater treatment New Rainwater Park at Sunset Performance Standard {e.g. 2-yearl Tdiarekarm°n Drafters svitlrD termor -wittun ROW' within ROW Terrace Allow zero Discharge of Runoff OH Rain GaNens in medians Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Site Cisterns for Residential Units Rain Gardens in medians u e Allow Fee In -lieu of Providing On-site Green Roofs Detention Swales Detention Swales Detention Detention Underground Cisterns for Street Effective Impervious Area Caps Harrington Stied 6reeri Conndren Effective Impervious Area Gps Harrington Street GreM Connection Irrigation Develop narrow street standards to Green Parking Lot Standards Rainwater Harvesting reduce impervious coverage ttetrRtpp rrMrrArr Krerrl etanderds to Detention Tanks/Vaults within ROW Rairtsvater Harvesting i - rr drtre ALTEItNATIVE 3: High interKityr tmpcovernencs ; :. '_ ... Parcel -Based 9Eorainrii r Sunset Terrace Stormwater.. ttadttreyii�nce lrrtprrivements 11Natier al>E3f Tiea6nerrt Ope :S age/5ub regitxial Regnrrinents„ %detpa{ues < arPRdtiY;,[ „FlowlcCotftrrrtBNltaSinROYfi . .i BMPsaeiiOW :' fac6fties ' Meet Code Requirements On-site Meet Code Requirements On-site No improvements No improvements No improvements Na improvements Incentiutxe Green Stormwater Downspout Disconnection p°° Rebuild Curb & Goner - Perrteahle.P.avehKSidervas Media Fdler Vaults iigtwrr[er Rar3;s 1C,&tarn gaslrjriEt'-. Inf,astnuctur. Retro ds lakastrttcture wi'iergMf@tr.iia '. Pop-up Emitter For Downspouts Grass -Swale Conveyance Permeable Pavement in Parking Stalls diiorrteotion planters- ... .... [-hggianafDefetrtlon'Rorods- Begone 6rcat 9tacmwater BiaoetemkpryyMatq/1Yd�rters whi Permeable pavement in Travelled UnFrast� ng kdudrir Raingardens for Residential Units Cath dpari.. Way Rain Csardetrstn meds" Underground Detention - RequireOn-siteGreenStormwater per+inaiii eSde lka � - i2ebsrad Sl m1)ram Pipes "��ei �� Permeable P—ment Water Quality SportAkid]PlayfiEk Detention k nfraslrurtme for WCl Treatment .. -: - - Treatment !' gdetenttWS during wM season only)', Require On-snP Relent—toA%ow parcel stamvratertreatment NewtR wiwaltef Park at Sunstd performance Standard - 2_ (eg year) Pemeahle Pavement Driveways Tdiarekarm°n Drafters svitlrD termor -wittun ROW' -Terrace Allow Zero Dsch.i of Runoff Off- Chtems for Resfderi Units Rain GaNens in medians Rainwater Harvesting for Irrigation Site Use All fee ar-neu of Providing 0—he &reert Rai Detention Swales Detention Effective Impervious Area Caps Harrington Stied 6reeri Conndren Underground Cisterns for Street Irri anon ttetrRtpp rrMrrArr Krerrl etanderds to Paridng Lot Stands wren dar . Rairtsvater Harvesting - rr drtre Detention Tanks/Vaults within ROW Attachment C USEPA Comment Letter Summary oft he Scoping Process November 2010 ICF 00543.10 ��osrAr UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 9 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 a Seattle, VILA 98101-3140 Cit]/ of Renton r Planning Division OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS, IRIGAL AND g91�iI°' October 18, 2010 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner FD 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 Icing 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 dimets 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 posted on the City of Renton's website (htt ://rentonwa. ovibu,sine-ss/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, http_//epa_ eov/dced/partnership/index.himl aPMfed on AecYcledPaper 2 • value communities and neighborhoods. These principlcs 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 duality 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 Program 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".4 Thank you for this opportunity to comment and if you have any questions please contact me at (206)-553-6382 or peterson.erik@epa.at„ov . Enclosures: Sincerely, Erik Peterson NEPA Reviewer Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit EPA Detailed Comments on the NOI to Prepare an EIS for the Redevelopment of Sunset Terrace EPA Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements 2 http://cfpub_epa_gov/npdes/home.cfm?program—id=6 3 http:l/www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/index.htm 4 http_//www.epa.aovlsmart_Lrowth/water—scorecard.htm QPrW6d ort Recycled paper EPA DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE NOI TO PREPARE AN EIS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SUNSET TERRACE Ranged 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 concepts 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 quality, habitat, species, and so on should be examined. Long term social, economic, and environmental impacts should be acknowledged and appropriately mitigated. Air Toxics 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 Assessment b_ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's Puget Sound Air Toxics Evaluation,$ c. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's Portland Air Toxics Assessment.9 d. Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from. Mobile Sources Final Rule1D 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" " f. American. Association of Slate 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:!/wv.w.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natamain/ hnp://www.pscleanair.org-/airg/basicsil)&ate, final.f 9 http:/,'www.dea.state.or.us/ag/toxies/pata.htm �0 72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007 11 htto:f/pubs.healtheffects,.orglaetfile.ph'?p u=453 * Pdnftd m Recycled Paper M g. Recent papers published and presented at the S9`h annual Transportation Research Board Meeting.''` i. Simplifying the Estimation of the Health Impacts from Freight Activity in an Urban Environment ii. Bits Shelter Placement and Exposure to Particulate Matter for Wailing 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_l/w-ww_epa.gov/otaq/diesel/constructionl 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 comi:nend the Seattle Housing Authority and partners for the indoor air quality benefits achieved through the Breathe Easy project at High Paint_ 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 same time. See EPA's website on Indoor Air Quality for additional information: http://www.epa.goy/iaq/ 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. "http://w,,;w.trb.orglMainIBlurbs/2010 'IRB 89th Annual Meeting Compendium of PaMr, l62'79.1,Mlx aPrk; dm RecycJad Paper 5 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: http://yosemite.epa, goyIr 10/cleanup.nst/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 (HIA), 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 HIA 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 NTHPA regulations at 40 CFR 1508.8, and 1508.27; by Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice; and F.O. 1.3045 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 Waal 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 being 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 HIA 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). QPrkded on aeayCW paper IZ health agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Environmental Health, U.S. Agency for Toxic 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.wbo.int/hia/about/guides/en/. • The International Finance Corporation has developed detailed guidelines for conducting HIA. http://www.ifc�. • World Health Organization webpage on HIA: http://www,who.intlhia/en/. • U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webpage on HIA: http:/Jwww.edc.zovlbealthyplacesihia.htm. Water 303(d) Listed Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMD1,$) 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 TMDLs to restore beneficial use support for impaired waters. If additional pollutant loading is predicted to occur to a 303(d) 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. Storm -water 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 14%vww.epa.Qov/owow/npsnid/section438 *i PnVW on Reeyded P*W 7 Transportation_ Tntegrating 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.' -5 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 Higbway Partnership.'(' • The following references from the g91h annual Transportation Research Board Meeting.1'7 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". '$ 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. 15 http://www.greenroads.us/ 16http./iwvrw,reaphighw s1tartnetship.or index_ r 17 httL://www.trb,orJMainBlurbs12014 TRE 89th Annuat Meeting ComRendiuni of Papers 162791_asu 18 http://www.epa.-ovic ced/partnershil�/inde.x.html QPdnMdon ReeycWPyr 9 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 good at 206-553-1107. Plants and Animals Urban Forrest Restoration Potentially beneficial urban forest restoration goals include, but are not limited to, the following: • Enhancing connections to adjacent neighborhoods. • Connecting wildtifelbird 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 (USFWS) 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 htti2:1/ceq.hss.doe.gov/ne2aJr"S/Mifi�ati(in., and Monitorin�Z Draft NEPA Guidance FINAL C12182010.pdf 20 http:/iwww.epa.uovlgree�kiEtindex,htra �' ht[ :l/www.usahc.orQlDis la Pa�e.as z?CMSPaaeID=l4$ aPrrnadon Roey~Paper 9 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 helpful." Energy (Climate Change 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: 22 h€tp:/Iafsic.nal.usda.gov/nal display/index.phhp?info center-2&tax leve1=2&tax„subject=301&€opic id=14-44 aPnWW on Recycled Pww 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).`-1 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 transportationcarbonimpacts_ 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 grecrhousc gas emissions worksheet will help i6facilitate 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, 6 2010 Guidance on Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting.25 This Guidance establishes Govemment-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: Draft NI1PA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.26 Recent papers published and presented at the 89t" annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, including: o Current Practices in GHG Emissions Savings from Transit o 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 htt ://www.e a.eov/c.limatecha.nxe/endan erment-htnil 24 Consider, for instance, Local Govemmenls 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. zs http://www.wliitehouse,.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability/fed-ghg 26hlW://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/re:4Consideration of Effects of G1JG Draft NEPA Guidance FINAL 02182010 1'df Pr6rroC on AscyCW Paper 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 f dly 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 tribes that 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-govemment with the governments of federally recognized tribes, and for * Frf W on necyded paw 1? 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 > J.S. government is obligated to protect. Ilowever, 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 routes that may be currently used. • Historic properties and other cultural resources. Qj PMMd on RecydW Pa;w J Since the responsibility for govemment-to-governmentconsultation 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 CFR' 800) 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 1.06 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. Qly~ on R9cyrW Paper 14 Useful references include: http:I/www.npi.orglncpa/index.htlnl regarding NEPA and cultural resources; http://www.epa.�tov/compliatice/resources/publications/ed/ips consultationguide.pdf 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. QPrimed on Rseyded Paper is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements Definitions and Follow -Up Action* Environmental Impact of the Action I,O — back 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 (CEQ). AdeguacyL of the Impact Statement Category 1— 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 — InsufIicient 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 impacts. EPA 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 revised 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 PriaW on R"yrlad Paper DRAFT 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 ICF 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 ArchaeologicalInvestigations................................................................................................. 5-1 NE Sunset Boulevard Right-of-Way...........................................................................5-1 Edmonds-Glennwood Lot..........................................................................................5-1 HarringtonLot ....................................................... .................................................... 5-1 Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex ....... ............................................................ 5-1 Summary of Shovel Tests..........................................................................................5-2 HistoricResources Survey ...................... ................................................................................ 5-6 Chapter 6 Analysis and National Register of Historic PlacesEvaluation.............................................. 6-1 Environmental Analysis............................................................ .............................................. 6-1 National Register of Historic PlacesEvaluation............... ....................................................... 6-2 Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF 00593.10 City of Renton Contents Chapter7 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 ............................ 5-8 Figures Figure1. Project Location................................................................................................................................................1-3 Figure2. 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 II ICF40593.10 City of Renton Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations APE Area of Potential Effects APN 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—Potential Sunset Terrace iii October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 Chapter 1 Introduction Project Description The City of Renton (City) and the Renton Housing Authority (AHA) 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 1 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 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-Glennwood 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 (RNA's Piha site) and Edmonds-Glennwood 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 Su nset Terrace 12 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and,NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 v .; -_ '.t.1,_ PrQJeCt �QCatl4tf � - '''1 4 ` �y �;�' -��'Y} •�� a �• r„. y State of Washington pit t FOX �a',, % - �� �- i.1�1 _ • it r ti. .F. - � --� - . - y f T�sowt '”. li' a ;(1 1, } i. F. ou j'a'i DDD•"^^^^^^. 1 111 F �j� + Area of Potential Effects prf A: t .rte ar.K:� 5 +e � ` ) ■ i d()HY*A fit D 250 500 1, ODD Meters J 0 754 1,500 3.000 Feet -4 T -• '�� r � x Source: Mercer Wand 47122-E2 and Renton 47122-D2 [7.5' Quadrangle Maps, USGS 'CF Figure 1 Project Location Cultural Resources Survey Report r r a t J 11L k. t i # - f. I .: y t�, Area of Potential Effect NpP i f 1:6,000 iv ` "� : ` o-•„ 0 50 100 200 Meters ■ " .', 1, 0 12S 2S0 500 f eet l �.. Su:s rcr. K�n�Cav rtV Nh1P '1. L-SrA 'r Figure 2 Area of Potential Effects Cultural Resources Survey Report 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] [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, Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard �_5 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Introduction Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of funded or approved undertakings that have the potential to impact any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), and the State Historic Preservation Officer, affected tribes, and other stakeholders an opportunity to comment. Although compliance with Section 106 is the responsibility of the lead federal agency, others can undertake the work necessary to comply. Pursuant to the HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise to apply HUD under NEPA, which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. The Section 106 process is codified in 36 CFR 800 and consists of five basic steps: 1. Initiate process by coordinating with other environmental reviews, consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), identifying and consulting with interested parties, and identifying points in the process to seek input from the public and to notify the public of proposed actions. 2. Identify cultural resources and evaluate them for NRHP eligibility (the process for which is explained below), resulting in the identification of historic properties. 3. Assess effects of the project on historic properties. 4. Consult with the SHPO and interested parties regarding any adverse effects on historic properties; and, if necessary, develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of these properties (e.g., a Memorandum of Agreement [MOA]). 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 NRNP. 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 1-6 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00543.10 City of Renton Introduction 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 (WHA), the state equivalent of the NRHP. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace1 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Bou€evard ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Washington Heritage Register Introduction 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 NRHP 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. Local The City currently does not have a local historic preservation ordinance. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1 $ ICF 00593.10 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 (Mullineaux 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 menaesii), western hemlock, and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) are the dominant tree species in the region, while hardwoods such as red alder (Alnus rubra) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are generally subordinate and found near water courses 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 (Rubus spp.), ocean spray (Holodiscu discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon), blueberries and huckleberries (Vaccinium sp.), wapato (Sagittaria latifolia) and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). Terrestrial faunal resources in the region include, but are not limited to, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), cougar (Puma concolor), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), black bear (Ursus americanus), squirrels (Scirius sp.), muskrat (Ondatra sp.), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Dalquest 1948). Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 2 1 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 al. 200 1) 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 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 1CF00593.10 City of Renton Environmental 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 2007:79-801. 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 1989:231. 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 2-3 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICFO0593.10 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 II 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 (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 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 2_q ICF 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 2006:811. 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 ll, 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 2000:1{7-168; Rabinowitz 2004:23). Known as garden style apartments, these housing projects Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potentia] Sunset Terrace 2-5 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Environmental and Cultural Setting began to increasingly serve a lower-class population and federal housing began to assume an 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 the 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 1959:441. It was constructed by Seattle -based Dahlgren Construction Co and designed by George W. Stoddard- Huggard &Associates (George W. Stoddard- Huggard & 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 I, 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- H uggard & 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 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 Cultural Setting 199Os 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. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 2.7 ICF 00593.10 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 luell 2001 Cultural Literature search None Resources and windshield Inventory of the survey oft -405 proposed corridor. Washington Light Lanes Project 1352447 Bundy 2008 Interstate 405 Survey of 1-405 None Corridor Survey: corridor and Phase I Interstate shovel testing. 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project 1351994 Goetz 2008 Archaeological Excavated a total None Assessment, of six shovel Dayton Avenue probes. NE/NE 22nd Street Stormwater System Project 1353126 Chatters 2009 Recovery of Two Exhumed remains Site 45KI686; 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—Potential Sunset Terrace 3-1 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard October 2010 1CF D0593.10 City of Renton Literature Review and Consultation NADB # Authors/Year Report Title Description Cultural Resources Assessment for through fill. the Proposed Lowe's of Renton 1349666 1349929 1349789 1340681 Stipe 2007 Miss 2007 Hodges 2007b Cooper 2001 Verizon Wireless SEA Renton Voc- Tech Cellular Tower Cultural Resources Review Archaeological Monitoring for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project Archaeological Resource Assessment for the South Lake Washington Roadway Improvement Project Antennas on an Existing Transmission Tower 12612 Southeast 96th Street NADB = National Archaeological Database Records search None and pedestrian archaeological survey Monitoring of None excavated trenches. 29 backhoe trenches excavated through fill. Survey around footprint of transmission tower and one shovel test. None None There is one known archaeological site within a 1 -mile radius of the APE. Site 45KI686, 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 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 3-2 ICF D0593.10 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 1CF 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 ICF00593.10 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 4-2 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF oa593.10 Chapter 5 Results Archaeological Investigations On October 7, 2010, ICF 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 3). 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-Glennwood 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-Glennwood 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#S 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 -1 ICF00593.10 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-Glennwood 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 October 20111 Redevelopment Subarea and ME Sunset Boulevard Z ICF00593.10 0 W % � f' a r OFL •a+ e � � Y +�` �...., � _� � <� 1 ] . �.T�-�f � ! t� � -,n •� .� .. F �. � �. :YAR — T - 1 P l l Aft'iN` 7- " Shovel Test NRNP Eligible Nat NRHP Fligible Edmonds-Glennwood Lot Harrington Lot Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Area of Potential Effects N 1:5,500 0 50 -00 ZOO Meters ANN Op 0 125 750 5DO F eet 5:susce: K:ng C:: u i ,:y h K P F2005%, USL)A ICF Figure 3 Shawl Test Locations and Historic Resources Survey Results Cultural Resources Survey Report _ s Aft'iN` 7- " Shovel Test NRNP Eligible Nat NRHP Fligible Edmonds-Glennwood Lot Harrington Lot Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex Area of Potential Effects N 1:5,500 0 50 -00 ZOO Meters ANN Op 0 125 750 5DO F eet 5:susce: K:ng C:: u i ,:y h K P F2005%, USL)A ICF Figure 3 Shawl Test Locations and Historic Resources Survey Results Cultural Resources Survey Report City of Renton Results Table 2. Shovel Test Data ST Depth Width Soil Description Comments Location 1 2 3 4 5 45 45 42 43 42 100 115 64 58 56 0-17 cm: Brown gravelly silty sand, loose compaction, few small roots. 17-65 cm: Reddish brown gravelly silty sand, loose compaction moderately loose compaction, less silt than above. 65-100 cm: Olive brown gravelly silty sand, loose compaction 0-21 cm: Brown gravelly silty sand, loose compaction, few small roots. 21-62 cm: Red sediment, mixed and mottled w/ abundant burned wood 62-115 cm: Olive grey gravelly silty sand 0-14 cm: Mixed and disturbed silty gravelly sand 14-64 cm: Reddish brown silty gravelly sand, increasing gravels with depth 64-68 cm: Olive grey gravelly silty sand 0--18 cm: Brown gravely silty sand 18-43 cm: Reddish brown silty gravelly sand loose to moderate compaction 543-58 cm: Olive grey to brown gravelly silty sand 0-30 cm: Mixed and disturbed reddish brown silty gravelly sand loose compaction 30-52 cm: Intact reddish brown gravelly silty sand, moderate compaction 52-58 cm: Olive grey gravelly silty sand 0-17 cm: A -horizon formed in recessional glacial outwash, disturbed, developed weakly partial removal from grubbing, contained flat glass, safety glass, vessel glass, square nail 17-65 cm: B -horizon in recessional glacial outwash 65-100 cm: recessional outwash 0-21 cm: A -horizon, disturbed 21-62 cm: B -horizon, disturbed, abundant burned wood 62-115 cm: Recessional outwash 0-14 mixed A and B horizons in outwash Glenwood - Edmonton Lot Glenwood - Edmonton Lot Glenwood - Edmonton Lot 0-18 cm: A -horizon in Glenwood- outwash Edmonton 18-43 cm: B -horizon in Lot outwash 43-58 cm: outwash 0-30 cm: Brick and concrete Glenwood - fragments Edmonton 30-52 cm: B -horizon in Lot recessional outwash 52-58 cm: Recessional outwash Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 5-4 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF 00593.10 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 Harrington dense compaction clear bottle glass Lot 23-51 cm: Reddish brown fine 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 45 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 10 45 119 120 0-14 cm: Brown gravelly sand 14-20 cm: Mixed tanish brown and reddish brown sand 20-30 cm: Brown gravelly sand 30-56 cm: Reddish brown gravelly sand, loose to 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 0-25 cm: Mixed reddish brown gravelly sand 25-30 cm: Very dark brown silty sand 30-84 cm: Reddish brown silty sand 84-87 cm: Dark brown silty fine sand 87-120 cm: Reddish brown silty fin sand 0-14 cm: A -horizon 20-30 cm: Buried A horizon, plastic, glass 30-56 cm: Imported fill 79-94 cm: Buried A -horizon 94-119 cm: B -horizon in outwash 0-25 cm: Imported fill, plastic and glass fragments 25-30 cm: A -horizon in fill 30-84 cm: fill 84-87 cm: A -horizon in outwash 87-120 cm: B -horizon in outwash Harrington Lot Harrington Lot Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 5-5 1CF 06593.10 City of Renton ST Depth Width 11 41 88 Soil Description 0-19 cm: Brown Gravelly silty sand 19-52 cm: Gravelly silty sand 52-88 cm: Grey laminated sands 12 43 25 0-25 cm: Brown gravelly silty sand, few rootlets 25+ cm: Compacted weathered till ST = shovel test Historic Resources Survey Comments 0-19 cm: A -horizon with clear contact possible cut and fill, 14-52 cm: B -horizon with graded contact 52-88 cm: Sterile 0-25 cm: A -horizon 25+ cm: Weathered glacial till Location Sunset Terrace complex Sunset Terrace complex Results The reconnaissance -level historic resources survey revealed the presence of 66 developed properties in the APE. Forty-eight 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 NRHP 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 48 properties identified as 45 years of age or older were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NRNP. 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 1CF 00593.10 City of Renton Table 3. Properties in Area of Potential Effects Identified as 45 Years of Age or older Address Tax Parcel 4 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 NE 9th PI 7227500540 1959 Not Eligible 1100-1110 Edmonds 923059161 1964 Not Eligible Ave NE 1007 Glennwood Ave NE 7227801400 1959 Not Eligible 1011 Glennwood Ave NE 7227801400 1959 Not Eligible 1052 Glennwood Ave NE 7227801305 1943 Not Eligible 1060 Glennwood Ave NE 7227801310 1943 Not Eligible 1139 Glennwood 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 1943 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 7227500550 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 2601 Sunset Ln NE 7227801400 1959 Not Eligible 2605 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 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 2623 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible 2629 Sunset Ln NE 7227801OSS 1959 Not Eligible 2630 Sunset Ln NE 7227801055 1959 Not Eligible Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 5-7 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE sunset Boulevard ICF0059B10 City of Renton Address Tax Parcel # Year Built NRNP Evaluation Results 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 Ehizible Table 4. Properties in Area of Potential Effects Identified as Less than 45 Years Old Address Tax Parcel # Year Built NRNP Evaluation 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-$ ICF0059110 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 tool for identifying buried surfaces, understanding landscape modification over time, and determining the potential depth of bloturbation. 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-Glennwood 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/Glennwood Lot is considered very low, and even then only on or just below the surface. Cultural Resources Survey Report—Potential Sunset Terrace 6 1 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard 1CF 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-Glennwood 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 Places Evaluation 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 APE. 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_z 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-Glennwood 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 NRHP-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-Glennwood 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 7-1 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 Chapter S 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 4SKI464—Tolt River, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle, WA. 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 Geoarchaeologicul Study of the SR 520 Corridor and Archaeological Field Investigations in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HGV 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.Iib.washington.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/lctext&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 Sunset 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 by AMEC 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. SE54XC005A. 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 137-157 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: <http://www. wrvmuseum.org/journal/journal- 0401.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 II -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. Tingwali, 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 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton References 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 Marymoor Farm. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Hanchett, Thomas W. 2000 The Other "Subsidized Housing": Federal Aid to Suburb anization, 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 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. Howard, Ebenezer 1902 Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd. Juell, Ken 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington LightRails Project. NWAA Report WA01-6. Seattle, WA. Prepared by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Kaehler, Gretchen A., et. al. 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$ 3 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 City of Renton References Kidd, R. S. 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/eRealProperty/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 CNorthwest 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 8-4 October 2010 Redevelopment Subarea and NE Sunset Boulevard ICF 00593.10 City of Renton References Pierce, Franklin 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Nisqualiy and Other Bands of Indians. Available: <http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/documentphp?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.lib.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, Call 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 8.5 ICF 00593.10 Appendix A Correspondence Denis Law1l F O Mayor Y _ t 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 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 anew recreation/community center, a new public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted medians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New he stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the new development and tine streets improvements. Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 9 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 HE and Monroe Avenue HE. 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 projectteam, DAHP, and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Specific information on site location and/or traditional cultural properties will be withheld from the public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (42.5)430-6578. Sincerely, l 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 C1of - Mayor ''] ► ti���� k Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Allyson Brooks, PhD . State Historic Preservation Officer Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic. Preservation 1063 South Capitol Way, Ste.106 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Subject: Renton Sunset Area Community— Section 106 Consultation Dear Dr. Brooks: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) east of Interstate 5 in the city of Renton, Washington. The activities would include redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to Sunset Boulevard. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CFR Part 800, and define the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The above referenced project activities taken together are considered a single undertaking involving federal funding from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 58, the City of Renton is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, which includes lead agency responsibility. The Sunset Terrace redevelopment project would occur. on approximately 8 -acres of RHA owned property occupied by existing public housing units, known as Sunset Terrace, located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE; three acres of vacant land along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE; and additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE that RHA intends to purchase for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and the adjacent properties with mixed income, mixed- use residential and -commercial space and public amenities. Existing public housing units on the property would be removed and replaced with new construction. The new construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units and integrated public amenities, such as a new recreation/community center, a new public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and . commercial space, and/or green infrastructure: Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted medians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the new development and the stre-ets improvements. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washingtori 98057 • rentonwa.gov Page 2 of 2 As illustrated on the enclosed map, the City of Renton proposes the APE for the undertaking be defined as those parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopment, and all parcels that abut Sunset Boulevard between about Edmonds Avenue NE and Monroe Avenue NE. This area would encompass all the areas of proposed ground disturbance and potential effects to neighboring properties posed by road and infrastructure improvements along Sunset Boulevard. The City of Renton has engaged the services of ICF International to conduct cultural resources studies of both archaeological and built environment resources for the undertaking. The fieldwork for these studies, including excavation of shovel test probes, is expected to begin at the end of September 2010, Your response to this letter, acknowledging your interest in participating as a consulting party to this undertaking and concurring with the defined APE would he greatly appreciated. We also are inviting comments on the proposed undertaking from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-6578. Sincerely, Erika Conkling,.AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects Map W001a Denis Law r W.— _,r ~ Mayor k.� A" g .. Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist 39015 172nd Avenue 5E 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 Iriterstate 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, derision -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. Existingpublic housing units on -the property would be removed.and replaced with. new construction. The new�construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units and integrated public amenities, such as a new recreation/community center, a new public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of wayto 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 Gty Hall . 1055 South Grady Way a Renton, Washington 98057 o . rentonwa_gov Page 2 of 2 As illustrated on the enclosed map, the City of Renton proposes the APE for the undertaking be defined as those parcels in and adjacent to Sunset Terrace considered for redevelopment, and all parcels that abut Sunset Boulevard between about Edmonds Avenue NE and Monroe Avenue Nk 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 Muck]eshoot Tribe. Specific information onsite location and/or traditional cultural properties will be withheld from the public documentation prepared for the undertaking: Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-6578. Please note we have also sent this same letter to Tribal Council Chairperson Virginia Cross. Sincerely, 'Erika Conkling, A1CP, Senior Planner . City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects Map ! 1C- ity e U -n is il�•1�'I }� {I�- :w� �� L_l �. _ I r M1 , i l._.. -a NEQ1._S Parcels NE 21ST ST � i�ts. � ��r WLa�,5° m,NE..,15T�ST• Area cf Pa r. -iris! rife=ct .i _ '" r NE 2DTl4 ST a +. NE 19Th ST'!! i . r` m rr ti ' NE 18TH ST w�(� r ,,�' _„d, t �m° n, � � ►� '” F 1, a z idE_17TH'SV L t .- ►. .� d: a NE 16TH St s� , ` y PP,p � 7", Wil: ai rY , ... E r. , ` ►• • CrC' NE 15TH ST a }" 1� ! t _• i -LU, UJ e JI'" r �_ �; °' j 2 _ - ��r�p►a A i'+"`_�s"'�4,.,ti!A - P !§js Lj Tr > ' >.0 Lbi 1 ie }„ -,gip �{ �..- s -X• {.1.Q►� �. sNE14THST,_ NE 13T P' LL } rf- , 46 ails 1 _ AL:f gam+ 1 _ ..� ;l c` E t3T�H ST F lb 7'11 N EA 2TH ST. > '{ _ -ter r — - W 1 w w W C}'15 ell rwy-�� �*'*. .#_i - a= • h' rT;.,. tiE.11THST d . ! +M M�Ei �� �.. az ti r-, NE1DTH PL_ '� lv wu i rI E Y- V f IF- NE, - t7 _ - NE 10TH Pt ��� � � �" 11 '�i1 ! !1. � e .r�•t.tife': a 7K:� _Fm-VsNE--tOTiiSTt� .." - 1s _° �� t•a .-'� ��! a ' '� ���* ' e� �t � - Alp Y -S I L: � �F S !•r ., - ,_ - fp. ST -`• a yzj� ;t -N. 1rR i s r .4_ r a erF _ t � W •. NE 10TH ST L NE 9TH PL si z act t r UJi@i D _ - ri e o - s ` rrd t. -ti u W r R , o RR R E 97H ST 9TH 51 4.,, Its ��. �4 ```• . W �/1 ry ggss F ..•C1� �i w '� p Z J .. -. ZAl 601 ...-. O� 4:., f u+:.- .. few _" r- 1 1'W Y 1lr�>!I y,ery� Q"2,- l•� ;7 �M1S •y4.f p a—^ b -nt #; C 8 iT _ u. cs a a • is r: .. N ° .ST ; ' a . l � ; t r P� " + � � 'NE,8T,H.ST gift :1 � ° $a � y�, U � C7 �i� �r r x� y ,,;� 4 c�,1 jig � � ° � ' � P'Z4� •�„�.r��rr r� Al r si x'a > � 4« - P;f r N�� ,�„ ,�, , ■ «,.- o erg. :rNF 7THIST' Area of Potential CfEeets ICF SLnsct Arca Fanned Action/EIS Ci;yy of Rerton Sunset EIS Appendix B Historic Property Inventory Forms (Will be provided Wednesday, October 27, 20 10) Appendix C Unanticipated Discovery Pian Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources During the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Project 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 mimimucn, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30) feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the king County Sheriff's office 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, Pierce County will notify the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Presenr-ation and 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 (patent medicine bottles, milk tins. clay pipes, building foundations, etc.), the City of Renton ill 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 Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes to seek consultation regarding the National Register eligibility of any further discovery. CONTACT INFOR-MATION 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 Ding County Sheri$'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 SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 2 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION PREPARED FOR: CH2MHill 1100 112th Avenue NE #400 Bellevue, WA 98004-4511 Contact: Roger Mason (425) 453-5000 ON BEHALF OF: PREPARED BY: ICF International 710 2nd Ave # 550 Seattle, WA 98104-1754 Contact: Lisa Grueter 206-801-2816 Author: Christopher Earle, PhD (360) 357-4400 City of Renton NEPA Responsible Entity Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Contact: Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner (425)430-6578 In partnership with Renton Housing Authority December 2010 ter_ 1CF INTERNATIONAL ICF International. 2010. Biological Assessment For Sunset Area Community Planned Action. Draft. December. [ICF 00593.10.] Seattle, WA. Prepared for CH2MHill. Bellevue, WA. On behalf of: City of Renton, Renton, WA. Contents List of Tables and Figures ................ "' Listof Acronyms and Abbreviations...................................................................................................... iv Chapter1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 Background and Consultation History ................................................................................................ 1-1 ProjectDescription.................................................................................:........................................... 1-1 ProjectElements.......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment................................................................................................... 1-3 Other Components of the Planned Action................................................................................... 1-3 Planned Action Ordinance............................................................................................................ 1-5 ProjectTimeline........................................................................................................................... 1-5 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures................................................................................. 1-6 ActionArea......................................................................................................................................... 1-7 Chapter 2 Occurrence of Federally Listed and Proposed Species, and Designated Critical Habitat in the Action Area.......................................................................................2-7 Terrestrial and Plant Species.............................................................................................................. 2-7 AquaticSpecies................................................................................................................................... 2-8 Chapter3 Environmental Setting.....................................................................................................3-8 PlannedAction Study Area................................................................................................................. 3-8 Streams and Aquatic Habitat....................................................................................................... 3-8 Stormwater and Development................................................................................................... 3-10 WaterQuality............................................................................................................................. 3-11 TerrestrialHabitat...................................................................................................................... 3-12 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area............................................................................................... 3-12 Chapter 4 Effects of the Action......................................................................................................4-12 DirectEffects..................................................................................................................................... 4-12 IndirectEffects.................................................................................................................................. 4-15 Effects from Interrelated and Interdependent Actions.................................................................... 4-16 Chapter5 Conclusions...................................................................................................................5-17 Chapter 6 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act......................................6-18 EssentialFish Habitat........................................................................................................................ 6-18 Potential Adverse Effects of Proposed Project................................................................................. 6-18 Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures................................................................................. 6-18 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 6-18 Biological Assessment December 2014 Sunset Area Community Planned Action I ICF 00593.10 Chapter7 References....................................................................................................................7-19 Appendix A Life History and Status of the Species Biological Assessment ii December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 00593.10 Table No table of figures entries found. Figure Figure1.............................................................................................................. Biological Assessment Sunset Area Community Planned Action Tables and Figures Follows Page ........................ ............ .... ....... .1-1 December 2010 ICF 00543.10 Acronyms and Abbreviations RentonHousing Authority (RHA...................................................................................................................................1-1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD's......................................................................1-1 Codeof Federal Regulations (CFR ......................................................... ........................................................................ 1-1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA................................................................................................................1-1 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA.......................................... .............................................................................. 1-1 RevisedCode of Washington[RCW..............................................................................................................................1-1 .................. State Route[SR............................................................................................................................................. ......1-1 Water Resources Inventory Area[WR1A]..................................................................................................................3-9 totalmaximum daily load(TMDL.............................................................................................................................. 3-11 best management practices(BMPs...........................................................................................................................4-13 Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action w ICF 00593.10 Chapter 1 Introduction Background and Consultation History This biological assessment addresses the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, which includes redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization (proposal). The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community. In accordance with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City of Renton (City) is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes NEPA lead agency responsibility. Pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 Section 58.5(e) the City as responsible entity is responsible for compliance with the Endangered Species Act, particularly Section 7. As the entity responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood and for regulating private neighborhood redevelopment, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action that would streamline local permitting and environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). The City implements SEPA and NEPA, and is performing joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review by preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposal. The City, in partnership with RHA and other agencies, intends to use federal funds from several HUD programs to help finance proposed project activities. Such programs may include Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI), the Choice Neighborhoods Appropriations programs, or other programs. Thus, the federal nexus for this action is HUD funding support of both RHA and City actions, with the City is acting as a designated non-federal representative for the purposes of informal ESA Section 7 consultation. Project Description Project Elements The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west (Figure 1). Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1 1 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Figure 1. Planned Action Study Area Biological Assessment 1-2 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 00593.10 City of Renton The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood, hereafter called the Planned Action Study Area; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. The Planned Action Study Area is in northeast Renton and is also known as the Highlands area (Figure 1). The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action that would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use growth allowances, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process via adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. The components of the proposal are described below. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment The proposal includes redevelopment of RHA's Sunset Terrace public housing community, a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 buildings that are 50 -year-old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. Sunset Terrace was constructed in 1959 and requires ever-increasing maintenance. Two major domestic water leaks, estimated to have lost 1 million gallons of drinking water, occurred in 2008 within the antiquated utility infrastructure. Sewer lines regularly clog due to shifted and misaligned piping, tree roots, and lack of capacity flow. Each unit is heated with natural gas, and the street -to -unit lines are old and need replacement. Roof replacements have been deferred and are at their failing point. Entrance door jams are out of square such that weather stripping is an insufficient sealer. The interior tile floors are of a vintage that typically incorporated asbestos. Walls and ceilings are poorly insulated. Gas-fired furnaces and hot water tanks have reached the end of their useful lifespan. Stairwells do not have enough space for tenants to move in queen -size box springs, and banisters have to be cut and repaired to do so. To address the substandard size and quality of the units and to offer more housing choices, RHA intends to create a new mixed-use, mixed -income community, with a one-to-one replacement of existing public housing units and additional new affordable and market -rate housing units. Most replacement units would occur in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, and others would occur on other RHA -owned properties in the Planned Action Study Area. Specifically, RHA owns approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and intends to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about 8 dwellings); RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. RHA also owns several other properties in the Planned Action Area that may be locations for replacement housing, such as along Kirkland Avenue NE north of NE 15th Street and at Jefferson Avenue NE. Other Components of the Planned Action As a result of the planned Sunset Terrace redevelopment, it is expected that private redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area would be catalyzed. Public service and infrastructure investments that would support both Sunset Terrace redevelopment and redevelopment elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area include: planned or anticipated upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard and other local streets; stormwater drainage systems; neighborhood parks and recreation facilities; and neighborhood community facilities that may offer education, library, or social services. Under this Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action -3 1[F 00593.10 City of Renton proposal, identified as Alternative 3 in the draft EIS for the proposal, there would be a high level of growth in the Planned Action Study Area, consistent with maintaining the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the Planned Action Study Area. Major public investment would occurn in Planned Action Study Area transportation, drainage, sewer, water, cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale, and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the Sunset Boulevard corridor and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance (described in the following section). It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be created, some of which would be public, affordable, and market rate, resulting in a density of approximately 52 units per acre. The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio, most of which would occur on the current public housing site and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; the other 10 duplex units would be replaced with townhouse units, some affordable and some market -rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space, or "third place," in a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE); a new recreation/community center; a new public library in a mixed-use building; a new park and open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and/or green infrastructure. A "family village" in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood -friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed to improve all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. A wider right-of-way would allow for intersection improvements, bike lanes in both directions, and sidewalks. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median with left -turn storage, and u -turns. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting would promote walkability. Added bike lanes would promote non -motorized transportation. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. For example, the family village concept would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K-12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint -use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for recreation during non -school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for parks and recreation. Stormwater Management Private development would be required to meet City standards for stormwater management including RMC 4-6-030 and Ordinance No. SS26 addressing the storm drain utility. Technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, adopted by the City with amendments. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1 4 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Redevelopment plans include a stormwater strategy that integrates the following palette of options distributed throughout the parcels, rights-of-way, and rainwater parks in public open spaces, all of which would support, sustain, and promote the redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. • Private property options include rain gardens, porous pavement, downspout disconnection, and cisterns. Green connections include roadside rain gardens, porous pavement, bioretention planters, and conveyance swales. • Rainwater parks include rain gardens, porous pavement, underground storage beneath active or passive recreation areas, hydraulically functional landscaping. The proposal incorporates a "lead -by -example" approach that integrates stormwater improvements to retrofit the publically owned areas for improved water quality, flow reduction and groundwater recharge. Connected rights-of-way would be reconstructed with permeable sidewalks, bioretention swales and roadside rain gardens in curb bulbs to treat runoff from within the right-of-way and improve pedestrian access and livability. Opportunities include integrating hydraulically functional landscaping and stormwater improvements (e.g. rain gardens and porous surfacing) in public open spaces and facilities to demonstrate sustainable stormwater alternatives; integration of natural infrastructure is not intended to reduce the amount of or access to useable active recreational space. The approach for private property would be to primarily reduce barriers to integrating green stormwater infrastructure. The stormwater infrastructure within public rights-of-way would receive enhanced capacity to accomodate potential private redevelopment. The enhanced capacity would serve both as advance mitigation for stormwater impacts of the existing developed area (realizing benefits earlier) and as an incentive for redevelopment by providing off-site stormwater mitigation. Opportunities include more aggressive application of green stormwater and conveyance infrastructure in the rights-of- way to receive runoff from redeveloped properties. Additional opportunities include integrated multipurpose regional stormwater facilities with public open spaces that integrate stormwater treatment and runoff reduction within the same open spaces that serve the public; integration of natural infrastructure is not intended to reduce the amount of or access to useable active recreational space. Planned Action Ordinance The City is also proposing to adopt a Planned Action Ordinance pursuant to SEPA. A Planned Action Ordinance, if adopted, would exempt future projects from SEPA threshold determinations or EISs for those projects that are determined to be consistent with the Sunset Area Community EIS assumptions and mitigation measures. By streamlining the redevelopment permit process, the Planned Action Ordinance would increase the likelihood that planned public agency investments would lead to a transformation of the community. The proposed Planned Action boundary is consistent with the Planned Action Study Area boundary shown on Figure 1. Project Timeline Sunset Terrace redevelopment would be phased with vacant sites developing first followed by redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. A general sequence of events is summarized below and is subject to change based on funding opportunities: Biological Assessment 1-5 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 00593.10 City of Renton 1. HUD Demolition/ Disposition process completed for Sunset Terrace public housing community: approximately 2011 2. Buildout of vacant RHA -owned sites completed: 2011 to 2012. 3. Sunset Terrace replacement housing funded and constructed: two phases, with the first phase in 2012-2013 and the second phase in 2014-2015. Improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard have not been scheduled but would likely occur by 2016. Note that this is an independent action (as detailed within Chapter 6, "Interdependent and Interrelated Actions") and would be subject to a separate Section 7 consultation. Other components of the Planned Action are not subject to any adopted timeline but are broadly anticipated to occur during the 2011-2030 timeframe. Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Construction activities affecting more than 1 acre, including the Sunset Terrace redevelopment and likely the majority of redevelopment actions within the Planned Action Study Area, would be required to comply with provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, implemented by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Among other things, Ecology requires operators of regulated construction sites to develop and implement stormwater pollution prevention plans, implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, and perform monitoring intended to identify exceedances or violations. Non -construction (or post -construction) stormwater runoff is regulated by City stormwater requirements. Technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2010). Such facilities are also typically compliant with Ecology's Stormwater Management Manua! for Western Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). Most stormwater treatment in the Planned Action Study Area was implemented long before adoption of stormwater detention or treatment requirements, so all redevelopment will result in improved stormwater detention and treatment within the affected areas. The proposal incorporates (for City actions) and encourages (for private actions) these additonal measures to improve stormwater infiltration, detention and/or treatment: • Green connections include roadside rain gardens, porous pavement, bioretention planters, and conveyance swales. • Rainwater parks include rain gardens, parous pavement, underground storage beneath active or passive recreation areas, hydraulically functional landscaping. • Private property options include rain gardens, porous pavement, downspout disconnection, and cisterns. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1 5 ICF D0593.10 City of Renton Action Area As detailed in Chapter 2, the only species proposed or listed under ESA that are potentially affected by the proposed action are anadromous fishes. There are no surface waters in the Planned Action Study Area, so potential impacts are exclusively associated with stormwater originating in the Planned Action Study Area. Those waters are ultimately discharged to portions of Johns Creek, Honey Creek, and May Creek. Figure 1 shows these streams and the portions of the Planned Action Study Area draining to each. Stormwater originating within the Planned Action Study Area is assumed to potentially affect organisms or habitat within any of these streams from the point of discharge downstream to the point of confluence with a larger water body, which for Honeydew Creek is May Creek, and for Johns Creek and May Creek is Lake Washington. Chapter 2 Occurrence of Federally Listed and Proposed Species, and Designated Critical Habitat in the Action Area Terrestrial and Plant Species Terrestrial and plant species potentially occurring in the action area are identified on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species list for King County (USFWS 2010a). Those species include: • Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), listed threatened • Gray wolf (Canis lupus), listed threatened • Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), listed threatened • Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), listed threatened • Northern spotted owl (Striae occidentalis caurina), listed threatened • Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), listed threatened An October 2010 query of the Priority Habitats and Species database (WDFW 2010a) indicated the presence of no sensitive species within the Planned Action Study Area, other than anadromous salmonids. Canada lynx occur primarily in boreal forests. Near the southern extent of their range (King County), they are typically found at high elevations that have habitats similar to the boreal forests of Alaska and Canada. There is no lynx habitat in the action area. There is no designated critical habitat for Canada lynx in King County. The probable range of gray wolves in Washington is in the Cascade Mountains and northeastern Washington. Gray wolves use a variety of habitat, but prefer remote areas that support a high density of prey (e.g. deer, elk, etc...). The action area does not support a high density of prey for wolves and is densely populated by humans, so it does not provide wolf habitat. There is no designated critical habitat for gray wolves in King County. Biological Assessment z December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Grizzly bears in Washington are associated with remote portions of the Cascade Mountains. This habitat in King County is only found on the far eastern margin of the county. Grizzly bears use areas isolated from human disturbance where sources of food and suitable den sites are available. Suitable habitat does not occur in the action area. There is no designated critical habitat for grizzly bears in King County. [Northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets use old growth and mature forests for nesting. Such habitat does not occur in the action area. The action area is within 50 miles of Puget Sound, a foraging area for murrelets. There is no designated critical habitat for northern spotted owls or marbled murrelets within the action area. Golden paintbrush is not now known to occur in King County, though collections were made historically. This species occupies prairie habitat, which does not occur in the action area. Eased on this analysis, no listed terrestrial animal or plant species has been reported to occur in the action area, suitable habitat for these species does not occur in the action area, designated critical habitat for these species does not occur in the action area, and the proposed action would have no effect on any of these species. Aquatic Species Queries to the Streamnet (2010) and Salmonscape (WDFW 2010b) databases indicated that Puget Sound bull trout, listed as threatened under the ESA, do not occur in the action area. Puget Sound Chinook salmon, listed as threatened under the ESA, do not occur in Honey Creek or Johns Creek, but migrate, spawn, and rear in May Creek from Lake Washington to locations upstream of the action area. Puget Sound steelhead, also listed as threatened under the ESA, do not occur in Honeydew Creek or Johns Creek, but migrate through May Creek from Lake Washington to locations upstream of the action area. There is no designated critical habitat for Puget Sound bull trout in the action area, but May Creek in the action area is designated critical habitat for both Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead. Supporting information on the life histories of Chinook salmon and steelhead, and their status in the action area, is provided in Appendix A. Chapter 3 Environmental Setting Planned Action Study Area Streams and Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat in the action area was reviewed with reference to aerial photographs of the area, zoning maps, the National Wetlands Inventory maps maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2010b), "Best Available Science" reviews prepared during the 2003-2004 revision of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, StreamNet (2010) and Salmonscape (Washington Department of Fish and Biological Assessment December 2010 5unset Area Community Planned Action 3 8 ICF 40593.10 City of Renton Wildlife 2010b) database query results, and the Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County and City of Renton 2001). The action area includes the Planned Action Study Area and the areas downstream that may be affected by stormwater originating within the Planned Action Study Area (Figure 1): Johns Creek, May Creek, and Honey Creek. All three creeks are part of the Greater Lake Washington Watershed (Water Resources Inventory Area [WRIA] S). Approximately 243 acres of the Planned Action Study Area drain to Johns Creek. The creek is a mostly piped system that provides no known anadromous fish habitat. It discharges to Lake Washington at Gene Coulon Park in Renton. Johns Creek extends upstream in a southeasterly direction for less than 1 mile. Because of its proximity to Lake Washington, the stream water level is controlled by Lake Washington, and, therefore, is considered to be a flow -control -exempt water body per the City amendment to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The Johns Creek Basin covers approximately 1,236 acres in the northeastern portion of Renton. The upper basin is dominated by residential and commercial land use, and the lower basin is dominated by industrial and commercial uses. The drainage system serving the overall basin consists primarily of roadside ditches and storm drain pipes. The northwest corner of the Planned Action Study Area, which includes 23 acres of primarily single-family residential land use, drains to May Creek. May Creek is 7 miles long and originates on the steep forested slopes of Cougar and Squak mountains and in the highlands of the Renton Plateau. The entire basin encompasses an area of 14 square miles that drains to the southeast portion of Lake Washington (City of Renton and King County 2001). The May Creek Basin also includes other tributaries: Honey Creek, Boren Creek, and the north, east, and south forks of May Creek. May Creek and its tributaries are designated by Ecology as "Class AA" (superior). Class AA waters can be used for water supply (domestic, industrial, and agricultural), stock watering, fish spawning, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Approximately 3 acres at the northeast corner of the Planned Action Study Area drain to Honey Creek, which is tributary to May Creek. Honey Creek originates within the Renton city limits just north-east of the Planned Action Study Area, near the junction of NE Sunset Boulevard and Redmond Place NE. The creek flows west-northwest approximately 1.0 mile to its confluence with May Creek, which then flows another 1.8 miles to its mouth at Lake Washington. The City has classified the upper 0.5 mile of Honey Creek as a Class 3 stream, and the lower 0.5 mile as a Class 2 stream. May Creek is also a Class 2 stream for the first 0.25 mile below the confluence, and below that point is a Class 1 stream. All of these stream classes signify a perennial stream; Class 1 and 2 streams are also salmonid -bearing. Four anadromous salmonid species are found in these streams. May Creek, from Lake Washington to above Honey Creek, provides migration, spawning, and rearing habitat for Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 0. kisutch, and 0. nerka). From Lake Washington to above Honey Creek, it provides migration habitat for steelhead (0. mykiss). Additionally, the lower 0.32 mile of Honey Creek provides spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon (StreamNet 2010, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010b). No other sensitive aquatic species have been identified within the action area. Pathways and indicators for May Creek habitat in the action area are presented in Table 1. Biological Assessment December 2410 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3 9 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Table 1. Environmental Baseline Conditions at the Action Area Scale and the Watershed Scale Diagnostic/ Pathway Indicators Baseline Environmental Conditions Effects of Project Activities Project Action Area Scale* Watershed Scale* Project Action Area Scale Watershed Scale Water Quality Temperature NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Sediment/Turbidity NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Chemical Contamination/Nutrients NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Habitat Access Physical Barriers PF PF Maintain Maintain Habitat Elements Substrate Embeddedness NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Large Woody Debris NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Pool Frequency NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Pool Quality NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Off -Channel Habitat AR PF Maintain Maintain Refugia AR AR Maintain Maintain Channel Conditions/Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Streambank Condition NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Floodplain Connectivity AR AR Maintain Maintain Flow/Hydrology Change in Peak/Base Flows NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Increase in Drainage Network NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Watershed Conditions Road Density and Location NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Disturbance History NPF NPF Maintain Maintain Riparian Conservation Areas AR AR Maintain Maintain *For each indicator, codes indicate whether it is Properly Functioning (PF), At Risk (AA) or Not Properly Functioning (NPF). Stormwater and Development Impervious surfaces are hardscaped, preventing rainfall from infiltrating surficial soils. Where these surfaces are plumbed directly to a piped storm drainage system, termed effective impervious areas, it results in rapid runoff of stormwater to downstream water bodies. Impervious surfaces are a major source of urban pollution, especially when they convey vehicular traffic. These pollution - generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) are a primary source of pollution that can impair water quality in downstream waters. The Planned Action Study Area is already a highly urbanized neighborhood with a total impervious coverage of approximately 62%. Under current conditions, the majority of this impervious surface is likely directly connected to the creeks downstream and largely pollution -generating with minimal treatment. Table 2 summarizes these existing conditions. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 3 10 U00593.10 City of Renton Table 2. Existing Land Cover Summary Total Total Area Impervious Total PGIS' Area Untreated PGISI Project Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres) (acres) Planned Action Study Area 255.40 161.17 93.31 88.56 (excluding Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) Potential Sunset Terrace 13.06 4.73 1.83 1.83 Redevelopment Subarea I Pollution -generating impervious surface Water Quality Water bodies downstream of the Planned Action Study Area exhibit water quality conditions generally associated with urban developed areas, such as higher concentrations of metals and sediments, elevated water temperature, and increased fecal coliform. Ecology monitors the water quality of the state, and maintains a list of water bodies that have water quality concerns (the 303 [d) list). The latest version of the 303(d) list, approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was released by Ecology in 2008. The list divides water body impairments into five major categories: Category 1. This is a water body that meets tested standard for clean waters. Category 2—water body of concern. This is a water body for which some evidence exists of a water quality problem, but not enough to require initiating a water quality improvement project. • Category 3—insufficient data. This is a water body that has not been tested. • Category 4—polluted water body that does not require a total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment. This is a polluted water body that does not require a TMDL because its pollution problems are being solved in one of three ways: o Category 4a—has a TMDL. This is a water body that has an approved TMDL in place and is actively being rehabilitated. 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 subbasin between Biological Assessment 3-11 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action icF 00593.10 City of Renton NE 5th Place and NE Sunset Boulevard. This area includes a large portion of the Planned Action Study Area. May Creek is listed as Category 2 on the 303(d) list for mercury and dissolved oxygen, and as Category 5 for fecal coliform (Washington State Department of Ecology 2009). Major sources of nonpoint pollution in the May Creek Basin include roadway runoff, quarry outflow runoff from construction sites and commercial operations, animal -keeping practices and grazing in riparian areas, and leaking septic tanks. Sediment deposition is accelerated by increased storm flows from developed areas and changes in land cover. Honey Creek is listed as Category 2 on the 303(d) list for temperature (Washington State Department of Ecology 2009). Terrestrial Habitat Terrestrial habitat in the analysis area was reviewed by reference to aerial photographs of the area, zoning maps, "Best Available Science" reviews prepared during the 2003-2004 revision of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 5137), and reference to the Priority Habitats and Species database (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010a). These sources indicate that the only cover types present in the Planned Action Study Area are impervious surfaces in the form of roads, roofs, and sidewalks; and landscaped areas. The landscaped areas can generally be divided into treed and treeless types. The principal treeless landscapes include playing fields associated with schools, and ornamental lawns. These are dominated by a cover of nonnative grasses subject to intensive maintenance. The treed areas consist of landscape trees, primarily conifers with a substantial representation of hardwoods. Most are associated with single-family residences; some are associated with school grounds or other institutional buildings. Ruderal vegetation (e.g., nonnative herbs, Himalayan blackberry [Rebus armeniacus], and young trees) is rare in the Planned Action Study Area, and in consequence, invasive plant species are similarly rare. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Existing conditions in the Sunset Terrace redevelopment area are substantially the same as described above for the Planned Action Study Area. This subarea drains only to the City's stormwater system, and thence to Johns Creek. Chapter 4 Effects of the Action Direct Effects As discussed previously, the project area contains no aquatic habitat and the proposed action only has the potential to directly affect anadromous fish or their habitat by discharge of stormwater. Biological Assessment 4-12 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Potential impacts derive from the quantity and quality of the stormwater. Changes in stormwater quantity could result from creation of new impervious surface, potentially resulting in reduced infiltration and greater/faster runoff volumes, which can have numerous adverse effects on habitat in receiving streams, such as channel destabilization, bank erosion, or redd scour. Changes in stormwater quality could result during construction from erosion or spillage of contaminants, and could also result after construction from increased pollutant loading due to greater vehicle usage, greater runoff of lawn maintenance chemicals, greater loading by pet wastes, and potentially other causes. The proposal has been designed to minimize these risks. The risk of impacts arising from construction projects is minimized primarily by compliance with NPDES permit requirements. For projects with an area of disturbance exceeding 1 acre, the City is required to file a Notice of Intent with Ecology for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, implemented by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Among other things, Ecology requires operators of regulated construction sites to develop and implement stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, and perform monitoring intended to identify exceedances or violations. Such compliance would be required of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment action as well as for other actions that would later occur during redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area. As a consequence, erosion and stormwater discharges associated with construction activities that would occur under the proposed action would not result in impacts to salmonid habitats in the action area. The risk of impacts arising from non -construction (or post -construction) stormwater runoff is minimized by City stormwater requirements. Technical requirements for the design of stormwater facilities are contained in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the City amendments to the manual (City of Renton 2010). Such facilities are also typically compliant with Ecology's Stormwater Management ManualforWestern Washington (Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). The City's stormwater management standards are focused on reducing potential pollution from impervious surfaces (Renton 2009 and King County 2009). Redevelopment and new development are required to comply with the current standards for stormwater treatment and discharge. The majority of the Planned Action Study Area was developed prior to the advent of modern stormwater requirements. Since the Planned Action Study Area is already fully developed with approximately 62% impervious surface, redevelopment under modern standards will result in improved stormwater detention, treatment and infiltration, relative to current conditions. The stormwater management code also requires the use of flow -control best management practices (BMPs), where feasible. Flow -control BMPs include many low impact development techniques such as infiltration, dispersion, rain gardens, permeable pavements, vegetative roofs, rainfall harvesting, reduction of impervious area, and retention of native vegetation. Where impervious surfaces cannot feasibly be dispersed or infiltrated, the code requires that a minimum portion of the site or impervious area be managed through these practices. Small lots of less than 22,000 square feet are required to provide either full infiltration/dispersion of stormwater, where feasible, or provide flow -control BMPs for an impervious area equal to 10% or 20% of the site area, where infiltration is not feasible, depending on if the lot is less than or greater than 11,000 square feet, respectively. For larger lots in excess of 22,000 square feet, the total allowable impervious area exceeds 65% for all zoning classifications; therefore, all potential new or redevelopment projects within the Planned Action Study Area are required to comply with the flow -control requirements for Large Lot High Impervious BMP requirements that require flow -control BMPs to manage 10% of the site. Additional Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 13 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton flow control may be required within the Johns Creek Basin to match peak flows under existing conditions. Areas within May Creek and Honey Creek basins are required to comply with City regulations requiring all stormwater detention and treatment to be consistent with the 2009 King County stormwater manual. With this compliance, the projects would match the forested discharge duration for the discharge rates between 50% of the 2 -year peak flow through the 50 -year peak flow and match the 2 -year and 10 -year peak discharge assuming forested site conditions. Redevelopment to the levels projected to occur by 2030 would, assuming no further change in stormwater regulation, result in a net reduction in untreated pollutant -generating impervious surface, with commensurate improvements in stormwater quality. These protections are sufficient to ensure that redevelopment actions under Alternative 2 would not cause adverse impacts on fish and their habitat in the Planned Action Study Area or in waters receiving runoff from the area. A detailed quantification of stormwater impervious surfaces and treatment is presented in Table 3. As shown there, development in the May and Honey Creek watersheds would result in an increase in total impervious area from 6.95 acres to 8.46 acres, an increase of 1.51 acres. The area of pollutant -generating impervious surface [PGIS] would remain the same., but due to adoption of BMPs, the area of untreated PGIS would decline by 0.42 acres. Due to the reduction in untreated PGIS, pollutant loading from the area would likely be decreased. Due to compliance with flow control requirements, peak flow discharges would also be decreased. These changes would benefit fish and their habitat in May and Honey Creeks relative to current conditions. Since the Johns Creek watershed does not support anadromous salmonids, stormwater effects there are of secondary importance, but the pollutant loading and peak flow reductions described above for May and Honey Creeks would occur there as well. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 14 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Table 3. Summary of Impervious Surface and Stormwater Treatment. Note: PGIS = Pollutant -generating impervious surface. Indirect Effects The proposed action is intended to facilitate growth within the Planned Action Study Area. Projected growth is summarized in Table 4. Note that the projected growth for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would occur by 2013, while projected growth for the Planned Action Study Area would occur more slowly, over the period 2011-2030. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 15 ICF 00593.10 Geographic Area Johns May -Honey Planned Creek Creek ROWS Action Study Sunset Combined Parcels Parcels Area Terrace Total Area 184.75 13.91 56.74 255.40 13.06 268.46 (acres) Total Existing 105.62 6.95 48.61 161.17 4.73 165.90 Impervious Proposed 116.67 8.46 44.80 169.92 7.04 176.96 Area (acres) Percent Existing 57% SO% 860/o 63% 36% 61.8% Impervious Proposed 63% 61% 79% 67% 54% 65.9% Total PGIS Existing 51.43 2.16 39.72 93.31 1.83 95.14 (acres) Proposed 36.58 2.15 37.67 76.40 2.43 78.83 Percent PGIS Existing 28% 16% 70% 37% 14% 35% Proposed 20% 15% 66% 30% 19% 29% Total Untreated Existing 46.87 1.97 39.72 88.56 1.83 90.39 PGIS (acres) Proposed 21.43 1.52 25.06 48.01 0 48.01 Percent Existing 25% 14% 70% 35% 14% 34% Untreated PGIS Proposed 12% 11% 44% 194/% 0% 18% Flow Control Existing 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 BMPs (acres) Proposed 4.44 0.25 2.79 7.49 2.82 10.30 Effective Existing 105.62 6.95 48.61 161.17 4.73 165.90 Impervious Proposed 112.22 8.20 42.01 162.44 4.22 166.66 (acres) Percent Existing 57.2% 49.9% 85.7% 63.1% 36.2% 61.8% Effective Proposed 60.7% 59.0% 74.0% 63.6% 32.3% 62.1% Impervious Note: PGIS = Pollutant -generating impervious surface. Indirect Effects The proposed action is intended to facilitate growth within the Planned Action Study Area. Projected growth is summarized in Table 4. Note that the projected growth for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would occur by 2013, while projected growth for the Planned Action Study Area would occur more slowly, over the period 2011-2030. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 4 15 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Table 4. Summary of Land Capacity—Existing and Net Additional Growth above Existing Location Type of Land Use Existing' Net Growth Potential Sunset Terrace Dwelling units 114 479 Redevelopment Jobs 0 182 Planned Action Study Area (including Dwelling units 1,289 2,289 Sunset Terrace redevelopment) Population 2,978 5,789 Jobs 1,306 3,322 ' Dwellings are based on King County Assessor 2010 data. Population estimated using a household size of 2.31, an average of census tracts 252 and 254. Jobs are based on transportation model estimates for 2006. The forecast growth could result in increased pollutant generation both within and outside of the Planned Action Study Area area, and a portion of these pollutants could be delivered to streams, affecting fish and their habitat. However these increases are not expected to result in environmental impacts proportional to the forecast growth in housing, jobs and population, for the following reasons: Redevelopment plans entail creation of a functional community within the Planned Action Study Area that includes housing, jobs, education, and retail services. This redevelopment strategy is intended to reduce residents' reliance on vehicles and commuting. This would in turn reduce vehicle -related impacts on stormwater and the environment. • Similarly, redevelopment plans are intended to support local pedestrian mobility and use of public transit rather than reliance on individual vehicles, again with beneficial consegences for stormwater. Existing housing and infrastructure in the area mostly dates to the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Redevelopment consistent with the planned action will result in more energy- efficient construction, better performance of infrastructure, superior stormwater detention and treatment, and widespread implementation of environmentally friendly technologies in the area. These measures may be expected to reduce per -capita impacts related to pollutant generation and runoff. For these reasons, incremental impacts attributable to population growth and urbanization would not result in harmful impacts to anadromous salmonids or their habitat in the action area. Effects from Interrelated and Interdependent Actions One potentially interrelated and interdependent actions is foreseeable within the action area. This is a planned upgrade to NE Sunset Boulevard, also known as SR 900. However, upgrades to NE Sunset Boulevard are not necessary for the proposed action to occur. Also, the proposed upgrades are expected to occur regardless of whether the proposed action occurs, so the two actions are fully independent. NE Sunset Boulevard in the action area is not limited by capacity or by level of service. The proposed NE Sunset Boulevard improvements would not be funded by HUD and thus do not share a federal nexus with the proposed action of Sunset Terrace redevelopment and the associated Planned Biological Assessment December 2030 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 16 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Action growth. Neither the Sunset Terrace redevelopment nor the SR 900 improvements depend on one another. Therefore the proposed work on NE Sunset Boulevard does not constitute an interrelated or interdependent action. Chapter 5 Conclusions The action area does not contain suitable habitat for Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, Puget Sound bull trout, or golden paintbrush. None of these species have been reported to occur in the action area, and the action area does not contain proposed or designated critical habitat for any of these species. Accordingly the proposed action would have no effect on Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, Puget Sound bull trout, or golden paintbrush. Within the action area, May Creek contains spawning, rearing, and migration habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon are known to currently occupy this habitat, and May Creek in the action area is designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. May Creek is not within the project area, but stormwater originating in the project area may be discharged to May Creek and its tributary Honey Creek. Therefore the Planned Action proposal has the potential to affect Chinook salmon by altering the volumes and pollutant loads in stormwater discharged to May and Honey Creeks. Note that the great majority of the action area, including the Sunset Terrace redevelopment, is not within the May or Honey Creek watershed: it is within the watershed of Johns Creek, which does not support anadromous salmonids. Potential impacts would be minimized by compliance with the general NPDES permit for construction projects and by constructing projects using treatment and flow control techniques required under City code, the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and Ecology's 2005 Storm water Management Manual for Western Washington. Additionally, the proposed project also incorporates specific design measures to minimize stormwater impacts. The effect of these measures will be to reduce both pollutant -generating impervious surface and peak flow discharges within the project area. Because stormwater effects under the proposed action would be reduced compared to existing conditions, the proposed action may affect, is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Since the effects of stormwater discharge alter the physical attributes of the aquatic environment, they primarily accrue to habitat rather than to organisms, although stormwater discharges can also affect an organism's physiology and health. By the rationale described above, the proposed action would reduce stormwater effects to habitat compared to existing conditions. Thus the proposed action may affect, is not likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Within the action area, May Creek also provides migration habitat for Puget Sound steelhead, and May Creek in the action area is designated critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. By the same rationale described above for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and their designated critical habitat, the proposed action may affect, is not likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead or designated critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. Biological Assessment 5-17 December 2010 Sunset Area community Planned Action ICF oos93.10 City of Renton Chapter 6 Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The objective of this EFH assessment is to determine whether or not the proposed action(s) "may adversely affect" designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally -managed fisheries species within the proposed action area. It also describes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed action. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action is described in Chapter 1. Essential Fish Habitat Designations The action area includes designated EFH for Pacific salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999). There are two Pacific salmon species that could occur in the action area: Chinook salmon and coho salmon. Chinook salmon are known to occur in May Creek, and coho salmon are known to occur in May Creek, and also in the lowermost 0.32 miles of Honey Creek above its confluence with May Creek. A discussion of designated EFH and life histories is included in Amendment 14, Appendix A to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (Pacific Fishery Management Council 1999). Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures Conservation measures incorporated into the proposed action to minimize potential effects on salmonids are described in Chapter 1. Conclusions The Proposed Project has the potential to affect designated EFH through the discharge of stormwater to Honey and May Creeks. Potential impacts from this activity include alteration of water quantity and quality, as well as geomorphic effects of altered flow including channel changes, bank erosion, embedding of substrate, Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 6-18 ICF D0593.10 City of Renton and alteration of spawning gravel quantity and quality. Due to conservation measures incorporated in project design, peak runoff from the project area, which is currently almost 62% impervious surface, would be reduced. Acreage of pollutant generating impervious surface would likewise be reduced. Accordingly, the proposed action would not adversely affect designated EFH for Pacific Salmon. Chapter 7 References City of Renton and King County. 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan. April. City of Renton. 2006. Monitoring Report: Gene Coulon Park Microbial Source Tracking Study. May. City of Renton. 2010. Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. King County and City of Renton. 2001. Final Adopted May Creek Basin Action Plan. April. Updated September 14, 2010. Available: <http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/watersheds/cedar- river-lake-wa/may-creek/may-creek-basin-plan.aspx>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. King County. 2009. Surface Water Design Manual. Seattle, WA: King County. StreamNet. 2010. Results of a database search for fish occurrence in May Creek and Honey Creek, King County, Washington. Available: <http://www.streamnet.org>. Accessed: September 15, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species Of Concern in King County As Prepared By the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (Revised August 26, 2010). Available: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/KingO82610.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. National Wetlands Inventory. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/, last updated November 3, 2010; accessed November 8, 2010. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010a. Priority Habitats and Species database. Electronic database files detailing priority habitats and species occurrences within 1 mile of the Planned Action Study Area. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010b. Salmonscape database. Electronic online database files detailing salmon occurrence in Washington State. Access: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/, accessed November 8, 2010. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. February. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009. 2008 Washington Water Quality Assessment. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html. Accessed November 23, 2010. Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 7-19 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton Appendix A Life History and Status of the Species Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) or Distinct Population Segment (DPS), if applicable: Puget Sound ESU General Life History Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is the largest of the pacific salmon. Also known as "king" salmon, adult Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into fresh water streams and rivers of their birth where they spawn and die. Among Chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. 1) A "stream -type" Chinook is found most commonly in headwater streams. Stream -type Chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months. 2) An "ocean -type" Chinook is commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean -type Chinook typically migrate to sea within the first three months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in freshwater prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in coastal waters. Ocean -type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and late -fall runs, but summer and fall runs predominate (Healey 1991). The difference between these life history types is physical, with both genetic and morphological foundations. Adult female Chinook will prepare a spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel composition, water depth and velocity. Depending on the ESU, redds may be created in the spring or through the fall months. Redds will vary widely in size and in location within the stream or river. The adult female Chinook may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 "nesting pockets" within a single redd. After laying eggs in a redd, adult Chinook will guard the redd from 4 to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Stream flow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the survival of developing Chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile Chinook may spend from 3 months to 2 years in freshwater after emergence and before migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then into the ocean to feed and mature. Juvenile ocean -type Chinook tend to utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. Juvenile Chinook salmon feed primarily on aquatic insect larvae and terrestrial insects, typically in the near shore areas The following are the specific life history details for the Puget Sound ESU of Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Chinook salmon The range for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU includes the all marine, estuarine and river reaches accessible to listed Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound marine areas include South Sound, Hood Canal, and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer extent of the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan De Fuca to a straight line extending north from the west Biological Assessment December 2410 Sunset Area Community Planned Action ICF 00593.ia City of Renton end of Freshwater Bay, inclusive. Excluded are areas above Tolt Dam (WA), Landsburg Diversion (WA), Alder Dam (WA), and Elwha Dam (WA) or above longstanding, natural impassable barriers (i,e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). Adult Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into fresh water streams and rivers of their birth where they spawn and die. Among Chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. 1) A "stream -type" Chinook is found most commonly in headwater streams. Stream -type Chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months. 2) A "ocean -type" Chinook, which is commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean -type Chinook typically migrate to sea within the first three months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in freshwater prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in coastal waters. Ocean -type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and latefall runs, but summer and fall runs predominate (Healey 1991). The difference between these life history types is physical, with both genetic and morphological foundations. Adult female Chinook will prepare a spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel composition, water depth and velocity. Redds will vary widely in size and in location within the stream or river. The adult female Chinook may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 "nesting pockets" within a single redd. After laying eggs in a redd, adult Chinook will guard the redd from 4 to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Stream flow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the survival of developing Chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile Chinook may spend from 3 months to 2 years in freshwater after emergence and before migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then into the ocean to feed and mature. Juvenile ocean -type Chinook tend to utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. Juvenile Chinook salmon feed primarily on aquatic insect larvae and terrestrial insects, typically in the near shore areas. Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatch and rear in streams and rivers flowing into Puget Sound, and the Dungeness River and its tributaries. Steelhead Trout General Life History The present spawning distribution of steelhead (0. mykiss) extends from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia, east through Alaska, and south to southern California. The historical range of steelhead extended at least as far south as the Mexican border (Busby et a1.1996). Anadromous forms of 0. mykiss are called steelhead, and nonanadromous forms (freshwater resident forms) are called rainbow trout. Steelhead exhibits perhaps the greatest diversity of life history patterns of any Pacific salmonid species. Individuals rear in freshwater between one and four years and remain at sea between one and four years. Other sources indicate that steelhead can spend up to 7 years in fresh water prior to smoltification and then spend up to 3 years in salt water prior to first spawning (Busby et al. 1996). In the Pacific Northwest, steelhead that enter freshwater systems between May and October are considered summer Steelhead (stream -maturing type) and steelhead that enter fresh water between November and April are considered winter Steelhead (ocean -maturing type). Summer steelhead Biological Assessment December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 21 ICF 00593.10 City of Renton enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and require several months to mature and spawn; whereas, winter steelhead enter fresh water with well-developed gonads and spawn shortly thereafter. Some river basins have both summer and winter runs, but some rivers only have one type. In rivers where the two types co-occur, they are often separated by a seasonal hydraulic barrier, such as a waterfall. Unlike the five Pacific salmon species, steelheads are iteroparous, they do not invariably die after spawning. Some significant post -spawning mortality occurs, however, a small number of steelhead adults migrate out of the river after spawning and return to spawn in subsequent years (Busby et al. 1996). The frequency of multiple spawnings is variable both within and among populations of steelhead. For North American steelhead populations north of Oregon, repeat spawning is relatively uncommon, and more than two spawning migrations are rare. In Oregon and California, the frequency of two spawning migrations is higher, but more than two spawning migrations are still unusual. Iteroparous steelhead are predominately female. Puget Sound Steelhead The following summary is taken from the NMFS listing notice for Puget Sound steelhead (72 FR 26722). Puget Sound steelhead includes more than 50 stocks of summer- and winter -run fish, the latter being the most widespread and numerous of the two run types. Hatchery steelhead production in Puget Sound is widespread and focused primarily on the propagation of winter -run fish derived from a stock of domesticated, mixed -origin steelhead (the Chambers Creek Hatchery stock) originally native to a small Puget Sound stream that is now extirpated from the wild. Hatchery summer -run steelhead are also produced in Puget Sound; these fish are derived from the Skamania River in the Columbia River Basin. The majority of hatchery stocks are not considered part of this distinct population segment (DPS) because they are more than moderately diverged from the local native populations (NMFS 2005). Resident O. mykiss occur within the range of Puget Sound steelhead but are not part of the DPS due to marked differences in physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral characteristics (71 FR 15666). References for Appendix A Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. Leirheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAH Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 281 p. Healey, M.C. 1991. The life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), Life history of Pacific salmon, p. 311-393. Univ. B.C. Press, Vancouver, B.C. NMFS. 2005. Status Review Update for Puget Sound Steelhead. Seattle, WA: National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center. July. Biological Assessment 22 December 2010 Sunset Area Community Planned Action 1CF 00593.10 t2 z O D m O Uj LU U, I.j ryW W NE 15TH ST z O 1.6 LU Lai L Z j W ++ NE 16TH STcc trek Gy,PS�i �' SE 92ND ST City Limits EM Planned Action Study Area J4 ' z �9 =Water Bodies N3I......... Z Uj a W _j y ►x- W NE 14TH ST z O p —Streams OO¢ NE 13TH PL SE 93RD ST Parcels Y�i� _ O z - - �SrNSr w Z a V- Potential Sunset Terrace c 1;7y- t 771t. ' N�pP��O Redevelopment Subarea �ExgT'r15� t, z o v Drainage Basins � NE 28TH ST Q, Honey Creek NE 27Th Sr 7 m O May Creek NE 26TH PLJohns � (D L Creek r� - - ` } j n Salmonid Habitat - • Q NE 25TH ST z M —Coho r - NE 24TH ST-- ¢ NE 24TH ST Fall Chinook -, in W WinterSteelhead NE 23RD PL z NE 23RD 57 N A W NE 21ST ..... �y i r "' - z o ST C z w z ._ W a soo aao W NE 20TH ST ¢ Ujeel LU 2 t2 z O D m O Uj LU U, I.j ryW W NE 15TH ST z O 1.6 LU Lai L Z j z � - N 8TH ST----'!! a ' Y � I rr z d ? ¢ z LU O cc a N KTP GT Source: City of Renton; CH2M Hill; WDrw NE 12TH ST W ++ NE 16TH STcc ¢ N z W a z O o _ ! �� J4 ' z �9 W . �, ".�, -� Z Uj a W _j y ►x- W NE 14TH ST z O p p OO¢ NE 13TH PL z � NE 8TH ST Y�i� _ O z - - �SrNSr w Z a V- c 1;7y- t 771t. ' N�pP��O z X y �/.irHsT t, z o v �4�, p Q, 7 m z � - N 8TH ST----'!! a ' Y � I rr z d ? ¢ z LU O cc a N KTP GT Source: City of Renton; CH2M Hill; WDrw NE 12TH ST Ja w o _ ! �� J4 ' z �9 W . �, ".�, -� Z Uj a W LU _j y ►x- W /mss• O p w z SE95'tAWAY 4, 17TH PL 17TH ST Qw W J = a z wi V CL a UNE 11TH PL O� w o _ z 1p , NE 10TH ST ' z �9 W it d 9r1� pt W LU _j y ►x- W a NE 9TH ST O p 3 z z ww z ?cZ 4n z a a NF srk sr z � NE 8TH ST Y�i� _ O z - - �SrNSr w Z a V- . ;� =1"o z o z X y �/.irHsT t, z o v m m q NE 6TH CT w z SE95'tAWAY 4, 17TH PL 17TH ST Qw W J = a z wi V CL a UNE 11TH PL O� w o _ z Uj z a W it d z W LU _j 4 a NE 9TH ST O p 3 z z � NE 8TH ST NE 7TH ST NE 6TH PL NE 6TH ST 'CF Figure 1 Aquatic H:.hitat INTERN ATIo NAL Draft Biological Assessment for Sunset Area Community Planned Action Department of Commerce ' Innovation is in our nature. Notification for 60 -Day Review of Development Regulation Amendment Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the following hereby provides 60 -day notice of intent to adopt the following development regulation amendments. Jurisdiction Name: City of Renton Address: Erika Conkling, AICP Phone Number: 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Date: 425.420.6578 Fax Number: March 15, 2011 Contact Name for Ordinance: Erika Conkling, AICP Phone Number: 425.420.6578 Fax Number: 425.430.7300 E -Mail Address: econkling@rentonwa.gov Brief Description of the Proposed Development Regulation Amendment: ❑ Check the box if this is Supplemental Material for an existing amendment already submitted to CTED. Please also provide the date submitted and/or CTED Material ID number. The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and promote associated neighborhood growth and revitalization as part of a Planned Action. We are providing you an electronic copy of draft plan and code amendments necessary to implement the Sunset Area Community Planned Action. These include: • Amendments to the City's Capital Facilities, Transportation, and Utilities elements of its Comprehensive Plan to incorporate capital projects identified in the Sunset Area Planned Action; and • A proposed planned action ordinance for the Sunset Area Community. The proposal is described in summary form in Exhibit B of the proposed Planned Action Ordinance for your reference. Planned Public Hearing Date: April 6, 2011 Planned Date of Adoption: May 2011 Please Attach a Draft of the Proposed Amendment. (Attachment Reguired Amended 03/11111432-49-49 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT 2007-2012 01-11 Develop and implement the capital facilities plan for the City of Renton. Iii Amended 03!1 LQ I j2iWO Purpose The purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan is: • to identify the new or expanded public facilities that will be needed to accommodate --at an established level of service --the growth projected to occur within the City of Renton in the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan; and • to identify the sources of public financing for these public facilities. Methods and Process The Capital Facilities Plan relies heavily on the analyses and policies presented in the other seven elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as in the Fire Department Master Plan, Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, Issaquah, Kent and Renton School District's Capital Improvement Plans, and City of Renton Annual Capital Improvements Plan. For detailed information and explanations concerning growth projections, land use determinations, existing facilities, level of service, etc., the reader must consult these documents. The Capital Facilities Plan incorporates by reference the information and analyses presented in these other documents and the annual updates to these plans concerning existing facilities and level of service standards. Based on these other documents, the Capital Facilities Plan establishes policies for determining which public facilities should be built and how they should be paid for, and presents a six-year plan for the use of public funds toward building and funding the needed capital facilities. The process for arriving at the six-year plan involved identifying existing facilities and level of service standards and then applying the projected growth in residential population and employment to identify the needed capital facilities. The timing of the facilities was established through a combination of the requirements of the city's concurrency policy and the length of time it takes to implement the needed facility. Type and Providers of Capital Facilities For the purposes of complying with the requirements of the GMA, the Capital Facilities PIan proposes a six-year plan for the following capital facilities and providers: transportation City of Renton domestic water City of Renton sanitary sewer City of Renton surface water City of Renton parks facilities City of Renton fire City of Renton police City of Renton economic development City of Renton 1II-2 ! Amended 03 Il l `] 1 124M8 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS Passed by the legislature in 1990, the Growth Management Act establishes planning goals as well as specific content requirements to guide local jurisdictions in the development and adoption of comprehensive plans. One of the thirteen planning goals stated in the Act is to: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. (RCW 36.70AA20(12)) To this end, the Act requires that each comprehensive plan contains: A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at Ieast a six-year plwi that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. (RCW 36.70A.070(3)) With respect to transportation facilities, the Act is more specific, requiring that: ...transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development and defining "concurrent with development" to mean "that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years." (RCW 36.70A.070(6)) The Act also requires that: ...cities shall perform their activities and make capital budget decisions in conformity with their comprehensive plans. (RCW 36.70A.120) Administrative Regulations (WAC 365-195) In support of the GMA legislation, state administrative regulations require that the Capital Facilities Plan consist of at least the following features (WAC 365-195-315(1)): 1. An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. 2. A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. 3. The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. 4. At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. III -3 Amended 03_`11 "1112�08,'0# 5. A reassessment of the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs. In the administrative regulations, the state recommends that in addition to transportation, concurrency should be sought for domestic water and sanitary sewer systems. (WAC 365-195- 060(3)) Additionally, the regulations state that the planning for all elements, including the Capital Facilities Plan, should be undertaken with the goal of economic development in mind even though the Act does not mandate an economic development element for the plan. (WAC 365- 195-060(2)) GROWTH PROJECTIONS The Puget Sound Regional Council population and employment forecast growth for the City over the twenty -one-year interval from 2001 to 2022 is an increase of 9,723 households, and 33,600 jobs. Growth targets adopted by the Growth Management Planning Council anticipate 6,198 households and 27,597 jobs. Both forecast growth and targets are well within the City's estimated land capacity of 11,261 units and 32,240 jobs established through the Buildable Lands requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Renton is planning for its regional share of forecast growth over the next 20 years at the high end of the range, and the adopted target at the low end of the range. In the first 9 years of growth management actual growth in Renton exceeded targets, but was within the range predicted by the forecast growth assumptions. With external factors, including the regional economy, state/federal transportation funding and the GMA regulatory environment remaining constant or improving, Renton's growth is anticipated to continue over the next 6 year planning cycle. The following chart summarizes Renton's forecast growth, targets and land use capacity. III -4 City of Adjustment Estimated 2007-2012 Renton Reflecting Growth, Growth Per Year Capital Annexation, and Land (for the 16 years Facilities Plan Use Changes up to remaining in the Estimates For 2006 target) City of Renton Forecast 9,723 units None 463 units 2,778 units Growth 33,600 jobs 1,600 jobs 9,600 jabs 2001-2022 22,266 (21 yrs) population Growth 6,198 units 2,257 units 141 units 846 units Targets 27,597 jobs 24,797 jobs 1,505 jobs 9300 jobs 2022 14,194 population Capacity 11,261 12,192 units NA NA established units 28,589 jobs by ' 32,240 jobs Buildable Lands 25,788 2006-2022 population III -4 Awt:nded 03/1 ]1112/09, 9 For the purpose of developing a six-year capital facilities plan for the period from 2007 through 2012, an estimate was made as to the amount of the remaining 21 -year growth to be realized during the six-year Capital Facilities Element planning cycle. After reviewing the projections and the underlying assumptions, it was determined that for planning purposes, the most prudent course was to assume a uniform allocation of the forecast growth and targets over the 21 -year period, rather than trying to predict year by year economic cycles. Renton's growth over the first years of growth management is occurring more rapidly than originally forecast. The estimate for 2001 was 48,456 persons however the actual population by April 1, 2001 was 51,140, exceeding forecast growth by 2,684 persons housed in 1,177 housing units over a 6 year period (196 units per year). By April 1, 2004, the City population was 55,360, representing an increase of another 4,220 residents and an estimated 1, 850 units. The number of units realized between 2002 and 2004 exceeds the forecast projection of 1,389 units by 461 units (153 units per year). Some of this development can be explained by new housing developed in areas annexing to the City. However, the increase exceeds the proportional share of housing target and forecast growth assigned to this annexation area and assumed by the City upon annexation_ For the purposes of the next phase of the planning cycle, the 2007 to 2012 six-year Capital Facilities Plan, Renton will continue plan for the next six-year increment of forecast growth assuming an increase of 2,778 units and 9,600 jobs. Forecast growth represents the upper end of expected growth, while the target of 846 units and 9,300 jobs represented the minimum amount of growth expected for this period. The City's population in the year 2012 is forecast as 61,694 persons. To be sure, growth will not occur precisely as projected over the next six-year or the 21 -year period. Recognizing this fact, the Capital Facilities Plan should be updated at least biennially. In this way local governments have the opportunity to re-evaluate their forecasts in light of the actual growth experienced, revise their forecasts for the next six years if necessary, and adjust the number and timing of capital facilities that would be needed during the ensuing six-year period. The City performed such a review of the Capital Facilities Plan in 2004 and determined that there was not a need to adjust the growth forecast or the number and timing of capital facilities. This conclusion was based on a finding that although actual growth was higher than forecast, the level of service standards were being maintained. Subsequent reviews may result in revisions to the growth projections and the number and timing of capital facilities if actual growth continues to exceed the forecast growth As stated in Policy CFP -1, this Capital Facilities Plan is anticipated to be updated regularly as part of the city's budget process, thereby ensuring that the Plan reflects the most current actual statistics related to growth in Renton, and that capital facilities are slated for implementation in accordance with both the level of service standards and the city's concurrency policy. It is anticipated that the City will fully implement this policy (CFP -1) in the annual budget process. I11-5 IAmended 03/11/1112={WO CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN POLICIES 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. 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 -7. Adopt by reference the most current Kent School District # 415 Capital Facilities Plan and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan. Policy CFP -S. Adopt by reference the most current Issaquah School District #411 Capital Facilities Plan and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a school impact fee consistent with the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan. 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. (.See the Public Facilities and Annexation Sections of the Land Use Element, the Parks, Recreation Trails and Open Space Element, the Utilities Ele)nent, and the Transportation Elements.for policies related to this Capital Facilities Plan.) III -6 Amended 03!11/1 1�$ TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2008-2013 Inventory of Existing Facilities Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 on the following pages indicate the degree to which Renton's transportation system is integrally linked to the regional transportation system. The first exhibit is of the existing street and highway system; the second depicts traffic flows on that system in 2002; and, the third depicts daily traffic volumes forecasted for 2022. In Renton perhaps more than in any other jurisdiction in the Puget Sound area, actions relating to the transportation system have local and regional implications. Level of Service Background In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton has adopted a LOS policy in that emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. The LOS policy is based on three premises: Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision -makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. 111-7 Amcndcd 03/11i114-2v'081DS Fig. 7-1 Existing Street/Highway System III -8 Amended 0311 1- 1112; 12;W0 1n — .� Figure 7-2 Traffic Flow Map s 1-4D5 99 s rm n F c b �i s III -9 i on M M>a 6T CITY pF RCnTOr% � r Y 2002 - MA 7x ROM YAP i � re woar rr. 0TY OF PENTON 2002 TRAFFIC FLOW ��.AP DETI�R1MEwT _ PV++NXG/blA:q+G/eV(R�C 1RAt1$P(FTaj Ssx s UNS+(x A"4FA'b0�'± 5CL1T7+ n 0 t c�..wcc ,o Sn 5:µL I� - IOB,DOp YCru:;i5 ,o •w nl oe vcwacs MVa cElal� AYEAlISS U+ST f�ss�ti c Nerxsr as su £ as z tsa+M Cr � I -+as) +.n c -w scut. M M>a 6T CITY pF RCnTOr% � r Y 2002 - MA 7x ROM YAP i � re woar rr. Amended 431E 111 t 1?/ABIs$ Fig. 7-3 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes a,f.E 5. .Sba 14 -r 14, rT __,. -1\ � � ✓�� _�� �` � , i.,..-. ,.r � .. a:,`'�. � E 1 � E� � ' r _�€ i�'i� I �w�l3i~i, � � '�-- W- uI i _ Y •-C {� _.. �� ,'� '�� °= rE 4�� ` L~ r p j - T _ 1 { 3 1' dth S1 )e,' enton �-=�' - � i- �N, � - •- ,��� sem_ - .� i3 ` � f ��R'l � \��� f lx J4 � ! ✓ l 2022 Daily Traffic Volumes Ail, a..... +'� =� Legend axe si ? I Daily Traffic Transportation City Limit a Plan j Renton acv Planning Area Amended 0.1 11r11124)96" The LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non -motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally linked, locally oriented, dynamic transportation system; * Meet requirements of the Growth Management Act; • Meet the requirements of the Countywide Planning Policies Level of Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide flexibility for Renton to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS standards by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non -motorized and TDM measures assist in meeting multi- modal goals of Renton and the region. The Level of Service Standard Methodolog The following table demonstrates how the LOS policy is applied. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been calculated for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30 -minute travel distance for SOV, HOV and Transit as follows: Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit (includes access time) LOS Standard XX miles XX miles 2 times X miles = XX XX Cit)Mide Level of Service Standard (Years 2002 and 2022) The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30 -minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. Therefore, SOV improvements will need to be implemented to raise the SOV equivalent or a combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the LOS standard. Renton's Transportation Improvement Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub -Elements have been tested against the above LOS standard to assure that the Plan meets the year 2022 standard. IAmended 03111 J t 1 X08 Citywide Level of Service Index (Year2002): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit (includes access time) LOS Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* *Rounded NOTE: A LOS index of 42 has been determined for the year 2002 by the new calibrated (2002-2022) transportation model that reflects 2002 and 2022 land use data. The 2002 LOS index of 42 is shown above, and is the basis for the 2022 LOS standard. City-wide Level of Service Standard (Year 2022): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit (includes access time) LOS Standard 15 miles 17 miles 10 miles 42 The City of Renton I.OS standard is used to evaluate citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures are based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non -motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi- modal goals of Renton and the region. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2008-2013 The transportation 6 -year facilities plan is based on achieving the desired level of service by the year 2022 through an annual program of consistent and necessary improvements and strategies. Additionally, the plan includes projects such as bridge inspections, street overlay programs, traffic signal maintenance, and safety improvements that are needed as part of the City's annual work program. Projects that promote economic development also are included, as encouraged by the GMA. See Figure 7-4 on the following page for the latest adopted 6 -year plan. The first step in developing the 6 -year funding plan was to establish a 20 -year plan that included arterial, HOV and transit components. This effort resulted in a planning level cost estimate of $171.24-34 million.' The cost for arterials and HOV are total costs (or Renton's share of the cost of joint projects with WSDOT and local jurisdictions). The transit costs include only the local match for local feeder system improvements, park and ride lots, signal priority and transit amenities. Having established a 20 -year funding level of $171.24-34 million, an annual funding level of $8.57 million was established. With this funding level, it is reasonably certain that the desired level of service will be maintained over the intervening years as long as the facilities funded each ' The $171.2 million estimate of cost for the 20 -year transportation plan includes an estimated $37.2 million in transportation projects for the Sunset Area Community identified in the Sunset Area Communi!y Planned Action EIS. These projects were analyzed for the 2010-2030 timeframe, and therefore, a portion of these costs may fall outside the City's existing 2022 planning horizon. III -12 Amended 0311 I11 112'08! I8 year are consistent with the 20 -year plan and transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously emphasized. The funding source projections in Figure 7.5 are based upon the assumption that: gas tax revenue would continue at no less than $0.35 million per year; that grant funding would increase tote ,-.,aintain $5.75 9 million per year; business license fees would continue at $1.88 million per year based on the current 85% of the annual revenue generated from this fee that is dedicated to fund transportation improvements; and that $0.57 million per year from mitigation fees would be maintained. Based on forecasts of total new vehicle trips from development, a mitigation fee of $75 per trip has been established. Developers are required to implement site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent facility impacts are mitigated, as well as paying their required fees. III -13 I Amended 03/11/ H 1NO 08 f4g pil,74 2008 2013 Six Veer TIP Total Projeet Costs C€'Y Or RENTON PLANNING! 6URJM�, ! P;MUC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYS jr EMS DIVISION'' 2998-2913 SIX-YEAR T!p Tn15'.. C-0, THP p.0,ETW, 2 D LU 7629 2015 20i2 j S., 2313 :p",d y.., Tots; Cost 1E � M "Ji wo� �6fl5WIQ 4 34 4 A _ ... _4�� 240, —1 ]L-tl ..... ..... .. .. .. . ..... 2S4 5m ocs� on L.GfA 3. 582, 3.b3i.475 2,55Ws.0m: 515 000.� 2,75p .OM 5,25ciDm 5.253.000 ___7l'_8_1X A- G,a5y W.y w S T.d ST, L 7,996.301 9, 2 IM M 2_C;yl' y.p9li.3s! j HE Pq gY^rinavnanz A N E '—d- 43 ............. A- N Wld;nr �La� D, B�,dq� R.P�act 185,$0920,OM M__C�7 OCD�l 7M.Ool 1,56,.9,!.' In iI N1w.—Y NE 4,t, Pp 14 gnd� 1�[, i o, -:;l �,G ox.l ..-3*,DOJ h2c,,M 773,21"T !nw y ctionSatet 8Mc6ili 150.00C 4"a")ON 2:q3,(i� M.Wl 2 5c pco25L.Dr 250,,XD! <c 5P.Gic. s.Yio.rw �f Traffic S:a1rl Program :7 5chnol zo" S. . 1- . .2, '3k .553 2X., � 03 ZO.CQC# i - _ 2 ,,OM' I WPM 3@0,7631 1 c 00: 2 Cl C,3C 25,49z: is oap en, in7 P, DON _nLDDL� 25 C-C� so.om j�G N. " 4 7� 39.62 20;CO_� 2c� ClCt 25cm 25'aM' 2tLv00: I 0051 179 62e soow 30,0491 lo.Docl2-- OLO 'A' DON snz3t "p< ran I '53.345 Ec 10; 24.3CQ[ 1_2�_ 74;@1X3 �'o,qoN 442;3,u 49, 356: 61.0cQ.: R 49$ - _j_ sla.Dw! 8' xx-I 35e.cl�l — ------- 52' 75?: wfk—y. .Ai ^x IM ssinr tir*3 a;DDT27 520.377 'V� Sa'DOCI W� 239.1 �o: 4CLE 2srll 252.72 -'s P 287.. - 2 w CW�. 5 Cy., 21�.,..M_ 30 unj 000 At".)wl 2I. "Kin 2ZLW�_.'! 2' 01M 1w, u W5 iq.7ir me 4DMO 349 71 C�: s — O'.DW, 150.000 15pLOOO 1%for the A,is30 V H 4�4_r_Wy S - U.,,. 1. r--ot OODI 31'-0= 50.000 ^,Oa�)o A" 36DDO ;,4z 2-d;Mc Ath ":; — ----- 3.F40,QQ5' C,4""3(0 Wr- 2 1 Lj"W'O.e,41.7ktoGodoqPk 6-0 3_E9 I 4K,0001 I4ed.0*G , Lk. L. WA Trail C eLl 4.30, O'.'Cl T 000. OID OD� T.W 25 26.6711 21,4M_02z: iftU 5131 ;3,255.7:5 12,A24,K-Cl -7,33.5,i q f' v —7 2—a 111-14 7lrncmled 03111f111-`0948� 2006-2014 Six -Year TIP Total Project Costs CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2008-2024 SIX-YEAR TIP TIP Project Title PreVlous CIMS 2008 2909 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014+s Sia -Year Period Tota! Total Lest. 1 Slreef Ovedav 1,240,604 685,000 685,000 685,000 695,DOP 695, 695,ono 4,110,000 5,350.6 2 Arterial Rehab urogram 435,OW 470.400 310, 000 264,000 635,000 220,000 220,WO 2.120.000 2,555. 3 Duval! Ave NE 4,GM7,369 2,149,240 1,432,626 3,582,066 8,269,435 4 Duvall Ave NE -ging county 2,564,104 3.533475 3.533475 6,097}79 5 Dural! Ave NE - NE 7th Si to Sunset E 5,000 515,OOP 2,750, 7.,990, 5,250,000 5,250, 6 SR 169 HOV - 140th W SR900 6,380,481 1.544,500 2,550,000 4,094.500 10,474,981 7 Rainier Ave Grady Wayto S2nd St 7,996,391 10,200,004) 6,800,D00 3,7DD,DOCI 1,300.DW I 1 1 22,000,000 29,996,391 8 SW 2711, 511SEran1pr 9y Canned 9,326, d16 8.426, 81210000 1.11%.GM1 1,626,900 5,082,3 20,960,8 45,402.500 54,778,649 9 NE 4th SVII.quiam Ave NE 366,544 33,456 33,455 400, TX 10 Ripley tame 200,uou 447,000 647,000 -,47,00( 31 Garden Ave N Widening Swoon 500,00n 500,00 1,"rnm 1,500, 12 May Creek Bridge Replacement 185,809 20,000 550.WD 160,000 5,000 735.000 920,80 13 Monterrey/Ne 20111 SI Wail Rep 30,000 30,000 3U?Cx 14 Bridge 1nspection&Repair 138,273 100,000 330.000 50,1100 55,000 50"wo 50, 635,000 773.27- I S loterseclion Safety&Mobility 250, 400,000 250,Du 250,D00 250,000 250 OM 250, 1,650,D00 1,900, 16 Traflg Safety Program 131,663 20,400 2C.WD 40,DD0 40,000 4Q000,40,M 200.0011 331663 17 School Zone Sign Upgrades 200,103 100,000 100,000 300,103 18 RR Crossing Safety Program 5,499 5,400 5040 20.0001 21,499 19 loop Replxement Program 30, 20,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 30 OW 30, 165,000 195,000 20 Sign Mplaeemenl Program 9,953 5,000 5.00 ),500 7,500 1,5UC 7,500 40,000 49,953 21 Pole Program 39,626 20,000 20,000 25,000 25,000 25,VIC 2sroix 140,D00 179,626 22 Traffic Elti-ncy Program 156,113 50,000 50.000 50.000 30,000 30,0M 30,00C 240.000 396.113 23 Transit Progi am 53346 75,000 75,000 74,D00 74,000 74M 70,00(1 442,000 495,346 24 TDM Program 105,207 65,000 65000 65.000 65,D00 65, bs?000 390,000 495.207 25 Bicycle Route Dv Program 139,753 18,000 18,000 110,D00 BD, , 366,000 525,753 26 WalkwayProgram 920,372 250,000 250.100 250,000 250,000 ,000 1,7r0,OOP 2,680,372 27 Missing Links Program 59.190 36,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 .0011 18O,D00 239,19 28 Barrier Free Transition Plan implementation 50,000 50,000 50.000 50,000 ,000 3(10,000 300,00 29 South Renton Project 406,750 2, t250,250,660 2,000 408,25 3 Project Development/Predesi n 282,729 148, 200,000 200.0011 7n0. ,000 1,148,000 1,430.729 31 Arterial Grculation Program 287,806 200. 256,000 250,000 250,000 1,450, 1,737,806 32 Trans C-urrenCy 60,000 40,000 16,000 10,000 40, ,000 140, 200.0033 Environmental Monitoring 169,959 50. 3D,1100 30,000 30, ,,000 2ip. 149,969 S4 WSDOT Coordination Program 19,710 (Ispwo 65,000 60,000 6D, 411, 40,000 330, 349.71 35 GIS Needs Assessment 40,931 70. 20,000 ZO,D00 150,ODO 150,M 150,000 51 D'unol 1 550,931 3 1%tor the Arts 77,505 30,000 30,000 50,000 30, 30, 30,000 21)0,OCK 277,505 37 Houser Way S- Main to Burnett 356.006 350,000 350,OUQ 050, 1056 00 38 NE 3rd/NE 40 Corritlor 223,127 2, 320,000 4,950.MD 1,770,060 1,640,000 1,640,000 9,422,M 9.645.127 39 Lake Wash- BV.Park to Coulon Pk 325.413 62,413 138,325 220,738 546,151 40 Lind Ave SW 17th-SW43rtl 5,000 5, 5, 1,918,16(0 626,000 2,550, 2.555.00 41 Lagan Ave Concrete Panel Repair 460,000 460, 460,00 42 Sam Chasmin Lake WA Trail Connect I 50,DD01 650dD00 41300,100 5,000,CMX 5,000, 43 Sunset Boulevard -NE Park ❑r, 12 Mnnrne Ave- NE 22 500 000 22.500 CDO 22 500,000 44 NE 10Street- Sunset Blvd to HarrinPlon Are- NE 999,000 45 Sunset Lane -10� Street to Harr n�tor. Ave.NE ........,-.__-__-__ 46 Sunset Area Green Con,,,,I,eris 897 600 .72,802,.0,00 897 000 .._._, 1.7,862,000 897 000 12,802,000 Total Sources 1 37,999,668 29,828,671 21,610,826 16,804,513 13,266,725 12 624,90027,333,300 37,149 000 258,826 835 196_816723 'These_PLgt ys were anay eed for the ?610 2030 t neframe_as pan_of the Sunset Area Cpmmumry Planned Aclinn E15. Although same pralecis would b -g_ -in the lalterp ion o'the sa year T po?t-n_os of score of these_pr�etts vtvdr._ f Fh -City's ea' 163 2022 pla n n� hanenn- jll-15 Amended 0311 1 I1 1 �F$ ( ooS<D o Q oa a a c o oo c o € r�000laa s+f O a sal S, N ooe� rf L? 0 0 o O O n0 r3 O 0b O o p i M i N a al 46 W 747 M € u7 O O c s fh O O Lo0� W M r t0 c7 cntcviry � Li I E i7 , O C� a 0 O CY C4 C U O C7. O 4 I! C3 n G t� a:a O' 3.[) O rfl 0 N C+ di Cl 4 4 +"'. IO c3 0 4 C7 CT C? C7 U C�47 [7 0 co O ap 4 o? N r� € v r,-'• i% c� O 7 O 4 a r7 to a r r r7 Q �a N C, 01 N ,- RJ CY m N ccs 4 Q iG� 4 l0 0 4� -7 � 4^T .- i[3 N . N C7 r- fiF � N (1 N SCF 03 N � r I T i O C, OyL: u'7i4 fr7 o O :L7 O{O O'O O O sIS N O O O G O a O O ch N x�7! Cil rJ s V' W r`1 3'- o O . Cl) .- O O -It O C s+9 V) ti I Ln �-``cG w•- O +MOO 7 2T7 M M O f` N CJ C3 ! m N'. LD � f 3 C>00 Oto 0 C. 0 0-10 as e) ac c�cs;o T s1i �00 O O 000 0z q Lli to >n 0 O CD O (0 Cb W,- Q+ W o h r� tp sv C3 C� m 1> 46�1� rn 16 ter' I �_ 4 q 0 "} c:� 't ca o O g co P N h N N W ".Lr zA 4J M7 ka [3 [:.1 ai m N N tD r- tV tom- r r CO CO CD T I ' O C O O, Oa [C Ni4 O sG N ° I o Crq©� d clJ C7 0 4 0 C7 b b N N N 10oo-Qclh m c3cnver- t ht 4� C7 7 V jj o) a 1C) C-; i-- '�� c- C7 ;f➢- Oi b' O� C7 0 7 [D tD'334 S".t [V M al �iC] N i N .- tD E M O sus LO M iV E �"' sr'b O fi iM 0 'S a D M C] .0 Q C, N c- rP N 3 ,%ii rA N i� cv t"a LO N E E cv .- u7 n E t j 3 C7 4 (T ajavr-- 4 n} -10 o r n G oavr-cv O !+ h ca ai v r - l"7 GSa 1['1 C:i 0 [] :n h 4 - co a �n O p M i' m ap N s7 4[5 C -Io >~ �i o Ci m CY tD a? fl lfl lS7 :ti sO }'+ OG3 to LO cD ra c0 u'1 OJ - <i CF Ci o? �Q N h .Cl t`J QI e- N (CY _ V F- N Oi N O CD 0r"7 CVo u7 oo6,} W 0O+- - O M W7 LO 000 N n a0cuv vo m o o m ri es c�! CO a r-ir-. m aocncv�oo ,- eoo rna o ca to C+i u7 to N N co OCs �t'J lII O O N 'Min .- rD 09 F- co r'".. to � w h W EQ. - rfi P tri tG C7 to O F 6� h'; t4 t~ h 6 { r u7 h N LD +S I - ry UA tO tr7 C3 N iC t6 G ri W COC CO ut, LL flY _ LL E v W C N f C> C Q< LL U Q E( to p c x c U ti x7 W Lu 5 WIM rE3 N Q 05 't7 I- m L) LLJ !{` - rs ti c c .� CLL Q J CpS u' N CL a, 0~u5 V1 W 4? 2 05 to LL }4 )) i ? 7 } w LO ; uut w U. I L 'LL vJ! i in;4 ua F 0 0 00 0 ++ c a v a p N n m h rn h M n m n m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 o o O 0 m5 0 0 0 0 01 0 O] 0 ry 0 m 00 0 C p o p O 0 O 0 c 0 0 o M 0 m 0 m r.i ai v� ui v o m vi o o �+i m o o ui vi r+i p n v ++ m O N m N h N ri � N O rn n N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 m M 0 p 0 in 0 N 0 N 0 m O o O O 0 0 O O 0 O p O Q o O o 0 a0 0 e0 l0 -e h m m O Q O O N H cis lD cli lD N u1 O N H 00 H m LD O l!] M1 m M1 A cit d1 of N N' H H e,c 0 0 Q p 0 p 0 p �f1 N o O ul N o o 0 0 111 N O o O O 0 0 'l1 N O O O p G O 4 O cli N H c O C O O m m h ri m p�� h lO c1l O .-' M1 O M 4p Vl c/1 O G cp H M1 W N a ap ,--i N cD p m N Vt H V H V1 O N a 0 o Q p n o oM o o O o 0 0 0 o o m m m per, O o I lD o 0 .� a1 o tD o M1� o o 4 C Q a O C p cf5 0 cil m ul O C O ID O m' w m H m n ni o rri 4i o v c 0 o a o v w o vi o �n v lD h N h N N W cp o W �* Ci n m p n c/1 4h D1 H H tD p O m O m N .y O O O o ID O ID 04 m Q p p lD tr o o N N 1D 0 0 0 0 N O- O o N N N a, O V Q m 0' cn O. -� V .� o cn m V ul N N O 01 O V lD lD N o N m O N N lD 11l 00 lD 0 c+l v} M1 O a O 0 m op O O o N N 1p ol m O O m a O p o in h �D O h h 4D O o O o V M t+ v ry N M1 �D N M1 p o m C ae A w 00M a ai lD o o o m v M v ul W N vi W O' o m' Ol i+i m' M1 o n N o O o o Q O eo" N o N vi m N LD h pi cfc w N h ep Qf M o? H \D N M �D as r+ lri Q w h o N cu QI p o om N O u5 O O ul 1p T O H e+ O Ol 1n V uq O O N W' p O H m N m o IM1 KI [cc Q O m O N m N V p o m c O m o C V W Oi p m O m m cp 0� m cn vj N N Op p 4 cD rl 4D O O N Ji V'1 .-' w W C W crl W 05 W M1 oo W c➢ !� 4D �D V tD n .-� cn N 7 h h m cfi O N {D tO � m' M1 W O. -� N c'�1 N lD cA N m ID 0 U O w H N aD Jf N N 0. � a F - c E a v c a v C a 4 v LL f4 v v a a C U � N y C oa a v v = 2 m o J c o c O a e o= a g d a a Z m 'r+ d t C O ci n. a V V 0 7 m a 15 m p [7 O p W Z ~ d LL V2 Q LL Z 6 W N id 2 0 w w w vi LL ccO F- o ¢ O u Q O J W T ' iC � d X � v p n �n Amcnded 03/11/l l 12'A A) WATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007-2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's water system provides service to an area of approximately 16 square miles and more than 14,700 customers located in 12 hydraulically -distinct pressure zones. An inventory of the existing capital facilities in the water system is listed in Figure 8-1 and consists of 8 wells and one spring for water supply, eleven booster pump stations, eight reservoirs, water treatment facilities at each source (chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control) and approximately 283 miles of water main in service. In addition, the City maintains one standby well and seven metered connections with the City of Seattle (Cedar River and Bow Lake supply pipelines) for emergency back-up supply. Renton supplies water on a wholesale basis to Lakeridge Bryn - Mawr Water District. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Water Utility is defined by the ability to provide an adequate amount of high quality water to all parts of the distribution system at adequate pressure during peak demand or fire. This ability is determined by the physical condition of the system and the capacity of supply, storage, treatment, pumping and distribution systems. Level of service standards for the water system vary according to the component of the overall system and are determined by the requirements established by local, state, and federal regulations. Water supply is regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology (water rights), and the Washington State Department of Health (quantity guidelines), water quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Safe Drinking Water Act) and the Washington State Department of Health (primacy over Safe Drinking Water Act), system design and construction requirements are regulated by the Washington State Department of Health. The Water Utility maintains a hydraulic model of the water system. 'The model incorporates the pipe size and location, booster pumps, and storage to determine the flow and pressure available in each segment of the distribution system. The Utility can evaluate the impact of a specific development on the system using the model. The Water Utility reviews each development in terms of flow, pressure, and water supply required. The Water Utility's goal is to provide an adequate supply of potable water under the "worst case" scenario. This scenario considers the following conditions: failure of the largest source of supply, failure of the largest mechanical component, power failure to a single power grid, and/or a reservoir out of service. Under this scenario, the Water Utility strives to meet the following primary requirements: Pressure: Maintain a minimum of 30 pounds per square inch (psi) at the meter during normal demand conditions and a minimum of 20 psi during an emergency. Maximum allowable pressure at the meter during normal demand is 130 psi and a maximum of 150 psi during an emergency Velocity: Under normal demand conditions, the velocity in a transmission main is less than 4 feet per second (fps) and less than 8 fps during an emergency. ISI -18 Amended 03.;11: E 1 1?!8gl{)$ Supply: The water supply must meet the maximum day demand and replenish storage within 72 hours with the largest source of supply out of service. Storage: Storage volume must be maintained to provide for peak demand and adequate volume for an emergency (fire). Transmission and Distribution: The Water Utility uses design criteria approved by the Washington State Department of Health. Treatment and Monitoring: The Water Utility treats all sources with chlorine and fluoride and corrosion control. Water quality monitoring is conducted as required by the State Department of Health under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The City implements a cross connection control program to prevent cross connections with non potable sources and a wellhead protection program. Fire Flow: Fire flow required by a development is as established in the fire code and can vary from 1000 gallons per minute to 5500 gallons per minute. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2407- 2012 Based on the projected growth in population and employment by the year 2012, the existing supply of water will meet the level of service standard. As Fig. 8-1 indicates, with the addition of Wells 11, 12 and 17, the net capacity of the system is 27.07 million gallons per day, which is adequate to meet the City's anticipated growth and maximum day demand for water to at least 2020. Meeting the current fire flow level of service standards will require improvements to the existing water system if the projected commercial and industrial growth occurs. In general, fire flow is adequate to all single family and multi -family areas with the possible exception of portions of downtown, depending on the extent of new multi -family development and the type of construction. Certain areas slated for commercial and industrial growth will need upgrading of the system. Other improvements to the water system will be needed during the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan because of regulatory requirements relating to water quality and efforts to maintain the existing system at the desired level of service. The list of growth -related facilities needed to meet all of the level of service standards and regulatory requirements are in Fig. 8-2. The funds for the needed facilities are projected to come from a number of sources, including: water utility rates, connection fees, developer extension agreements, low interest loans from state or federal programs, and grants from state and federal agencies. The projected total revenue from all sources for each of the six years in also shown in Fig. 8-2. III -19 Amended 03i 1 11112,'W, 108 Fig. 8-1 On -Line Supply Sources — Existing Water Supply Capacity Name— Pumping Rate ( T�_ Pumping Rate m d S rin brook 600 0.86 Well RW -I 2,200 3.17 Well RW -2 2,200 3.17 Well R)x'-3 2,200 3.17 Well RW -SA 1,400 2.02 Well PW -8 3,500 5.04 Well PW -9 1,200 1.73 Well PW -11 2,500 3.60 Well PW -12 1,500 2.16 Well PW -17 1,500 2.16 TOTAL 18,800 GPM 27.07 MGD GPM: gallon per minute MGD: million gallon per day Total annual water rights are 14,809 acre-feet per year 111-20 Amended 0311 Irl Imo$ 1 IL Fig. 8-2 Water Capital Facilities Summary of Water Utilities Capital Improvement Projects 2007-20132M Table 8-2 Items for deuelo merit Water 2007 200E 2009 2010 2011 1 2012 Itemsfor Development -Water 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2011+' Total New Resen urs and Pump Stati9ns $3,380,000 $500,060 $Soo,wa $2,000,000 $1,000,D00 $1,000,000 _—W- $8,380,000 Supply Develnpment and Water Qua I sty Improvements $810,000 $3,450,000 $40,000 $160,000 $1170,Dw $100,000 $4,600,000 Sunset 565 Zone Looa (Ncrth of NE 12th) I Fundln Sources -Water 9 $993.750493 750 Sunse[ 565 Zone Logia. Kirkland Ave ;South of NE 12th) 2010 2gp9 -- 2011 2012 1 --� _. 644 ODD $ 1 260,600 $ 980,000 1 $ 1,022 000 i $ Total 8,005,000_- Operating _ —_ P _. 9 _ BondshLoans_ _ _ $3,688,000 $ 2,461,666 }562 500 $562,500 Sunset 555 Zone Loop, Harrington Ave )South Of NE 12th 12,008,000 -8,57-7,00o sbO/ AD $2,634,000 1 $ 1,758,000 1 $ 690,0001$ 1,350,000 $ 1 050 000 $ 1,095 000 $ 393 750 539350 Sunset €Ireflow 566 Zone Fireflow Upgrades A - G $ 2,300,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 3,500,000 1-$ 3,650,000 ; $ 28,590,004 $403.125 $403.125 $805 250 Total $4,190,000 $3,950,000 $54a,aw $2,100,000 51,100,000 1 503 125 SZ.353.125 $15.736.250 Funding Sources -water 2007 2008 2009 2010 2D11 2x12 2013-2016 Total Operating $2,458,00D $1,641,D6o $644,000 $1,260,000 $980,060 $1,022,1700 $8,005,D00 Bonds/Loans $3,688,006 $2,461,000 5966,000 $1,890,000 $1,470,D00 $153,000 $10,628.600 SDC/SAD $2,634,000 $1,758,0176 5590,000 $1,350,000 $1,050,000 $1,095,000 $1,556,250 ;1G133,230 neveloper 5403,125 L796,875 31,200,000 Total 58,780,000 $5,860,000 $2,300,000 $4,500,000 53,500,000 2 673 1252 353 125 $29,%6,250 '20:3- prole-., ihnse identified m the Sunset Area Community Planned Anion EIS. The analysis period for these rnoplsInH—ta d that they would Le needed in the 2010 20 51iimetrame. Alrhuush come of the project casts and —D—tee funding would tic ncndnd in the latter Fart of ttie City's six-year funding period, others may orrui muside the City's existing 2022 plan—g horizon. Table 8-2 Items for deuelo merit Water 2007 200E 2009 2010 2011 1 2012 Total New Resevoirs and PUMP StattonS —..- it $3,380,0001 _ $500 000 _ _ $500 DOD+ $2 000,000 $1,000,000, 51,000 ppD $8,380,000 Supply P and Water ---- - - --3 - _. Quality Improvements - Y P _ $$11),_0001 — _ 0 D 40000 $100 000 $100 000 $4 600,000 _—W- - Total', $4,190,0001— $3,950,040 $0 9DD $2,100,0001, 5454 $1100$100'000 ,0003 $1,100,0001 $12,980,000 --- - I Fundln Sources -Water 9 _ �_._—..—_ 2007 2008 52458,000 1 $ t 641,000 - $ 2010 2gp9 -- 2011 2012 1 --� _. 644 ODD $ 1 260,600 $ 980,000 1 $ 1,022 000 i $ Total 8,005,000_- Operating _ —_ P _. 9 _ BondshLoans_ _ _ $3,688,000 $ 2,461,666 $ _ 986,000 ' $_1,890,000 $ 1,470,000 $ 1,533 000 $ 12,008,000 -8,57-7,00o sbO/ AD $2,634,000 1 $ 1,758,000 1 $ 690,0001$ 1,350,000 $ 1 050 000 $ 1,095 000 $ Totali $8,780,000 ; $ 5,860,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 3,500,000 1-$ 3,650,000 ; $ 28,590,004 III -21 Amended 03/11 "'1112/48498 Figure S-3 Existing Water Systema II1-22 x MERCER, F ISLAp;� .4 •� '§ I"MWCAS fJ7-- J r { of F II1-22 .4 •� '§ J r { of F A fs- F--.Vk .k S >r f �i lQ'VY II1-22 Amended 03.11/114 d WASTEWATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007-2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities Renton's sanitary sewer system consists of about 205 miles of gravity sewers, 26 lift stations with associated force mains, and approximately 3,800 manholes. Wastewater is discharged to regional facilities at over 75 locations within the service area. The locations of Renton's sewer interceptors and lift stations, as well as Metro's sewer lines, are shown in Figure 9-2. The City's Wastewater Utility serves approximately 15,700 customers, which includes approximately ninety-five percent of the city's population and eighty-five percent of the city's land area. The remaining five percent of the population currently utilizes private, on-site wastewater disposal systems, typically septic system, while the balance of the land area either utilizes private systems or remains undeveloped. The capacity of the existing facilities is adequate to handle the current demand. The Lake Washington East Basin while currently having sufficient capacity, needs some improvements to portions of the Sunset Interceptor to assure sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated growth. The West Renton Sub -basin also needs to be further evaluated to determine potential capacity restraints. A full hydraulic model has been developed to evaluate, system wide, the long term need and timing for upsizing of existing interceptors and the timing for additional interceptors for new portions of our service area. The conclusions of this analysis are included in a Final Report dated July 2006. Results from this report will be incorporated into the 2008-2013 C1P and the 2007/08 update to the Wastewater Long Range Management Plan. Level of Service Level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is defined by the ability to move sewage from the point of origin, the customer, to the treating agency, King County, in a safe and efficient manner. This ability is determined by the physical condition of Renton's system and the capacity available in the system. It is the Renton Wastewater Utility's responsibility to maintain the system in a safe condition and monitor the standards for new construction. The Wastewater Utility is also responsible for ensuring that capacity exists in the system prior to new connections or that the capacity is created as part of the new development. "The level of service for Renton's Wastewater Utility is developed through coordination with and subject to the policies, design criteria, and standards used for planning and operating a sanitary sewer system as established by the laws and policies of several agencies. Those agencies, in order by authority, are the Department of Ecology (Criteria for Sewage Works Design), King County (King County Wastewater Treatment Division), and the City of Renton. As stated above, the Utility has developed a new hydraulic model that allows the Utility to perforin dynamic analysis on any portion of its interceptor system given any scenario, to determine capacity within the system. The model is also based upon two years worth of wet - weather flow data that was developed as part of a regional effort by King County. This new tool gives us much greater ability to predict future capacity within our interceptors. The Wastewater Utility's goal is to have sufficient capacity to handle what the Utility considers the'worst case scenario'. That is, the amount of waste if everybody was discharging their highest amount at the same time and the system was experiencing the highest amount of inflow and infiltration anticipated. 111-23 Amended 03111 ? 1142r`W08 For existing and projected development Renton uses the following criteria for flow projection: Average Single Family Domestic FIow 270 gallons per day per unit Average Multi -Family Domestic Flow 190 gallons per day per unit Light Industrial 2800 gallons per acre per day Heavy Industrial site specific Commercial 2800 gallons per acre per day Office 2800 gallons per acre per day Recreation 300 gallons per acre per day Public 600 gallons per acre per day Manufacturing Park 2800 gallons per acre per day Peak Infiltration/Inflow (New System) 1500 gallons per acre per day Peak Inflow/Infiltration (Existing System) From Sewer Hydraulic Model Peaking factor for system average 2.0 X Depth to Diameter Ratio 0.80 (eight tenths) The criteria listed above are based upon Table IV -3 of the 1998 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan, with an amendment for actual Inflow and Infiltration values based upon updated criteria from King County. This criteria is subject to change based upon the latest adopted Long Range Wastewater Management Plan or amendments thereto. These flows are averages used as standards. Actual design flows may vary considerably, depending upon land use. The Wastewater Utility will consider verifiable alternate design flows that may be submitted. If Renton's sewer system has the capacity to handle the flows projected, based upon the above criteria, or a developer improves the system to provide the capacity, the project achieves concurrence with the Wastewater Utility's level of service. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2007- 2012 Based on the forecasted growth in population and employment over the next 20 years, daily wastewater flows are predicted to increase by about 15.3 million gallons per day (mgd.) This increase is expected to impact the entire system, with the greatest impact expected to occur in the East Cedar River Basin and Lake Washington East Basin. In order to maintain the desired level of service and accommodate the projected growth, facility improvements are scheduled in both the East Cedar River Basin and the Lake Washington East Basin over the next two years. Another factor affecting level of service is the age of the existing system. A significant portion of the city's wastewater collection and conveyance system is over fifty years old. Some of these mains cannot be relied upon to provide the desired level of service without major repair and/or replacement. Consequently, the primary component of the six-year facility plan is the repair and replacement of the existing system in order to maintain the current level of service. Some of the geographic areas in which these mains are located will experience more growth than will others, but facility improvements will be needed regardless. It is currently the policy of the Wastewater Utilities that all parcels connecting to the sewer system pay for their fair share of the system. This is accomplished in a combination of three methods: III -24 Amended 03111; 1 14-24giOS 1. Local Improvement Districts may be formed with the city installing the sewers using LID bonds encumbering the participating parcels; 2. The Wastewater Utility may front the cost of new sewers and hold Special Assessment Districts against benefiting parcels; and 3. Developers or potential users will front the cost of extending the main with the ability to hold a latecomer agreement against the other parcels that potentially benefit. Projects that replace and rehabilitate the existing system, as well as operation and maintenance costs, will be funded through rates paid by existing customers. Existing sewer customers will not be required to participate in Special Assessment District fees, latecomer fees, or local improvement districts unless they redevelop or increase the density on their property. Table 9-1 lists the projects needed to meet growth, along with the sources of funds for them for the period 2005 201 2007-2013, based upon the six-year growth projections and the desired level of wastewater service. III -25 Amended 03/11/I ] jXWN Figure 9-1 Wastewater Capital Facilities 2007-20132M Table 9-1 -- - Ilkems for Development -Wastewater 1 200724.08 1 2009 2094 2019 3 2412 Sanitary Sewer Totat__ Lift Station ReplacemenVRehabilitation $900,DDD ' $2.200,000: -� - - - $900,000 - - _... --- --- - - - I $2,200,000: Funding SonrcesYWastewater -- 2047 1 2008 2009 2010 1 2011 2012 _ Total Operating $ 735,000 ; $ 735,000 $ 735,D00 $ 735,060 S 735,000 5 735,006 $ 4,410,000 BondslLoans $4,103.000 ` $.1.103,000 $ 1,103,DDD $ 1,103,OD0 S 1.103,DOD ! S 1,403,006 $ & 615,000 SDc1SAD _ $ 788,000 ; $ 788,000 $ 786,600 ! $ _ 788,000 5 788,000 5 788,00_0 S 4,725,040 Total $2,625,000 ` $ 2,625,000 $ 2,625,000 $ 2,625,000 1 S2,625,OOD j S -s 15,756,000 Items for Development -Wastewater 2007 2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 _2ux3 Total Sanitary Sewer Main Extensions $900,000 $900,000 Lift Station Repiacement/Rehabilitation $2,200,000 $2,200,000 Surset.6oliie��ard Ca pacitd grades X1.181 25011-361 250 Harringten_Av_enue Capacity- Upgrades $i18,i25 $157,500 $275,625 Kirkland Avenue Caoaci lit rades 210,000 210 000 Ed manes A�'enue Ca oaciiiit l.'y '-Jes 5118,125 118 '_25 Total400,000 2,200 000 La $D I $O 1.3,325 51,666,$75 4 865 -C FurnLLing Sources -Wastewater 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-2016 Total Operating $735,000 $735,000 $735,000 $735,000 $735,000 $735,000 2 940.000 7 350 000 Bonds/Loans $1,103,000 $1,103,000 $1,103,000 $1,103,000 $1,103,000 $1,103,000 $6,618,000 SDC/5,AD $788,000 $788,000 $788,000 5788,000 $798,000 $788,000 $4,728,000 Tutall $2,626,ow $21626,000 $2,626,000 $2,626,000 $2,626,000 $2,626,000 IL2.40900 518,696,u00 '2913. projects are those ,denvbed in the 9,nset Area [nmm-ty Manned Action Fu- The analysis p -.r! for these p, o-erts ind-ted that they wauid he needed in the 2010.2030 timeframe. Aith-gh some of the p,oied casts and aswr'iated funding -11v be needed in the fatrt ter paof the City's si. year Funning permd. others may neck a,nside of the C'iry's existing 2022 planning horizon, III -26 Auncnded 03/11;'1 i 4 Fig. 9-2 Sanitary Sewer Trunk Lines J C2 s h J z r p u h c AW J C2 s 111-27 h z r u 111-27 Amended 03111/11-124�&`08 SURFACE WATER UTILITY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007- 2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton is composed of various drainage basins and sub -basins. The major basins within the existing City limits include the East Lake Washington, West Lake Washington, May Creek, Lower Cedar River and Black River basins. The City of Renton is located at the outlet end of a majority of these basins that discharge into either the Green/Duwamish River or into Lake Washington. The Surface Water Utility's service area within the existing City corporate boundaries is approximately 17.2 square miles. The existing surface water system includes rivers, streams, ditches, swales, lakes, wetlands, detention facilities (pond and piped systems), water quality swales, wetponds, wetvaults, oil/water separators, coalescing plate oil/water separators, pipes, catch basins, manholes, outfalls and pump stations. The natural surface water systems (rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands) are shown on Renton's Critical Area Maps. A majority of the water quantity and quality facilities are privately owned and maintained on-site as required in accordance with the Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance {RMC Chapter 22, Section 4-22). The Surface Water Utility owns, maintains, and operates all storm and surface water management facilities located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated for storm and surface water management purposes. The Utility currently owns, operates, and maintains approximately 204 miles of storm pipe systems including an estimated 8000 catch basin and manhole structures, 26 detention facilities and 37.67 miles of ditch systems. A combination of the public and some of the private storm system is shown in the Surface Water Utility Storm System Inventory Maps and Attributes data base which is too large to present here. Level of Service Background The Surface Water Utility's policies, design criteria, and standards used for planning, engineering, operating, and maintaining the storm and surface water systems are based upon requirements that originate from many sources. Together, these regulations define the acceptable level of service for surface water. The intended level of service is to accomplish the following: • Provide adequate of surface water management for the appropriate rainfall duration and intensity to protect public safety, property and convenience of areas within City; • Provide a level of storm water treatment that adequately protects surface and groundwater quality and other beneficial uses of water bodies; • Provide flow control from new construction that restricts the rate of storm water runoff to pre -developed level; and • Provide protection of fish and wildlife habitat. The primary Federal, State and local agencies and regulations which affect the City of Renton's level of service standard for surface and storm water systems are listed below - 111 -28 Amended 03111 Il I P,'08408 Federal Agencies/Regulations/Policies: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Federal Clean Water Act ii. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit) b. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE) i. Nationwide/404 Individual Permit Requirements ii. Federal Emergency Management Act standards 1I1-29 Amended 0311 [/]I I26DWO 2. State Agencies/Regulations: a. Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE): i. NPDES Phase 2 Municipal Storm Water Permit ii. NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit iii. 401 Water Quality Certification Permits iv. Coastal Zone Management Consistency Permit v. Shoreline Management Program (SMP) vi. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan vii. 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington b. Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) i. Hydraulic Project Approval Permits 3. Local Agencies/Regulations/Policies: a. Cedar River Basin Plan b. May Creek Basin Plan c. Green River Basin Plan. d. Green River Flood Control Zone District/Green River Basin Program e. King County Flood Hazard Management Plan e. King County Surface Water Design Manual as adapted by Renton Level of Service Standard in Renton The Surface Water Utility level of service is the adopted surface water design standards which are consistent with the above referenced federal, state, and local regulations as specified in the City of Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage ordinance (RMC 4-22). New surface water management systems are designed to accommodate the future land use condition runoff based upon the city's Land Use Element and the future land use plans of neighboring jurisdictions. The standards specified in the city -adopted portions of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual require that: 1. Post -development peak rate of runoff be controlled to the pre -developed peak rate of runoff up to the 10 -year design storm; 2. Water quality facility "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) such as biofiltration, wetponds, wetvaults, coalescing plate oil/water separators, and erosion control measures are used; Pipe systems be designed to convey the 25 -year post -developed design storm without overflowing the system and pipe conveyance systems have adequate capacity to convey the 100 -year design storm provided that the runoff is contained within defined conveyance system elements without inundating or over topping the crown of a roadway; and/or no portions of a building will be flooded; and/or if overland sheet flow occurs, it will flow through a drainage easement. 1II-30 Amended 031] 11] 14-24ti 4. New drainage ditches or channels be designed to convey at least the peak runoff from the 100 -year design storm without over -topping. As a condition of S1-%T;.._thc--C4 .u,'_'uir— „`_', pr -t in af efts e Fthe City tha .1 nn to Ar that, flowdown steep i:ayifiesto eemplywith the 20nr3-l�in�'-� n,, ,s� C,,,-r�� lxT.,i�, Tl ��,.., h f 1 I . 4 aild to meet the Level 2 How Control a -Rd DuFa4ien standafd. Projects have als been requiVed to comply with the stir-faee water- design standards in the 2005 Eeology Siefmwatef- 1,l u.uCec.„ t AA,ua1 for- 'elle f Washington „ h Y aappl-epr-iate by the fI: + �vr,dit: n_ef SEPA, beea,�se4t was r ed as n cof).�lii:.s.-, f' tiet e c ncrm t The uaa.uv , " ..�..��:., .. ...�..� .: vA. uA.. v.A vi u �rc'ni�m— City is required to adopt new storm and surface water design standards that are equivalent to the standards in the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington by no later than August 2004. The adoption of the new storm water design standards is a requirement of the national Pollutant discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System storm water permit. The NPDES Phase 2 Municipal storm water permit was issued by Ecology in January 2007 to regulate the discharge of runoff into waters of the United States in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act. As a result, the City has adopted the 2009 King County Surl:ace Water Design Manual with City of Renton Amendments in February 2010 to comply with the requirement. Proiects in areas of the Citv will have to comnly with this design standard. Projects that comply with the above-cited standards will achieve an acceptable level of service for surface water management purposes within. the City of Renton. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2007- 2012 The capital facilities estimated to be needed to solve current surface water management problems and to prevent fixture surface water management problems associated with the growth projected for the first six years of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed sources of funding are listed in Figure 10-1. The sources of revenues to be utilized by the Surface Water Utility to implement the needed capital improvements include the following: Surface Water Utility rates; 2. Permit fees and system development charges; 3. Revenue bonds; 4. Private latecomers agreements; 5. Surface Water Utility Special Assessment Districts; 6. Low interest loans (state revolving funds, Public Works Trust Fund); 7. Cost-sharing interlocal agn-eements with adjacent jurisdictions and special districts; Army Corps of Engineers - Section 205 Small Flood Control Projects Program and other financial assistance programs available to municipalities authorized by Congress; 111-31 ! Amended 0311111131168198 9. USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Watershed Flood Prevention and Protection Act (Public Law 566) and other SCS programs; 10. Grants from state and federal agencies such as: a. Washington State Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund; b. Washington State Department of Community Development Flood Control Assistance Account Program; c. Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board and other grants that may be available from the County, State or Federal Government to improve fish habitat; d. Washington State legislative appropriations approved for Special Surface Water Utility projects (Cedar River Delta project); and 11. Other unidentified federal, state, and local grant programs. As is evident in Figure 10-1 on the following page, the Surface Water Utility proposed to use all or any combination of the financial sources to fund the needed capital facilities. III -32 Amended 03x11111 Fig. 10-1 Surface Water Utility Capital Facilities 2007-2013201-2 111-33 Oi o' Li (JD 0.0 0�0! ca'0 0 C ho 3 0 I- oo' 10,00 OIQ 5oo.:6o0:6o0;5ool0ola AI 00 'ra i ''�f3�641d4'(A �69 a o oo'o O- C 0 0' O'O, :o; O O; ,O O-ol0!O 'O�OiO;0IC7 IV O C7�0 O; O' CD C.'CM Lr)Oi Co N. 0)- o):NiO N CO -69169 I O 0 0 O O 0 0',0 0 0' lCl.'I a, 'O O'000 o'o 0 0 0 0'0 0',0 0 NO3'.-�i"'64 O i[}.O Oma' gym; :N c06j Co .v- . 64' 691 E0, 69 ''. 60 ._ r -_O. O O I O O 0 10 ;O O 0,0 O Oi O 0i 0 C5, G?, o; U-) o v, '�, O.CD; 0'O Q � Ni b}i T � �Ef3' GiN N:V 3C4 C '(O.CoD N O ;O _ 69.'b9i�. i(14 j I O'. O 0:0!0sdi0 rn; c o'' o o 1u�' a,� : itv?moi v N: ri; 6-1!'N v_'. �» oil r�:�ra,N,o :cp-0IC7; ,ice ifl t�3! ;N 0 Oi O'. O 'O O O:O;O o: C; 0'' O :O.O o10'O - o O; O 01 '1611 0' 1d�I,M r7'4�',O 'ch .'' 'o Crn m'r X607 0 0 0 0 MI 0 o o'o 0 0.0'0.0 0' o' o a: loi '01 10.0 000:, h O:oLoo 1 v: mof o'rslrs (riOo!C7. V! ca C) i 64! Co :m I Q�• R; �I i E� o t7 w 0 CD i C CU lo EQ CLI', 7 O; o (B CD 4: m; o, UI�� mi�lyl�o, m w,o �1E 10icjto �, a Q �. 'a m r'' i0'�' 1 F GO man a�sa,a� [Y IEA IC]'C7' a o,�''o LL i0 10: Lo 111-33 O; P P P Ol O P 0 P 0 P_ 0 P 0 Ci O', n'� O N O �'SI O m �" O i M �n ul �n N N O' 1I1; N O 170 O O C 01 N N P ul P O O N; M 0 0 0 N u1 h O �n �D rv' N u� V m vl W O N' a V V no u1{ .� rir vi � m w1 yr n; w, m er m c to n m m� � v Y m a r- � m n' �� n N � r; t yr .i F yr trt to .� N S S O 0 O 0 0 C O 0 S S S S O 0 (? o p o 0 ai ai m ai o N o W r4 t/} rel N CYS a a VT 01 6 N ac no S o S O S O o 4 c O O C) O O O PO P P O 0 0 0 0 w w w 0 m oco v a a,v m N y ry '-rt a/1 CD O O S O O O 0 O O d P 0 O 0 P 0 O 0' O 0 L) O O O o 0 0 0 O n G 4 ti a O N P ran `1 N ry ii L a/F p N rn aA c O 0 0 0 0 0 pO O pOp O O O 0 0 0 0 0 cm O •--I .a O ry N N O N aA V1 S S c pO S O O O O O O O c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m m o ao vt ni ap m m M rn m T -i S an lr� Q ar +rF ry VF O S OO O O O m O pQ p 4 c S c G O O O C Ollm OO O Ln m m H m O M1 moi . r+ [!F 5�I1 N (� tif0c;i�1 In N VY vF ry tR vF m ec to as >o O m c o u o u a E E v ea 4i E O E C. o'.. C: o o o >c Q C q .y N ❑ Y m 4 C a o m c C C '1 v c, C tt > Q iri U' '- E > > a o O n C rc G E 0 o o i E a ° c p s sq 19 � m C C c = � t � o,, 4'', `i p H •-' v1 � vs rr cn U V' m 1,7 21 ,.. 2: ...� Amended 03/11/11'?!. ---W'08 PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007- 2012 Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Renton is the primary provider of park and recreation services within the city limits. These services include parks, indoor facilities, open space areas and recreation programs. Other suppliers that provide facilities and services include the Renton School District and several private enterprises. Figure 11-1 below is a summary of the amount of park and open space area provided by the City of Renton; provided by others within the City's Proposed Annexation Area (PAA) and the total for the overall Planning Area. Fig. 11-1 Park and Open Space Areas Summary Type of Facili Renton PAA Planning Area Total Neighborhood Parks 97.37 20.20 117.57 Community Parks 130.36 93.36 223.72 Regional Parks 55.33 50.00 105.33 Open Space Areas 683.11 178.81 861.92 Linear Parks & Trails 12.04 Miles/ 1 acre 0.00 12.0411 Special Use Parks & Facilities 190.66 0.00 190.66 TOTAL 1157.53 342.37 1500.2 Figures 11-2 and 11-3 on the following pages list the individual park and open space areas that comprise the categories summarized above. Figure] 1-2 details Renton's Parks and Open Spaces by category and Figure 11-3 lists public land in Renton's PAA. The table lists the name of each park or open space, its size in acres, and its status as of January 2001. III -3 5 IAmended 03/11r1i3q,' W49 Fig. 11-2 Public Park and Open Space Areas in Renton Detailed Listing Park Acres Status N61-ftorhood Parks (20) 24.20 Developed Larlington Park 1.54 Developed Glencoe Park .42 Developed Heritage Park 9.18 Developed Jones Park 1.18 Developed Kennydale Beach 1.76 Developed Kennydale Lions Park 5.66 Developed Kiwanis Park 9.00 Developed Maplewood Park 2.20 Developed Maplewood Roadside Park 1.00 Developed North Highlands Park 2.64 Developed Philip Arnold Park 10.00 Developed Riverview Park 11.50 Developed Sit In Park 0.50 Developed Springbrook Watershed Park 16.00 Undeveloped Sunset Court 0.50 Developed Talbot Hill Reservoir 2.50 Developed Thomas Teasdale Park 10.00 Developed Tonkins Park 0.29 Developed Tiffany Park 7.00 Developed Windsor Hill Park 4.50 Developed TOTAL 97.37 Acres Community Parks (7) Cedar River Park 23.07 Developed Cedar River Trail Park 24.20 Developed Highlands Park 10.40 Developed Liberty Park 11.89 Developed Narco Property 15.00 Undeveloped Piazza & Gateway 0.80 Developed Ron Regis Park 45.00 Developed TOTAL 130.36 Acres Regional Parks (1) Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 55.33 Developed TOTAL 5 5.3 3 Acres Open Space Areas (10) Black River Riparian Forest 92.00 Undeveloped Cedar River Natural Area 237.00 Undeveloped Cleveland Property 23.66 Undeveloped Honey Creek 35.73 Undeveloped I1I-36 Lake Street 1.00 Undeveloped May Creek/MeAskill 10.00 Undeveloped May Creek Greenway 29.82 Undeveloped Panther Creek Wetlands 73.00 Undeveloped Renton Wetlands 125.00 Undeveloped Springbrook Watershed 38.00 Undeveloped Ediund/Korum Property 17.90 Undeveloped TOTAL 683.11 Acres Developed Linear Parks & Trails (9 Burnett Linear Park 1.0 acre Developed Cedar River Trail 4.5 miles Developed Honey Creek Trail 1.0 miles Developed Springbrook Trail 2.0 miles Developed S.W. 16th Trail .5 miles Developed Garden/16`h/Houser 1.0 miles Developed Lake Washington Blvd 1.5 miles Developed Gene Coulon Park 1.5 miles Developed Ripley Lane .04 miles Developed TOTAL 12.04 Miles/1 Acre Special Use Parks & Facilities (10) Boathouse 4,242 s.f. Developed Carco Theatre (310 seats) 11,095 s.f. Developed Community Garden/Greenhouse 960 s.f/.46 acres Developed Henry Moses Aquatic Center (including bldgs.) 58,088 s.f. Developed Highlands Neighborhood Center 11,906 s.f. Developed Ivar's Restaurant 1,540 s.f. Developed Kidd Valley Restaurant 2,150 s.f. Developed Kiwanis Park Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Developed Liberty Park Skate Park 14,250 s.f. Developed Maplewood Golf Course 190 acres Developed Maplewood Golf Course/Restaurant/Pro Shop 15,508 s.f. Developed Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range 11,559 s.f. Developed North Highlands Neighborhood Center 4,432 s.f. Developed Philip Arnold Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Developed Renton Community Center 36,000 s.f Developed Renton Senior Activity Center 18,264 s.f. Developed Teasdale Park Neighborhood Center 1,370 s.f. Developed Tiffany Park Neighborhood Center 1,800 s.f. Developed Veterans Memorial Park 0.2 acres Developed TOTAL 195,904 s.f, 190.66 Acres CITY-WIDE TOTAL 1.,157.83 Acres 12.04 Miles 195,904 Square Feet III -37 Amended 0311111 IA -2- 8108 Fig. 11-3 Public Park and Open Space Areas in Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas (PAAs) Detailed Listing Petrovitsky Park 50.0 Acres Developed Sub -Total (Community Parks) 50.0 Acres Maplewood Community Park Site 40.0 Acres Undeveloped Skyway Park 23.08 Acres Developed Boulevard Lane Park 30.28 Acres Developed Sub -Total (Community Parks) 93.36 Acres Sierra Heights Park 4.7 Acres Developed Maplewood Park 4.8 Acres Developed Cascade Park 10.7 Acres Developed Sub -Total (Neighborhood Parks) 20.2 Acres May Creek Greenway 150.0 Acres Renton Park 19.0 Acres Maplewood Heights 5.0 Acres Bryn Mawr 4.81 Acres Sub -Total (Open Space) 178.81 Acres Total, Public Park and Open Space Within Renton's Proposed Annexation Areas.........................................342.37 Acres Lindberg/Renton Pool Total (Special Use Facilities) ...................... 1 In addition to the park and open space areas, the city operates a number of specialized facilities as an ongoing component of the total recreational services it provides. Figurel 1-4 which follows lists the specialized facilities owned by the city as well as those specialized public facilities within the city limits that are owned by others. III -38 Arnended 03/11/11 5 Fig. 11-4 Specialized Facilities within the Renton City Limits Number Facilitv Comments Ra11flpldc City -owned: 1 Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park 1 Kennydale Lions Park I Kiwanis Park 2 Liberty Park 2 lighted 1 Maplewood Park Small Field 1 Ron Regis Lighted 1 Pbilip Arnold Park Lighted 1 Thomas Teasdale Park 1 Tiffany Park TOTAL Il FIELDS Within the city limits but owned by others: 2 Hazen High School 2 Highlands Elementary School Small Fields I Hillcrest School Small Heid 4 Honeydew Elementary School Small Fields 3 McKnight Middle School 4 Nelson Middle School Small Fields 4 Renton High School 1 Talbot Hill Elementary I Tif(any Park Elementary TOTAL 22 FIELDS Number Facility Comments Football/Soccer Fields City -owned: I Cedar River Park 1 Highlands Park 1 Kiwanis Park 1 Philip Arnold Park I lighted I Ron Regis Park I lighted I Thomas Teasdale Park 1 Tiffany Park TOTAL 7 FIELDS Within the city limits but owned by others: 1 Hillcrest School 2 Honeydew Elementary School I Kennydale Elementary I McKnight Middle School I Renton. High School I Renton Stadium 1 lighted TOTAL 7 FIELDS III -34 Amended 03/1 1/1 1 12A)9/08 3 Tennis Courts City -owned: 2 Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park 2 highlands Park 2 lighted 2 Kiwanis Park 3 Liberty Park 3 lighted 1 North Ilighlands Park 2 Philip Arnold Park 2 lighted 3 Talbot Hill Reservoir 2 Tiffany Park 'TOTAL 17 COURTS Within the city limits but owned by others: 4 Hazen High School 4 McKnight Middle School 2 Nelson Middle School 5 Renton IIigh School TOTAL 15 COURTS Swimming Pools Within the city limits but owned by others: 1 Hazen High School Indoor TOTAL 1 POOL Level of Service Standards for park and recreation levels of service were first established nationally based on "Standard Demand" and have been modified at state and local levels to meet local needs. The national level of service (LOS) standards were established by committees of recreation professionals based on practical experience in the field, and are felt to be most useful in quantifiable terms, i.e. acres of park land per population served. The most recognized standards are those developed by the National Recreation Park Association (NRPA). In 1983 that organization published a report titled "Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards" that is well recognized in the recreation field. The Park CFP establishes a 2 -tiered approach: 1) an overall LOS standard based on total population and total acreage; and 2) LOS standards for individual neighborhoods and for specific types of parks and facilities within parks. The overall LOS is a gauge of whether the City is meeting overall concurrence for GMA. The second tier identifies areas where deficiencies exist so the City can target its funds to eliminate those deficiencies while still maintaining overall LOS. The proposed LOS standard for park and open space land established for Renton in its Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space plan is 18.58 acres/1,000 population. The 2007 LOS in Renton is 19.84 acres/I,000 population. The LOS within Renton's Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) is only 5.35 acres/1,000, which reduces the 2007 overall Planning Area LOS to 12.26 acres/1,000. Continued acquisition of park and open space lands will be needed as the City's residential growth continues within its existing boundaries, and as it expands into its underserved PAA's. The recommended service levels for Renton were developed after discussions with City staff and the Board of Park Commissioners. 'They are based on participation ratios by which a community can estimate in quantifiable terms the number of acres or facilities required to meet the population demand. Attaching a standard to a population variable makes it easy to forecast future needs as the population grows. The table below identifies the current overall LOS in Renton and within Renton's planning area. III -40 Amended 03; l ]![ 1' ;09.10 Fig 11-5 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) - OVERALL Starting below, existing service levels and recommended standards by park types within Renton are given. Each park type compares the NP -PA Standard to the existing service levels and the recommended standards. This information is provided to indicate how Renton's current level of service compares to national and local standards. I11-41 Park & Open Space Land Existing Population LOS (Acres/1,000) City of Renton 1,157.83 58,360 19.84 Renton's PAA's 342.37 64,000 5.35 Total Planning Area 1,500.2 112,360 12.26 Starting below, existing service levels and recommended standards by park types within Renton are given. Each park type compares the NP -PA Standard to the existing service levels and the recommended standards. This information is provided to indicate how Renton's current level of service compares to national and local standards. I11-41 Amended 03/11/1 l I A,92AA Figure 11-6 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) — BY PARK TYPE Figures shown are in acres/1,000 population Park and Open Space Areas 1. Neighborhood Parks Definition: Neighborhood parks are small park areas (usually 2-10 acres in size) utilized for passive use and unstructured play. They often contain an open space for field sports, a children's playground, a multi- purpose paved area, a picnic area and a trail system. For heavily wooded sites, the amount of active use area is substantially reduced. NRPA Standard 1-2 Acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Renton): 1.7 Acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning .32 Acres/1,000 Population Area) Recommended LOS 1.2 Acres/1,000 Population Standard: Comments: The recommended standard reflects the shifting emphasis on larger parks and open space recreational opportunities that cost less to maintain and operate than do neighborhood parks - 2. Community Parks Definition: Community parks are traditionally larger sites that can accommodate organized play and contain a wider range of facilities. They usually have sport fields or other major use facilities as the central focus of the park. In many cases, they will also serve the neighborhood park function. Community parks generally average 10-25 acres in size with a substantial portion of them devoted to active use. Sometimes, smaller sites with a singular purpose that maintain a community -wide focus can be considered community parks. NRPA Standard: Existing LOS (Renton): Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended LOS Standard: 5-8 acres/1,000 population 2.25 acres/1,000 population 1.46 acres/1,000 population 2.5 acres/1,000 population Comments: The low existing ratio reflects a past emphasis within Renton on neighborhood parks. While the recommended standard is well below the NRPA standard, it represents a shifting emphasis to community parks. 3. Regional Parks Definition: Regional parks are large park areas that serve geographical areas that stretch beyond the community. They may serve a single purpose or offer a wide range of facilities and activities. In many cases they III -42 Amended 931/11/111241949 also contain large areas of undeveloped open space_ Many regional parks are acquired because of unique features found or developed on the site. NRPA Standard: Existing LOS (Renton: Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended Standard: Comments: 5-10 acres/1,000 population .95 acres/1,000 population .78 acres/1,000 population 1.08 acres/1,000 population Renton has the potential for developing another regional park located in the Cedar River corridor. The recommended standard of 1.08 acres per 1,000 population recognizes the potential for creating a Cedar River Regional Park consisting of the following Special Use Parks: Cedar River Park, Maplewood Roadside Park, Maplewood Golf Course, and the Cedar River Property. 4. Open Space Areas Definition: This type of park area is defined as general open space, trail systems, and other undeveloped natural areas that includes stream corridors, ravines, easements, steep hillsides or wetlands. Often they are acquired to protect an environmentally sensitive area or wildlife habitats. In other cases they may be drainage corridors or heavily wooded areas. Sometimes trail systems are found in these areas. Existing LOS (Renton) Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended LOS Standard: 11.71 acres/1,000 Population 2.8 acres/1,000 Population 12.7 acres/1,000 Population Comments: The majority of this type of land is wetlands, steep slopes, or otherwise not suitable for recreational development. 5. Linear Parks Definition: Linear parks are open space areas, landscaped areas, trail systems and other land that generally follow stream corridors, ravines or other elongated features, such as a street, railroad or power line easement. This type of park area usually consists of open space with development being very limited. Trail systems are often a part of this type of area. Existing LOS (Renton): 02 acres/1,000 Population Existing LOS (Planning 0 acres/1,000 Population Area): Recommended Standard: 0.3 acres/1,000 Population Comments: The majority of linear park land is found along the banks of the Cedar River and Honey Creek. There are other opportunities for linear parks utilizing utility corridors. G. Special Use Parks and Facilities Definition: Specialized parks and facilities include areas that generally restrict public access to certain times of the day or to specific recreational activities. The golf course and major structures are included in this category. II1-43 .Amended 03/11/111-2x48,448 Existing LOS (Renton): Existing LOS (Planning Area): Recommended Standards: 7. Total Park Land 3.7 acres/1,000 Population 0 acres/1,000 Population 0.8 acres/1,000 Population Presently, Renton has 1 157.83acres of total park land within the city boundaries. Together with another 342.37 acres of public park and open space land within Renton's PAAs (Potential Annexation Areas), the total amount of park and open space Iand within Renton's planning area is 1,500.2acres. NRPA Standard: Existing LOS (Renton): Existing LOS (Planning Area) Recommended LOS Standard: 15-20 acres/I,000 Population 19.84 acres/1,000 Population 5.35 acres/1,000 Population 18.58 acres/1,000 Population Comments: While the recommended standard of 18.58 acres per 1,000 population seems high, most of the acreage is in the open space category. Most of this land is undevelopable as steep hillsides, wetlands, or environmentally sensitive areas. Specialized Facilities Below are the recommended levels of service for specialized recreation facilities. In addition to the NRPA standard and the existing facility ratio, an estimate of the participation level in Renton compared to the average for the Pacific Northwest is also provided. The existing inventory includes City -owned facilities as well as those facilities within the city limits owned by other public entities. 1. Ballfields (Includes baseball and softball fields) NRPA Standard: I field per 2,500 population Existing Participation: Average Existing Inventory: 20 fields Existing Facility Ratio: .9 field per 2,500 population Recommended Standard: 1 field per 2,500 population * Small fields were excluded for purposes of evaluation. 2. Football/Socccr Fields NRPA Standard: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: Comments 1 field per 10,000 population 75 % below average 26 fields 1.3 fields per 3,000 population 1 field per 3,000 population Because of the extremely high existing facility ratio and the below average participation rate, the recommended standard --while substantially above the NRPA standard—is roughly the same as the existing facility ratio. 3. Tennis Courts NRPA Standard: 1 court per 2,000 population Existing Participation: 15 % below average Existing Inventory: 32 courts III -44 Amended 013;1 ],".]I Existing Facility Ratio: 1.4 courts per 2,500 population Recommended Standard: 1 court per 2,500 population Comments Based on the substantially above average existing facility ratio, the recommended standard is almost equivalent to the existing facility ratio. 4. Swimming Pools (indoor) NP -PA Standard: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 5. Walking Trails Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard Comments pool per 20,000 population Average 1 indoor pool ..68 per 40,000 population 1 pool per 40,000 population 16% above average 9.0 miles (off-street) .15 miles per 1,000 population .20 miles per 1,000 population The recommended standard reflects a strong local interest in walking trails and the fact that the city directed its efforts to other areas until recent years. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 2007- 2012 Figure 1 i -Ion the following page shows the projects which may need to be begun over the next six years to achieve the recommended level of service standards if the forecast growth -- and therefore, demand -- occurs. Figure 11-8 also includes potential funding sources for each project, where known. III -45 Amender] 03/111] 112,Q&W Fig. 11 - T,,P] Parks Capital Facilities 2007-2012 Table 11-4 1 ------- Items for bevelopment 2007 Black River Riparian Forest Tatal Sam Chastain Waterfront Trail i $500 DDC 7- — Family Aquatic Center1 $124 DOC Grant Matching Program $200,00[ Maplewood Community Park Development _ _ _ --$120,000 IVew Maintenance f=acility $335 00C _ --� North HiQhlands Community Censer $4,500,00_0 Parks Long Range Plan $60,00[ Regis Park Athletic Field Expansion__ Springbrook Trail Missing Link J $1,600,000 Tiffany Park Recreation Building .$15,000 2008 1 2010 2011 2012 Tatal —2009 -- $85,600— 00,06-0 - $200,0001 _ $2,600,pDD $2,385,000 S4,000,000 _ _ _ _ --$120,000 :. _,.. _ � . -- $4,500,00_0 - $926,060 �$100,000� $120,000' $120,000: _. $120,000_ $720,000 $100,000 $100 DOD' -- ... $100,OD0i -- $100,000 $700,000 $100,000 $300,00i - 00,400 $6,400,000 $4,000,000 $2,!$3,000000 400 $6,792,000 i $250,000 $1,750,ODO -- -- $2,000,000 --- $60,400 j $200,000 $2.300,000 _ $2,500,000 ]- -- - _ - _ ----- $1 600.000 $15,000 $8 770,000 $6,655,000 $3,324 40(11 „ $420,000 $5,220,DOD $27,072,000 1II-46 Amended 22.111 ,' l 112609,'08 Fig. 11-8 Parks Capital Facilities 2007-2012 Table 11 5 -- fundingSources 2007 _ 2006 2009 - 2010 2011_ 2012 Total Operating-- $2,755 ODO $ ?2D 000 $ 220 000 $ 220,000 220,000 $ 220,000 $ 3 855,000 Bond Proceeds $ 3 100 000 $ 500,000--]- - — _ W$ Jj} $ 3 604,000 Mitigation 1 $2,26-5,000 $ 2,265,000 Undetorm ned -$ 181,000 $ 7,B20.000 5 7 150_4pD_ $ 4,512 000 $ 941,000 t $_5,631 000 $ 26235,000 Total1 $5,201,000 ! $11,140,000 S 7,870,000 $ 4,732.000 $1,161,004 $ 5,851,000 ! $ 35,955,400 III -47 Amended 03/11/11 AFI GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2007- 2012 FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES Inventory of Existing Facilities The Renton Fire Department provides fire protection services from six locations: Fire Department I-leadquarters is located on the sixth floor of City Hall at 1055 Grady Way; Station I 1 which is in the downtown area and serves the central part of the city; Station 12 which is located in Renton Highlands and serves the north and east portions of the city; Station 13 which is located in the Talbot Hill area and serves the southeast portion of the city; and Station 14 is located at Lind & S. 19th Street and serves the South portion of Renton. Additionally, King County Fire District 25 operationally is part of the Renton fire protection system; it serves the east portion of the city as well as portions of King County. Figure 13-1 on the following page shows the locations of the fire stations. Currently Station 11 is staffed by 9 personnel and is equipped with one engine company, one ladder company, one aid car and one command unit. Station 12 is staffed by 5 personnel and is equipped with one engine company and one aid car. Stations 13, 14, and 16 are staffed by three personnel and equipped with an engine and an aid unit. `The City's water system is also a critical component of fire protection service. Currently all areas of the city are served by the city water system. Level of Service Historically, level of service for fire suppression has been measured in a variety of qualitative and quantitative terms. However, in the city's Fire Department Master flan (1987) the primary level of service criteria were response time and fire flow. In the next capital facilities plan, there will be a shift in the placement of fire stations with a goal of providing a city wide fire and emergency service coverage net that maintains a 90`11 percentile response goal. Meeting this goal will ensure that all citizens can expect the same response time 90% of the time. Response time is an important criterion for level of service because there is a direct relationship between both how long a fire burns and how long a person can survive with their heart beating. The ultimate goal of the fire and emergency service system is the preservation of human life. Obviously, the need to extinguish fires is also a criterion for measuring the level of service for the fire and emergency services system, as fire is one of the more likely causes of significant property damage in the city. Fire flow refers to the amount of water that is available to spray on a fire and extinguish it. Understandably, water is an essential element for fire suppression, and the hotter a fire, the more water that must be available to extinguish it. Determining what is adequate fire flow depends upon a building's type of construction, floor area, and use. For example, adequate fire flow in the city's water system for a single-family wood frame house is 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) whereas adequate fire flow for a shopping center or an industrial park is approximately 4,500 gpm. The third aspect of establishing level of service is personnel. Having trained firefighters in sufficient numbers is crucial to putting out a fire safely and efficiently. The city strives to comply with national standards relative to the staffing of fire apparatus as it is the placement of personnel at the location of the incident that for the basis for the success of the lire and emergency service delivery system. According to national standards: 1. Acceptable response time is defined as having the first responding unit arrives on the incident scene in within five minutes of receipt of the response 90% of the time. 2. Acceptable response time is for the basic firefighting force (15 personnel) is nine minutes from the receipt of the response 90% of the time. III -48 Amended 03/11/11 2=08!108 3. 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. 4. Acceptable staffing is defined as having four firelighters on each piece of firefighting apparatus. Though the goal of the city is to comply with nationally recognized standards, the ability to meet these standards is subject to resource availability at the time of an incident, rather than an absolute. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan 2007- 2012 With the exception of a few isolated small areas of the city, the five minute response time level of service standard is being met 63.8% of the time, which is 70.8% of the national standard. Similarly, the adequate fire flow level of service standard is being met city-wide. Generally, fire flows are adequate throughout the city, a long-range water system plan is being implemented to upgrade the few low fire flow areas, and development standards and review procedures are in place, which require that necessary fire suppression measures are made available for all new construction. In the east Renton area the agreement with Fire District 25 whereby the city has assumed operational control of that facility coupled with Station 12 and the water system plan for the area should assure that both response time and fire flow standards will be maintained. In the Kennydale area a new station 15 will be constructed over the next six years. The station will be staffed with four firefighters, seven days a week. This means an additional fifteen firefighters along with the purchase of equipment. The total project includes the purchase of land, design, construction, hiring personnel, and purchase of equipment. Presently the northerly portion of the area is within the ten-minute response time standard but outside of the five-minute response time standard l:or Station 12. Over the next six years, some single family and multi -family growth is projected for the Kennydale/Highlands area, as is some employment growth. This growth would increase somewhat the importance of providing improved service to the area in the near term. Given the residential and employment growth projected for the area after the year 2006, the importance of taking actions to improve the five-minute response time coverage increase substantially during that period. Land has been acquired to construct Fire Station #15 in the Kennydale area and there could be a need for an additional station in the eastern portion of the city on or near Duvall Avenue in north of NE 4`h. The Fire Department is in the process of acquiring software that will help with this analysis. The City also anticipated improvements to Valley Communications Facilities over the next six years. Station 14 was built in the Valley industrial area to help handle the projected employment and multi- family growth for the area. In addition, there is still a need for a new facility for Station 13 due to its physical limitations in terms of its ability to accommodate the necessary equipment and personnel to maintain the current level of service standards as growth occurs. Station 13 was built as a temporary facility, until a current level of service standards as growth occurs. King County Fire District #40 has constructed a new state of the art facility in the Benson Hill potential annexation area. This will be inside Renton City limits should an annexation of this area occur. The Fire Department is in discussions with King County Fire district 440 regarding a potential contract that would provide service to the district in the same way that services are provided to King County Fire District 925. III -49 Amended 03il lil11'?,'OXJOR Fig. 13-1 Existing and Proposed Fire Stations III -50 Amended 03'1111 lz?.�n 2007- 2012 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The Neighborhood Grant Program currently provides $50,000 to be distributed in small matching grants to organized associations that from recognized geographic neighborhoods in Renton. The grant projects must be a benefit to the pubic, create physical improvements, build and enhance a neighborhood feature and be within Renton City limits. Over the next six years, the funding for this program is expected to increase to $110,000 by 2012. $1.5 million dollars of funding for infrastructure implementation in the Highlands Study Area has been set aside in City reserves. New development in this area will require additional investments to stimulate redevelopment. III -5 1 Amended (}3111'11 E2108/08 Fig. 13-2 General Government Capital Facilities 2007-2012 OiO-'.OO: 10'. a 1014!C9:,r � 1( I� O'�. r O N� IlC)j ".O 'O CD 10 0 0 L6 LO ! 'NMI �; { LO L6 iT ao :N! O O' IC, INTO i0 is lED ItiG9f EO 64 Oid,O 0 O 4 4 O OIC 17:10 �O O ai �,,lA, _':M M LD .0 !Of!�'WOf 'iHs NC]i'�i�A 164 169:69 i i64 ii? o,O!C>1,D to ' .OIQ'O'. ajO'n!c '010 'G! O.O.O1pi IO'll}OiN !. iOM •1691 jN'� 't{ yy ',N'�, o]�YP 49. i 69F C4 64; 16fy' 64',fA 64 L IO!O ' O I(D O blOi i0 o D.. C O!p N O O�,. 0.0; C:5 C) 1�1��101� 69' '.69 I I i � I I , O I N �1 m o a CL C1 C 6I i (U LO to O U)ID C.. �1.0!'�!o!s' EUI.iay�C:; - !..r. N�05:66 E L +ii: Q+ G N; {6 y!:iLiz wiz7, a; C1 0 III -52 Amcndcd 63!] I0 i l12� �,vmQ 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. 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_ 5. Encourage and facilitate the reduction of commute and other trips made via single occupant vehicles. 6. Create efficiently functioning air transportation facilities that are responsibly integrated with the City's transportation system and land use pattern. 7. Maintain and improve truck and freight rail access to Renton industrial areas, and integrate freight transportation needs into Renton's multi -modal transportation system. 8. 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. 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. 10. Develop and maintain relationships between Renton and other agencies and local jurisdictions for cooperative planning of common transportation improvements, and discussion of transportation -related interests. Amended 03/1 ill 1 11,) O SUMMARY The Transportation Element of Renton's Comprehensive Plan serves several purposes. In addition to meeting the State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for a transportation element, it assists the City in coordinating transportation planning with land use planning and adequately serving existing and future residential and employment growth. The Transportation Element, sometimes called a Transportation Plan, also provides direction on coordinating the development of a multi -modal system, which is a system that accommodates various modes of transportation. Finally, the Transportation Element coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in adjacent jurisdictions and the region. This coordination is an important element in creating an effective system and in competing for transportation funding. The goal of the Renton Transportation Element is to provide "a balanced multi -modal transportation system that will support land use patterns, and adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth within the City." (A multi -modal system is defined as one which provides various choices of transportation for the public such as automobiles, buses, rail, transit, bicycles, walking.) The main objective guiding the development of the Transportation Element is to be consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies, the State's Growth Management Act, County -wide Planning Policies, and Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) legislation. Another key objective of the Transportation Element is to "coordinate land use and transportation planning." This is a requirement of the State's Growth Management Act. The Transportation Element must also be coordinated with the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) VISION 2020 and Destination 2030 (the adopted long-range growth and transportation strategy for the Central Puget Sound area — King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties). A companion regional document is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), also produced by the PSRC, which specifically addresses regional transportation and how jurisdictional transportation plans fit within the regional context. This City of Renton Transportation Element is consistent with GMA, VISION 2020, Destination 2030, and the MTP. The Comprehensive Plan (and Transportation Element) was adopted on November 1, 2004. Subsequent transportation planning work and enactment of development regulations that are consistent with, and help implement, the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element have resulted in the additionalmest resent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (and Transportation Element) since that time. The most recent amendments to this element occurred in 2011 to incorporate transportation projects anticipated in the Sunset Area Community_ Planned Action EIS. As noted above, the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to create a desirable land use pattern and serve land uses with a multi -modal transportation system. This Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan comprises a set of framework transportation policies to support Renton's land use Vision and a more detailed and technical plan for implementation of the framework policies. The Transportation Element encompasses several chapters, including Street Network, Transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), Non -Motorized Transportation, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR), Airport, Freight, Financing and Implementation, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Intergovernmental Coordination. Some of the transportation policies apply to specific chapters; the policies compiled below apply to all of the chapters. XI -2 Amended 03111!111-2,-094)8 General Policies Policy T-1. Land use plans and regulations should be used to guide development of the Transportation Element for the City. Policy T-2. Transportation improvements should support land use plans. Policy T-3. Transportation plans should be phased concurrently with growth. Policy T-4. Adequate transportation facilities and services should be in place at the time of occupancy or an adopted strategy must be in place to provide those facilities within six years of the approval of new development. Policy T-5. Land use and transportation plans should be consistent so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible with each other. Land use capacity/forecast assumptions used in capacity/forecast modeling should be used in estimating travel demand. Policy T-6. Land use patterns should support transit and non -motorized modes of travel. Policy T-7. The disruptive impacts of traffic related to centers and employment areas should be reduced. Xl-3 Amended 03,,'1 til t124) 08 In this context, disruptive impacts are primarily traffic. They could be mitigated by implementing programs, such as transportation management programs implemented through cooperative agreements at the work place, flexible work hours, and/or sub -area planning policies supporting increased density_ Increased land use densities and a balance of land use mixes in an urban setting will result in fewer and shorter vehicle trips. As people begin to live closer to employment and shopping, they will no longer need to drive to these facilities and they will be able to link trips, resulting in fewer vehicle trips. In addition to the Transportation -Land Use interaction, another issue that pervades several of the chapters of the Transportation Element is that of parking. The location and supply of parking is an integral part of the local transportation system. Inadequate parking can increase congestion on streets as people circle and hunt for available spaces. Too much parking is an inefficient use of land and can deter transit use. A proper balance needs to be achieved between parking supply and demand. Satellite parking and shuttle services and collective structured parking are potential methods for increasing the parking supply. Note: Any references in this document to downtown parking restrictions and/or removal apply only to commuter/employee parking and not to business patron/customer parking. Growth Management Act Requirements The Growth Management Act specifies the following minimum requirements for information that is to be included in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; 2. Facilities and service needs, including: a. An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit routing, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; b. Level of service standards for the transportation system to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the systern. These standards should be regionally coordinated, and adopted Level of Service (LOS) policy and/or standards for state facilities shall be stated in local transportation plans. C. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established LOS standard; d. Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing, and capacity needs of future growth; e. Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to meet current and future demands; Demand Management Strategies 4. Finance, including: a. An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; b. A multi-year financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities; XI -4 Amended 03191111''? .,gym If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that LOS standards will be met; Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions. STREET NETWORK Traffic generated by employment centers, regional pass-through traffic using local streets, and truck traffic all contribute to congestion and reduced accessibility within the City of Renton. In resolving traffic #1ow problems, a number of choices will need to be made. In some cases, increasing traffic flows only increase congestion on local streets or impact pedestrians, yet if traffic flows are reduced accessibility can be compromised. Alternately, if the local street system is efficient and not congested it will attract increased regional traffic. The objectives and policies in the Street Network chapter are intended to reduce the amount of traffic that has neither an origin nor destination in the City of Renton while at the same time providing reasonable levels of traffic flow and accessibility on the local street system. These objectives and policies also address issues related to the street network as a system, the physical design of individual roadways, traffic flow, and traffic operations control_ The Street Network Chapter contains a detailed review of the City of Renton's street system — including existing functional classifications as well as a description of Renton's Arterial Plan. The Street Network Chapter also contains discussion of the Level of Service criteria used to judge performance of the system. (The service levels were developed in conjunction with King County adopted Level -of -Service FranreN-ork Policies and other local jurisdictions.) Objectives The Street Network Chapter is based on the following objective: Objective T -A: Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable vehicular circulation throughout the City while enhancing the safety and function of the local transportation system. Policies Policy T-8. Each street in the City should be assigned a functional classification based on factors ncluding traffic volumes, type of service provided, land use, and preservation of neighborhoods. Policy T-9. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an interconnecting network that serves local traffic and facilitates pedestrian circulation. Policy T-10. Street vacations should be supported when: • The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed for future public use; • The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed for the interconnection of the roadway system; • The abutting property owners have demonstrated a need for the street vacation; and, • The resultant road configuration, after the street vacation, conforms to adopted City plans. X1-5 Amended 0311111 I SR Policy T-11. Street vacations should only be supported in Downtown and neighborhoods that have developed around a traditional grid system when the resultant road configuration after the street vacation does not significantly interrupt the function of the overall grid system. Policy T-12. Street standards should continue to be based on functional classification, land use objectives, and HOV/transit/non-motorized facility needs. (The street standards should be coordinated with the objectives and policies of the Community Design Element.) Policy T-13. A level of service should be maintained that: maximizes mobility by emphasizing transit and HOV improvements; is coordinated with level of service standards of adjacent jurisdictions; and meets State requirements under GMA and concurrency. Policy T-14. Traffic flow on and accessibility to arterial streets should be managed to maximize person - carrying capacity. Policy T-15. Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased through traffic while maintaining access to neighborhoods. Policy T-16. Street networks should connect through the development to existing streets, avoid "cul-de-sac" or dead end streets, and be arranged in a grid street pattern (or a flexible grid street system if there are environmental constraints)_ Policy T-17. Proactively work with the state and neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on regional transportation systems and to reduce regional traffic on local streets. Policy T-18. Develop strategies to reduce adverse traffic impacts on local areas. (areas of the City that require this type of intervention should be identified and addressed through the sub -area planning process, neighborhood plans, or traffic mitigation programs that are implemented through development review.) Policy T-19. Access management, such as restricting left turns and excessive use of driveways, should be coordinated with design standards and land use in order to enhance public safety and preserve traffic carrying capacity. (Also see related policies in the HO V, Transit, Non-rnotorized and Freight sections of this Element and of the Community Design Element.) Inventory of Existing Streets The existing streetlhighway system serving Renton is shown in Figure 1-1. The system includes two freeways: Interstate -405 and State Route -167 (the "Valley Freeway"). Interstate 405 provides connections to the Eastside and Snohomish County to the north, and to I-5 and the Sea -Tac Airport area to the south. The Valley Freeway extends south from J-405 to Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup. In addition to the freeways, Renton is served by several other state highways, including SR -900 (Sunset Boulevard), SR -169 (Maple Valley Highway), SR -515 (Benson Highway), and SR -167 (Rainier Avenue). Each of these state highways are integral elements of Renton's internal arterial system. In addition, SR -900 provides external connections to Issaquah on the east and to the Boeing Field area and J-5 on the west. SR - 169 connects Renton to SR -18 and southeast King County, SR -515 provides the main arterial connection to the unincorporated Soos Creek area, and the Rainier Avenue section of SR -167 connects Renton with south Seattle. XI -6 amended 03r ] l 11112108448 FIGURE 1-1 RENTON STREET/11IGIIWAY SYSTEM Existing Street"Highway System 3- Legend I castle ] — -{' Transportation City Limit * � \ � Pian . Renton «� P€anning Area , b ti b Jyy� 1 C Lake Washington N, tw f _� '? I castle Noi 7a S to Vl R2enton 1 �1 \-- fi -•2-w 1-.1�=Z �1 I i r 71�5i .7'x j Ai -r Amended 43!11/1 IV2,,'{i8,4J8 Six routes, I-405, SR -167, SR -900, SR -169, SR -515, and SR -167, converge in central Renton within a half mile radius of each other. This close proximity results in a complex traffic flow, as regional and local trips interact within a relatively short distance. Other key arterials that tie together the Renton street system include Grady Way and S.W. 43rd Street in the Valley, Talbot Road and Puget Drive in southeast Renton, Park Avenue and Park Drive, Logan Avenue, and Airport Way in Central Renton, and 3"' Street / 4" Strect, Duvall, Union, and Edmonds Avenues in East Renton. These arterials, with numerous other arterial streets, link commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhoods to the freeways and state highways. Within neighborhoods, local access streets provide internal circulation and connections to the arterials. Street System Characteristics Physical and traffic control characteristics of the Renton street system, including the location of traffic signals and one-way streets, and the number of lanes on arterial street segments, are shown in Figure 1-2. Existing Street Functional Classifications The purpose of functional classifications is threefold: i) to identify appropriate uses for Renton streets, ii) to establish eligibility for road improvement funding from various sources, and iii) to define appropriate street design standards. The arterial street functional classifications specified by the City of Renton include "Principal Arterial," "Minor Arterial," and "Collector Arterial" classifications. The adopted classifications in Renton, and the surrounding annexation areas of unincorporated King County, and on several roadways in adjacent City of Newcastle are shown in Figure 1.-3. "Principal Arterials" are streets and highways that connect major intra -city activity centers, have primarily high traffic volumes that travel at relatively fast vehicle speeds, and therefore, have less emphasis on land use access. Grady Way in south central Renton and N -E. 3`d/4"` Street in East Renton are examples of principal arterials. "Minor Arterials" are streets that provide links between principal arterials and collector arterials, and carry moderately high traffic volumes at less vehicle speed than on principal artetials. These arterials also connect intra -city activity centers with some emphasis on land use access. Southwest 7"' Street in west central Renton and Union Avenue in northeast Renton are examples of minor arterials. "Collector Arterials" are streets that distribute traffic between principal and minor arterials and local access streets. Collector arterials include streets that provide major traffic circulation with more emphasis on land use access within commercial and industrial areas, and residential neighborhoods. East Valley Road in southwest Renton and N.E. 12"' Street in northeast Renton are examples of collector arterials. Local access streets include all public streets not classified as principal, minor, or collector arterials. Local access streets primarily provide direct access to abutting land uses and are to be designed to discourage use by through traffic. These streets are identified by default on Figure 1-3 and are not listed in the legend. Traffic Volumes and Forecasts Existing (2000) and forecasted 2022* traffic volumes have been analyzed to reflect: i) latest regional and Renton land use modifications ii) latest regional transportation plans, and Renton Arterial, HOV and transit plans; iii) latest Renton mode split assumptions; and, iv) refinements to the City of Renton transportation model. X1-8 Amended 03!11/1 Ik?,A8=AR *NOTE: Renton's transportation model utilizes regional land use data and trip tables provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for the horizon years 2000 to 2020. For the 2022 traffic volume forecast, a linear groMli rate was calculated (from 2000 to 2020) and thea applied to the 2020 traffic volumes to obtain 2022 volume forecasts. Arterial Traffic Volu In order to show the overall level and pattern of utilization of the Renton street/highway system, 2000 and 2022 daily two-way traffic volumes were compiled (see Figures 1-4 and 1-5). The 2022 volumes reflect a freeway/arterial network comprised of facilities existing in 2000 and the following arterial and HOV improvements which are assumed to be implemented by 2022. XI -9 Amended 0311 11114-21'9;�'C+S FIGURE 1-2 ARTERIAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Arterial System Characteristics _ (2006) Legend ts .. Signalized * DI L Transportation ' ice'' E Intersection,'`-� Flan Number 2 ���`` of Lanes City Limit ! r Renton I NuE To Sca . Planning Area I: , moi` 3��-7 TaT ke wsiwhe6n j'�''''' i I T—�- ' � '-F T - Sa>�fl 2,r 2 21 `< ee lnse 'Renton 4 1 -Z_JI; J3 w Rh St LW 2 2 LL; 1 1- -i f 1 22 7_ riSSEit rF __A 1 Ef'j i ?2 i a" ky 2 1 2'2 �' f j 1 2 r sw w_LJ d 2 3 [_ f i * ?413 l" ! j , C ,.... r lam- / \ 3 9zn 8t moi- *4 isr 4 *y 4 / �2 A� _ � � ._._.1 r'_ � � 1 y �✓�-� .� i.�.• �i it _' : nt �` I XI -10 Aineiidcd 03111 ,'11 12 0848 FIGURE 1-3 ARTERIAL SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS P. = Amended 03111/'11 13x`08/08 FIGURE 1-4 2000 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES L L ile TT T — St t 4. i W I � �r a tE 1 } a �.0 n y a 111 KJFF4o ( vs t a g it ._i i t 1 rzae l ti;( L L-. 2000 Daily Traffic Volumes Legend Average �3 f' 26 Daily Traffic Transportation aka sed int L , City Limit Plan Renton M f / °. _ Planning Area XI -12 Amended 0311 1/1 1 1210 8,10 FIGURE 1-5 2022 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES `i _V castle rl Y E E ti \�. _. LES _74 t �} _ Q �,2 enton yo _ V. 4.70 IA w 27 St 2.2 Dail`' 2022 Traffic Volumes i `...,_.-� Legend Average q�,�, ' 7 9 Daily Traffic Transportation T si Plan r Renton Planning Area S A X1-13 Amended (1.3.;1 1/1 11 24W08 Arterial improvements: • Puget Drive Southeast – Benson Road to 116`h Avenue Southeast • Southwest 27`h /Strander Boulevard Connection – Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to SR -181 • Duvall Avenue Northeast – Sunset Boulevard to City Limits • Widen Bronson Way – South 2nd Street to Sunset Boulevard • Lake Washington Boulevard – Park Drive to Coulon Park • Oakesdale Avenue – Monster Road to SR -900 • South Grady Way/ Rainier Avenue South – Intersection improvements • Northeast 440' Street – Ripley Lane to Lake Washington Boulevard N -E. • SR -167 / East Valley Road Off -Ramp • NE 3'd Street – Sunset Boulevard to Edmonds Avenue N.E. • Sunset Boulevard – N.E. Park Drive to Monroe Avenue N.E_ HOV improvements - 0 Full HOV interchange at 1-405 / Northeast 40' Street • Add I IOV lanes on I-5 – Seattle CBD to Tacoma • 1-405 HOV Direct Access at Park Drive or North 8'h Street • Half or full HOV interchange at I405/13enson Road or Talbot Road (SR -515) and HOV lanes on SR -515 or Benson Road South from the new HOV interchange to Puget Drive • Half HOV interchange at SR-167/S.W. 27`h Street and HOV lanes on S.W. 27`h Street from SR - 167 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on SR -169 – Sunset Boulevard to east city limits • IIOV lanes or intersection queue jump on N.E. 3r1 / N.E. 40' Street –1-405 to Monroe Avenue Northeast • Transit Lane –South Grady Way to South Third Street High-volume arterial corridors include Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, each with over 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd), and Renton Avenue, North Park Drive -Sunset Boulevard Northeast, Northeast 3`d Street/4`3' Street, Talbot Road South, Southwest 43`1 Street and South Grady Way -Main Avenue South, each carrying over 20,000 vpd (volume numbers in 2000) The forecasted 2022 volumes show significant increases over 2000 volumes. On major arterial corridors, volumes are forecasted to increase on the order of 40% - 100% over the 22 -year period. The highest -volume arterial corridor in 2022 is Rainier Avenue, with forecasted daily volumes of 20,000-66,000 through Renton. Maple Valley Highway (SRI 69) also has forecasted volumes in excess of 40,000 vpd. Other high- volume arterials with forecasted volumes in excess of 30,000 vpd are listed below: South Grady Way rd th Airport Way/Logan Avenue NE 3– Street/NE 4 Street North Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard SunnS Boulevard North (west of 1-405) S/ 43- Street / South Carr Road/SE 176– Street/ Petrovitsky Road XI -14 Amended 0111 1 l'- num Traffic volumes on the freeway system are also forecasted to increase significantly by 2022, with daily volumes of over 200,000 on most segments of 1-405 and over 120,000 on SR -167 (Valley Freeway) through Renton. The forecasted 1-405 volumes are equivalent to current volumes on I-5 at the Ship Canal Bridge, where 1-5 has eight mainline lanes plus four reversible roadway lanes (as compared to the two lanes plus an HOV lane in each direction on 1-405). The I-405 Corridor is vital for regional connections between Renton and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the City's streets and neighborhood livability. Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety_ Six Levels of Service are defined using letter designations -- A, B, C, D, E and 1~, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS h the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat Iess comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D. speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles_ The new LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision -makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. Renton's LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non - motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally -linked, locally -oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level -of -Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and XI -15 Amended 03111/11 !;,'( &o 09 • Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit elements of the LOS standard arc based on travel times and distance and are the primary indicators for concurrency. The non -motorized and TDM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi -modal goals of Renton and the region. Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections, and it provides a multi -modal LOS standard that conforms with current regional and local policies requiring encouragement of multi -modal travel. The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process includes the following: • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV and HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and MOV travel times for the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intra -Renton travel time to regional system, and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (index) using the most recent existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the most recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system, including State-owned facilities; and Selecting a plan that maintains the established LOS standard_ Other elements of the LOS implementation process include: Monitoring the area to re -validate transportation plans; Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; and Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). Level Of Service Standard A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30 - minute travel distance for SOV, HOV, and Transit as follows: 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30 -minutes from the City in all directions SOV HDV 2 times Transit (includes access time) LOS Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* X1-16 Amended 03/11/1 1)2'08/08 * Rounded As indicated in the above table: a single occupant vehicle (SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel approximately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupant vehicle (HOV - carpool, vanpool) could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes: and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes_ It should be noted that the transit index value takes into account the time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002) is then weighted by doubling it (to 6.8 miles) to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger -carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard, presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995, was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was updated using an enhanced Renton (1990-2010) transportation model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 2022) land use data and examining the raw data, the 2002 LOS index was found to be 42. This reduction in LOS index could be attributed to: i) reduced King County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints (e.g. passage of Initiative 695); ii) limited implementation of Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990 — 2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2022 standard. The average SOV 30 -minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of 110V and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard_ With the 2002 JAS index as a base, the City-wide 2022 LOS standard has been detennined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30 -minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit (includes access time) LOS Standard 15* miles 17* miles 10* miles 42 * hounded This standard will require that the travel time of SOV (15) + HOV (17) +2 T(10) or the sum of these three modes (42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years_ The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub -Elements that are designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffic growth/land use development. To test against the LOS standard, the 2022 planned Arterial, HOV, and Transit improvements identified later in this Transportation Element are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traflic Model then calculates the average travel speed for the SOV, 11OV, and Transit* modes along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments of known distance) including those routes that have been identified for improvements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42. *Other factors are considered for calculating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access time. XI -17 Aniended 03111i1112 �WO8 Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton's LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995. LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) (i.e. 1-5, 1-405, SR 167) have been adopted in 1998 by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). For urban areas the adopted LOS standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionally significant state highways (non -HSS) in the Central Puget Sound region (i.e. SR -900, SR -169, SR -515) were adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) on October 30, 2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges from LOS E/mitigated (pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E) to the traditional LOS D. (Further information on LOS standards for HSS and non -HSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-owned facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilities have been factored into Renton's modeling estimates of Renton's projected growth, and this local modeling estimate identifies how Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use and growth projections may impact state-owned facilities. These state-owned facilities are also included in Renton's city-wide travel -time based LOS standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehicles. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Renton's Transportation Element has identified SOV, HOV, and transit -oriented improvements to state-owned facilities within Renton, as well as the local roadway system. Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi -modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi -modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible_ The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table I.1 and their location shown in Figure 1 -7 - The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, .Kent, and Newcastle Transportation lsnprovement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit flan and HOV improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2022 Level of Service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2022. XI -18 Aincrided 063! 111111-2-''0&'A!3 FIGURE 1-6 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN Renton Arterial Flan 3 I (2002 to 2022) Legend City Limit I _ Transportation Renton `f Plan f Manning Area 1 Principal Arterial u=w Minor Arterial ....� , Collector Arterial ' L ` ,y l- attl Lske Vrasl<in fon r NIN y 41r' € , � 1 nt Ainended 03111 11 1 1'"'—moo TABLE 1.1 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN 2002-2022 IMPROVEMENTS 1. Bronson Way — South 2nd Street to Park Avenue North arterial improvements/bridge rehabilitation 2. Garden Avenue North- North 8`h Street to Park Drive North 3. CBD Streetscape street improvements 4. Rainier Avenue South 4'1' Place to South 7`h Street arterial widening/RR over crossing replacement 5. Grady Way - Main Avenue to West City Limits arterial improvements 6. Lind Avenue Southwest - Southwest 16'1' to Southwest 43rd Street arterial widening 7 NE 2nd and NE 6`h Street — Duvall Avenue NE to 156'1' Avenue SE street improvements 8_ Duvall Avenue Northeast Sunset Boulevard to North City Limits arterial widening 9. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Monster Road to SR -900 arterial widening 10. S.W. 27'1' Street / Strander Boulevard — SR -181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest new arterial IL _ Duvall Avenue NE- NE 8`h Street to Sunset Boulevard arterial widening 12. Rainier Avenue —South. 0 Place to South 2nd Street arterial improvements 13. Puget Drive Southeast - Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast arterial widening 14. Benson Road -- South 20 Street to South 3151 Street safely improvements/ arterial widening 15. Talbot Road — Southwest 43rd to South City Limits arterial widening 16. N.E. 3rd / N.E. 4'1' Corridor Improvements — Sunset Boulevard to East City Limits arterial improvements 17. Mill Avenue South/Carr Road intersection improvements 18_ Lake Washington Boulevard. — Park Avenue North to Coulon Park Entrance arterial improvements 19A. Park Ave. N. / Sunset Boulevard — Garden Avenue N. to Duvall Avenue N.E_ safety/mobility improvements I 9B_ Sunset Boulevard -- NE Park Drive to Monroe Avenue NE arterial improvements 20. May Creek Bridge Replacement bridge replacement 21. South Renton Neighborhood Improvements street improvements 22. N.E. 8`h and NE 10`h Street -- Union Avenue N.E. to Duvall Avenue N.E. street improvements 23. Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) 1-405 to East City Limits safety/mobility improvements 24. 156'1' Avenue SE- SE 134'h Street to SE 136'1' Street arterial widening 25. 116'1' Avenue Southeast- Puget Drive SE to South 192nd street arterial improvements 26. Carr Road/SE 176'1'/SE Petrovitsky- Lind Ave. SW to 110 Ave SE arterial improvements 27. Carr Road/Benson Road (SR 515) Intersection improvements OTHER JURISDICTION PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TUICwILA: 28. West Valley Highway (SR 181)/South 156'1' Street intersection improvements 29.. West Valley Highway (SR 181) — 1-405 to Strander Blvd. arterial improvements 30. Nelsen Place — South 156th to South 158'1' street improvements KENT: 31. South 190/1 92'd Street Corridor (Phase 11I) - East Valley Highway to SRS 15 new arterial XI -20 Amended 03l] 1 r 11 32. 80 Avenue South — South 1961i to South 188t1i arterial widening NEWCASTLE: 33, Coal Creek Parkway (Phase 2 and 3) SE 84th Way to SE 951i Street artcrial widening 34. Newcastle Way — 1 l2d' Avenue SE to 12911 Avenue SE arterial widening 35. Newcastle Way / 116'J' Avenue SE intersection improvements 36. 1.121t Avenue SE — SE 64°i Street to Newcastle Way arterial widening 37. Not used 38. 112th Place SE West City Limit to I I6'h Avenue SE arterial improvements KING COUNTY: 39_ Duvall Avenue NE/Coal Creek Parkway — Renton City Limits to Newcastle City arterial widening Limits (SE 95tH Way) 40. South 192nd Street - SR -515 to 140t1i Avenue Southeast arterial widening 41. 156t1' Ave SEISE 142nd Place (City of Renton under recent annexations) intersection improvement 42. 154th Place SEISE 142"d Place- Jones Road to 150 Avenue SE arterial real ignment/widening 43_ 140''' Avenue SE / SE Petrovitsky intersection improvements WSDOT (Limited Access): 44. 1-405 1-5 to SR 167 add one lane in each direction 45. 1-405 — SR 167 to North City Limits add two lanes in each direction 46. SR 167 I-405 to SW 43rd Street add one lane in each direction 47. I-405/SR 167 Interchange • Southbound 1-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct connection ramp • Northbound SR 167 to Northbound 1-405 construct direct connection ramp • Northbound I-405 to Southbound SR 167 construct direct connection ramp 48. I-405 between Lind Avenue SW and Talbot Road construct one-way frontage road in each direction with ramp connections to I-405 at Hind and Talbot 49. I-405/SR 169 Interchange • SR 169/North 3rd Street construct split - diamond interchange • Southbound I-405 to Eastbound SR 169 construct direct connection ramp 50. I-405/Park Avenue N Interchange reconstruct to accommodate I-405 widening XI -21 Amended 03/11,1 142/WO8 51. 1-405/N 30`h Street Interchange 52. 1-405/NE 44" Street Interchange WSDOT (City ROW) 53. SW 43rd Street Lind Avenue SW to Talbot Road 54. East Valley Road — SW 16' to SW 34'x' Street 55. Lind Avenue SW — Grady Way to SW 16th Street 56, Talbot Road — South Renton Village Place to South 15'h Place 57, Mill Avenue South —Houser Way to Bronson Way 58. Renton and Cedar Avenue Overpasses of 1-405 59. Sunset Boulevard west of I-405 60. Houser Way -- north of North 4'h Street to North 80' Street 61. Lake Washington Boulevard —north of NE 440' Street 62. Benson Road/I-405 Overpass POST 2022 IMPROVEMENTS RENTON: South Lake Washington Improvements • Logan Avenue North — North 4`h Street to Garden Avenue North • North 10th Street — Logan Avenue North to Houser Way • Park Avenue North Logan Avenue North to 1,200 feet north of Logan Avenue North North 4"' Street— Logan Avenue North to Sunset Boulevard WSDOT (Limited Access); 1-405 —1-5 to SR 167 I-405/SR 167 Interchange • Northbound SR 167 to Southbound I-405 East Valley Road at SW 34th Street XI -22 reconstruct to accommodate 1-405 widening reconstruct to accommodate 1-405 widening and future improvements arterial widening arterial realignment arterial widening to accommodate frontage road and 1-405 ramps arterial widening to accommodate frontage road and I-405 ramps convert to one-way northbound realignment/revisions to accommodate 1-405 widening realign ment/rev is ions to accommodate 1-405 widening realignment/revisions to accommodate 1-405 widening realignment to accommodate 1-405 widening replacement to accommodate 1-405 widening arterial widening street widening new street revise street network add one lane in each direction construct direct connection ramp construct new ramps connecting to SR 167 Amended 031,'] 1rI l i 2,�W(s g 1-405 at North 10'x' Street I-405 at SR 169 • Northbound 1-405 to Houser Way + Southbound Houser Way to Southbound 1-405 Northbound SR 169 to Northbound I-405 WSDOT (City ROW): Rainier Avenue — Grady Way to East Valley Road East Valley Road — SW 16'x' to SW 34h Street XI -23 construct direct conzzcction ramps to and from the north construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp realign roadway to connect to East Valley Road at SW 16°i Street arterial widening Amended 03 /1 1 /1138/49 FIGURE 1-7pu RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Arterial Plan Improvements Lagend City Limit 1 r V52 Renton Transportation Planning Area By 2022 Plan. � � r i f C�t te - -. ! "tU.i vearT j r � _ y12 ff F� 46 t W Milli - 2 5 `_.J— � Q i �x� _• SNE 13114 53 24 ff F� 46 �I Milli - `_.J— � Q i �x� _• SNE 13114 53 XI -24 Relfton ti I t � � ➢ '. . J;aka � '. �. `' L.r.--Yap. .w L i Amended 03 /1 U111-2,"A'd8 Included in Table 1.1 are arterial and freeway improvements that have been identified beyond 2022_ These improvements will also be needed to support future land use and neighborhood and business goals and improve safety_ Ongoing transportation planning work will include periodic testing of the 2002-2022 arterial and freeway improvements in Table 1.1 against the LOS standard. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Intelligent Transportation Systemts (ITS) is often defined as the application of technology to address transportation problems such as congestion, safety, and mobility. Within the Puget Sound region, subustantial investments in ITS have been made by city and county departments of transportation and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The City of Renton has completed construction of a Traffic Management Center (TMC), deployed a new centralized signal control system, and installed a video link to view WSDOT freeway cameras. As Renton's ITS program grows to include more technologies and expanded interagency coordination, the City of Renton has developed an ITS Master Plan that documents the City's ITS needs and provides direction for implementation of future ITS projects and programs Information describing ITS needs, potential projects and programs, costs and priorities is provided in the City of Renton Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan, Final Report, June 16, 2406. TRANSIT In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. The challenge will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. One of the most important of these alternatives is public transportation, or "transit." The Renton transit system, defined in this Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element, must provide attractive, convenient service for the local and regional travel needs of Renton businesses and residents. Objectives The Transit Chapter is based on the following objectives: Objectve T -B: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single -occupancy vehicles. Objective T -C: Ensure that a regional high-capacity transit system serves Renton. Objective T-D:Develop a transit system that conveniently connects the regional high-capacity transit system and local Renton residential areas, activity centers, and employment centers to the transit center. Objective T -E: Develop a local transit system that provides attractive, convenient service for intra -Renton travel. Objective T -F: Develop a transit circulation/distribution system that provides convenient connections between downtown and residential, employment, and other commercial areas within the Renton planning area. Objective T -G: Support methods of increasing transit accessibility to Commercial Corridor areas. Policies Policy T-20. The City should work with other jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area to plan and provide frequent, coordinated and comprehensive bus service and transit facilities in all residential and employment areas. XI -25 Amended 03/11/1112!09/0 Policy T-21. Local and regional transit service and facilities should be planned and improved in cooperation with the regional transit authority. Policy T-22. Support routing of the citywide transit system to Commercial Corridor areas to provide greater access. Policy T-23. Encourage development proponents to work with the City Transportation Division, King County METRO, and Sound Transit in order to site transit stops within the Commercial Corridor areas_ Policy T-24. Seek ways of improving speed and reliability of transit serving Renton's Downtown Policy T-25. The City should take an active role in working with the regional transit agencies in planning and locating public transit facilities. Policy T-26. Transit should link the downtown with other parts of the Urban Center, other commercial activity areas, and the City's major employment areas to encourage use of the downtown by those employees both during and after work hours. Policy T-27. The multi -modal Transit Center in downtown Renton should be promoted as part of a regional high capacity transit system. Policy T-28. Both intercity and intra -city transit should be focused at the Renton Transit Center, the multi- modal transit facility located in the Downtown Core Area. Policy T-29. Future development and improvements in the Urban Center — Downtown should emphasize non - automobile oriented travel both to and within the downtown, while maintaining an adequate amount of parking for regional retail customers. 'Transit and parking programs should be integrated, balanced, and implemented concurrently_ Policy T-30. Transit span of service should increase as Downtown Renton adds evening entertainment, dining, and recreation opportunities. Policy T-31. Public transportation transit stops should be safe, clean, comfortable, and attractive. Policy T-32. Parking serving the downtown Transit Center should be encouraged in parking structures. Policy T-33. Non -structured park-and-ride facilities should be located out of the Urban Center and feed into the downtown Transit Center. Policy T-34. Development of a regional network using new technology to move people and goods should be supported. Policy T-35. The City should support development of transit service connecting Renton to a regional rail network. Policy T-36. Criteria should be developed to locate park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. Policy T-37. Park -and -rides within the City of Renton's Urban Center and its Center Village designations should meet the following criteria: • Use structured parking garages. • Be available for non -commuter use during evenings and weekends. • Be located within the immediate vicinity of the City's Transit Center, or any future major transit transfer facility (e.g., in Renton I lighlands or South Lake Washington Neighborhood). Policy T-38. Surface park -and -rides located outside of the City's Urban Center should meet the following criteria - XI -26 Amended 03/11 il 111'084* • Be located in the vicinity of 1-405, SR -167, SR -900 east of I-405, and/or SR -169. (These park-and-ride locations shall be chosen to provide convenient access for transit to those corridors while minimizing commuter pass-through traffic on Renton's street system.) • Be located in Commercial or Industrial designations within easy walking distance of employment, and/or multi -family uses. • Not be located within the Rainier Avenue corridor north of the I.405/SR-167 interchange. • Avoid consuming large areas of urban land for primary use parking lots_ Policy T-39. Shared -use park -and -rides located anywhere within the City should meet the following criteria: • Be leased from existing, under-utilized parking spaces required per development standards for a primary use. Not be expanded to accommodate leased park and rides. Not be leased within the commercial area west of the tJrban Center— Downtown bounded by SW 7`�' Street, Shattuck Avenue, Airport Way, and Hardie Avenue SW since cash flow resulting from a lease may be a disincentive for redevelopment of surface parking lots in this area_ Policy T-40. Regional commercial uses should be linked by frequent and reliable mass transit to major employment and population centers. Also see related policies in: TDM/CTR Section; Land Use Element/Urban Center Section; and Community Design Element. The residential and centers policies of the land use plan also support transit through establishment of residential densities and a mix of residential and commercial uses in centers that can support public transportation. Specific treatment of the routes and stops for a transit system in downtown Renton are addressed in the Downtown policies of the land use plan. However, it is expected that such stops would serve commercial activity centers, which would complement the commercial and residential activities envisioned in the centers and residential policies of the land use plan. Existing Transit Service Bus service in Renton is currently provided by the King County Transit Division (Metro), the agency responsible for transit service in King County, and Sound Transit, the agency responsible for regional transit service_ Figure 2-1 identifies the existing bus routes operating in Renton_ A variety of Metro service is provided in the city ranging from internal Renton routes such as Route l 10, the Renton "Rush " circulator route, to regional service to downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue. Sound Transit's service includes express routes operating to SeaTac and Bellevue (Route 560), to Auburn and Bellevue (Route 564) and to Federal Way and Bellevue (Route 565). While not serving the city directly, Sound Transit's Sounder commuter rail service stops at the nearby Tukwila station. During weekday peak periods, Sounder trains currently serve several locations in Pierce County and South King County as well as downtown Seattle (King Street Station). The following provides an overview of the existing transit network serving Renton. Local Access The route structure and service headways for Renton routes provide basic overall service coverage. One of the local, community -oriented routes, Route 148, provides late evening and Sunday service. Route 105 provides evening service in the Highlands. Service connections in the Highlands area are reduced in the early evening periods; however, Route 240 provides evening and weekend service in the Highlands. In addition, Route 110, X1-27 Amended 03/11/1112,09,`08 which was intended to operate as a local circulator, is available only during the peak periods and includes service connection to the Tukwila commuter rail station. Eastside Connections Several Metro and Sound Transit routes provide connections to downtown Bellevue and other Eastside communities. These connections include Bellevue (non -downtown) and Factoria. Direct service is currently provided between Highlands and Factoria via Metro Route 240_ Route 240 provides 30 -minute service during the day Monday through Saturday plus hourly service in the evenings. South King County Connections The baseline travel demand patterns indicate a substantial level of demand between Kent and various locations in Renton, particularly the Green River Valley. Renton and Kent have partnered with King County Metro to provide additional weekday service (Route 153) between downtown Renton and downtown Kent. East-West Connections Metro Route 140 currently connects Burien and Renton. Sound Transit Route 560 provides a connection between SeaTac and Renton. East -west connections to the Green River Valley area are particularly important given the current level of travel demand to this area from locations such as Tukwila and Burien. Route 11 I provides service from the Lake Kathleen area via east Renton to downtown Seattle. The following routes serve a variety of markets: • Routes 101 and 106, Downtown • Route 240, Bellevue • Route 140, Burien, Sea -Tac Airport • Route 169, Kent • Route 148, Local Renton Downtown Renton Transit Center The Downtown Renton Transit Center is the hub of transit service in Renton_ The Transit Center is served by regional and local service provided by Sound Transit and the King County Transit Division (Metro), and acts as both a destination and a major transfer center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center is located between South Second and South Third Streets on Burnett Avenue South and on a new connection between Logan Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South. The facility has been carefully integrated with other planned developments in the downtown area. Custom Bus Service King County Transit operates one custom bus route (952) serving Renton. This route operates four trips in the peak hour in the peak direction serving areas with significant employment density. Renton custom bus service originates at the Auburn Boeing plant, and serves Kent, Renton and terminates at the Everett Boeing plant. Park -and -Ride Facilities Renton has one dedicated transit park-and-ride lot facility within the city limits: the South Renton Park -and - Ride lot located at South Grady Way and Shattuck Avenue South. This park-and-ride lot has 370 spaces and is used at capacity. There are four park-and-ride lots in the Renton planning area which are leased by King County Transit for commuter parking. One of the lots is in downtown Renton, at the First Baptist Church at Southwest Sunset Boulevard and Hardie Avenue Southwest. It has 21 spaces and is used at 19% capacity. Another lot located in the Renton Highlands at Saint Matthew's Lutheran Church on Northeast 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue Northeast has 146 spaces and is at 29% capacity. A third lot is located at the East Renton Shopping Center at Southeast 128th Street and 164th Avenue Southeast, east of the Renton City limits in unincorporated King XI -28 Aniendcd 0311111112'08'48 County. This lot has 21 spaces and is at 29% capacity. The fourth leased lot, also located in unincorporated King County, is at the Nativity Lutheran Church at 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 177th Street. This lot has 25 spaces and is at 60% capacity. The Boeing Company has a park-and-ride lot located in the vicinity of North 6`h Street and Garden Avenue North. This lot has a capacity of approximately 100 stalls. The City has leased 200 parking spaces in the downtown parking garage to King County Metro Transit as a park and ride facility. Utilization by cornmunters is consistently 140 or more vehicles during a weekday. XI -29 Amended 03/]1/1ii2,'O )9 FIGURE 2-1 EXISTING RENTON TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES XI -30 F - "4. Ir Pwk 105, iii, 968 1 _ 193 146 16r vex' z+o Parc Ave 1 M M 20071M i 196 9W lion 107 ' - Ra96on Trans4ut fwcW6r ro,. - 1f 107,105',106, _ �it07 r a .fi! _140.i(4 i18,i49,fiq; 149 f 1N 146 149 - 749 146 •-Rd Shllhrt'_ 161 140,116,157, 191 _ 110.726. 169 7871�z40,2I7 LEGEND - Swnt Bw RWW wM "-&W s9rvice R� - - -- Bug R.Am wdh Peds o* aerrice im _ -__. Sia Rou66 H—be -, ®PyiLljY ® Tta-16R 155 f6B TrarsE C«+r 0 atot Parkes R 167 i—� Sn0. City of Renkn Camn99ec Rei RENTON Transit Routes XI -30 Amended 03111 11 ] j2/09/0 Future Regional Accessibility The long range transit and rideshare service concept for the King County Transit Division (Metro) service area is described in the Long Range Policy Frarneworkfor Public Transportation (adopted October, 1993). The Framework establishes policies that will guide future planning and development efforts, and it identifies possible policy implementation strategies. More specific near term transit improvements are outlined in the King County Transit Division's Six -.Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007. On May 31, 1996 the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) approved a 10 -year plan, Sound Move, which is illustrated in Figure 2-2: The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan. Voters approved a funding package to implement the plan on November 5, 1996. The approved Sound Transit Plan includes the following regional improvements: light rail transit, commuter rail transit, HOV expressway development, regional express bus service, and community connection improvements. Sound Transit improvements which will directly serve Renton include HOV access improvements, express bus service, and local connection improvements. In addition, commuter rail running between Seattle and Tacoma will stop at a station serving Renton and Tukwila, sited adjacent to the Boeing .Longacres property. Efficient transit connections will be provided between the Downtown Renton Transit Center and the Commuter Rail Station, Sound Transit provides regional express bus service, with three routes serving Renton. As noted previously, express routes serve SeaTac, Bellevue, Auburn and Federal Way. To ensure quick access to the Downtown Renton Transit Center, the Sound Move plan identified direct access HOV ramps on I-405 in the vicinity of North 8th Street and needed arterial HOV improvements in Renton to improve transit speed, reliability and ridership of transit services. Before constructing any arterial HOV improvements, Sound Transit will evaluate alternative improvements to benefit transit speed, reliability, and access. The City of Renton is coordinating with Sound Transit to ensure that commensurate transit service and improvements to improve transit speed, reliability and ridership in Renton will be provided should I-405/HOV direct access ramps not be implemented. Transit Plan Transit improvements are needed to provide the facilities and services necessary to support and encourage increased transit use and provide an alternative to single occupancy vehicle travel. The transit facilities and services outlined in the Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element are needed to provide adequate access between the regional transit system and Renton residential and employment areas, and to provide an attractive transit alternative for travel within Renton. As described in the previous section, an element of the regional system is the Seattle- Tacoma commuter rail line. Access to Renton is provided by a station located on the Renton -Tukwila border between Longacres Way and Strander Boulevard. This station is currently served by local bus transit and will additionally be served by local, and possibly regional, bus transit, including fast connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. XI -31 FIGURE 2-2 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM VSMWTmmn nffVMWE XI -32 Amended 0311 ill I;—��'"a;;a Regional transit services are provided by the previously described Sound 'Transit express bus service, as well as by select King County 'Transit Division (Metro) express bus routes. The local transit system links neighborhoods and commercial centers with one another as well as to the regional transit system through connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. Local service is provided through a combination of services, including buses, shuttles, and Dial -a -Ride (DART) service. In addition, interceptor park-and-ride lots outside of downtown Renton should be developed close to trip origin locations, with transit service feeding the Transit Center and regional services_ Renton has been and will continue to work with these transit agencies to assure that transit adequately serves Renton's developing residential areas. An illustration of Renton's 20 -year transit plan is provided in Figure 2-3. This figure depicts planned regional and local improverricnts, and identifies at a conceptual level potential service types and transit routes. Specific transit service improvements and facilities identified for the next 6 years, and over the next 20 years to support Renton's conceptual transit plan, are described in the City of Renton Transit Needs Assessment as well as in the King County Transit Division's Six -Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007 and by the regional Sound Move program. The Transit Plan comprises a transit system that will serve Renton from 2002 to 2022, as a regional destination and as a city with commercial and neighborhood centers_ It should also be noted that the exclusive freeway/arterial HOV facilities included in the IIOV Chapter are needed to support and encourage increased transit use by improving transit travel times (by enabling buses to bypass or avoid the traffic congestion that is forecasted for the Renton and regional road systems). Level of Service 'The City of Renton Level of Service (LOS) policy emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. This LOS policy is based on a set of multi -modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non -motorized, and transportation demand ]management/commute trip reduction measures_ The LOS standard will be used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures will be based on travel time contours and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. The 2022 LOS standard has been established to greatly increase the competitiveness of transit compared to SOV travel. Achieving this goal has guided the planning and programming of the elements of the Transit Plan. Information on development of the transit index of the Level of Service Standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement and updating of the transit index. XI -33 Amended 03/I 1w1j I I) W 9 (AX FIGURE 2-3 RENTON TRANSIT PLAN A1—; Tu vv' a REN'TON ii�y • astir No( To 5cz4v (T, L E� St r t Ll —1 j j --T menton T, r — — 4 Renton 2002-2022 Transit Plan - Conceptual Legend City Limit Renton Planning Area Transportatior Regional Commuter Rail Plan High Cpacity Transit & Other Regional Transit Routes Local Transit Routes 0 Transit Hub Park & Ride JPt4 XI -34 .kmendcd 03r11rl l W HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. A major challenge of the Renton Transportation Element will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single -occupant vehicles. The HOV Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on increasing the person -carrying capacity of the system rather than the vehicular capacity. Objectives The HOV Chapter is based on the following objectives: Objective T -H: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single -occupancy vehicles. Objective T -I: Develop HOV facilities on freeways and arterials to support and encourage ridesbaring by enabling HOVs to bypass or avoid severe traffic congestion on Renton and regional street and highway networks. Objective T -J: Provide facilities to support attainment of Commute Trip Reduction and other Growth Management goals within the City. Policies Policy T-41. The City should support completion of a comprehensive system of HOV improvements and programs on state highways and regional arterials that give high -occupancy vehicles a travel time advantage over single -occupancy vehicles. Policy T-42. The City should continue to promote measures to increase the use of high occupancy vehicles among employers Iocated within the City_ Policy T-43. A continuous network of arterial HOV facilities (lanes, bypass, etc.) should be provided on the congested travel corridors in Renton. Policy T-44. Arterial HOV facilities should be provided on the local arterial routes in Renton that provide access to/from the regional highway system. Policy T-45. The City should establish or should encourage the establishment of arterial HOV system warrants, standards and criteria for usage (volume, capacity, LOS); physical and geometric characteristics; appropriate locations; time -of -day of operation; HOV facility type_ Policy T-46. The City should support a regional vehicle occupancy monitoring and HOV system evaluation program that includes elements such as a "demonstration managed lanes" project, electronic tolling or "HOT LANES" concept. (Also see related policies in the TDM/CTR Section and see King County Countywide Planning Policies.) Existing HOV Facilities Freeway HOV facilities are provided on Interstate 405 and SR -167. These include inside (median) HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, on 1-445 from the I-5 interchange and continuing to the Renton north city limit and beyond. Two or more persons in a vehicle are allowed to travel in these lanes. These lanes are in effect 24 hours per day, except when non-HOV use is allowed between 7 pm and 5 am. Inside HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, exist on SR -167 between the south Renton city limits and SR -405. This HOV facility is also designated for 2+ occupant vehicles. An HOV queue jump lane is provided at the following interchange ramps in Renton: the northbound SR -167 to northbound 1-405 ramp; the I-405/SR-169 (Maple Valley) northbound and southbound on -ramps; the I - XI -35 Amended 03/11/1 112� 405/N.E. Park Drive northbound and southbound on -ramps, the 1-405/N.E. 30`h northbound on-ramp, and, the I-405/N.E. 44th southbound on-ramp. Each of the queue jump lanes has a 2+ designation. HOV Plan HOV facilities on SR -167 and 1-405 provide the freeway HOV system through Renton._ Additional regional HOV facilities (i.e., on 1-5) must be implemented by the State Department of Transportation in order to provide regional HOV service to the I-405 and SR 167 corridors. To -date HOV lanes have been completed on [-5 between the Seattle CBD and Puyallup and on SR 167 between I5'h Street NW in Auburn and 1-405 in Renton. The City has identified arterial HOV corridors based on the policies listed previously. These corridors include many of the principal arterials through central Renton and state routes throughout the city. The Renton HOV Plan includes the provision (over the next 20 years (2002 to 2022) of the HOV facilities shown in Figure 3-1. The Plan includes HOV facilities, in the form of HOV lanes or intersection queue jumps, in the Renton corridors listed below: • Rainier Avenue / Airport Way • SR -169 (Maple Valley Highway) • Park Drive North / N.E. Sunset Boulevard • SR -515 or Benson Road • S_W_ 27th Street XI -36 Amended D3111/11 �A FIGURE 3-1 RENTON HOV PLAN I. Lam.- H 1 ' I_4 j rI x { I Fil r/ PA,� L Vt I r 4� ,_rl JiF XI -37 f cl- Cil �= 7 � �� �.- ' N s D InCL ¢ E J d c ri ��'6C[i. �W�yci as CL N [ m�v D O OiY p cil aM<--o? LV E cc -r,2 a. c ,n-2_0 L o U) C7 co W-- C J c > O m E E Ll € u7 _ V Q C) W- O J £L C M CEJ z` 0 ?_ � � c � � LL � Cl0 7 tJ1 L CL N [Xl P cz -6- p e3 c J cn z C CC r Cl > to °� Qr-- C) _ o � � . 0 �r � �n�, `-mro'm " M m tm rz rz U m zU)°c renes to b Cil eta -W— cnILCccf)m c m _ a }a =m m Q N CS Z 'Kt'A U Q r, CO ffl O T cl� - J O 02 i C v CCL zE I. Lam.- H 1 ' I_4 j rI x { I Fil r/ PA,� L Vt I r 4� ,_rl JiF XI -37 f Amended 03i1 1'] 112/08W In addition to arterial HOV improvements, construction of direct access HOV interchange ramps to provide connections to the 1-405 HOV lane system is planned at N.E. 44d' Street, N_ 8"' Street, and on the SR -167 system at S.W. 27`h Street. These ramps will provide vital HOV access and enable efficient transit movements in the City to support regional and local transit service consistent with the objectives and policies described in the Transit Chapter of this Transportation Element. The HOV Plan also includes a transit corridor in Central Renton: S. P/Bumett/ Logan/N. 6t" comprise the northern portion of the corridor and in the southern portion Rainier Avenue, from South 3`d Street to South Grady Way completes the corridor. A north -south transit corridor is an important element of a transit plan that supports Renton's policies to: 1) encourage local and regional transit agencies to provide a high level of transit service to the Downtown Renton Transit Center by improving transit travel time, accessibility and reliability; and, 2) provide an attractive and effective alternative mode of transportation to the single occupant vehicle that contributes to a reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution in Renton's Urban Center. Also, the Strander Boulevard improvement identified in the Arterial Plan, Table 1. 1, will serve transit vehicles as well as SOV and HOV traffic and is planned for implementation coordinated with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. Several of the above HOV/transit improvements have been identified for funding under the regional Sound Transit plan approved by voters. Under this regional high capacity transit plan, Renton is designated to be served by the regional express bus system. Sound Transit has evaluated if there are capital facilities that could be constructed in Renton which would improve reliability and travel time for transit and HOV movement sufficient to warrant Sound Transit's investment. Sound Transit has identified the Central Renton north -south transit corridor improvements and HOV direct access interchange improvements at North 8`h Street as beneficial capital investments. The improvements in the Renton HOV Plan, along with improvements in the Arterial Plan and Transit Plan, provide a multi -modal transportation plan that meets the 2022 level of service standard for the projected travel demand from land use development envisioned by 2022_ HOV improvements in the 1-405 corridor that have been identified beyond 2022 are listed below. "These improvements would help to support future land use development. If these improvements were implemented by 2022 they could help maintain Renton's 2022 level of service standard. 1-511-405 Interchange • Northbound I-5 to Northbound 1-405 • Soutbbound I-405 to Southbound 1-5 • Southbound I-5 to Northbound I-405 I-405/SR 167 Interchange • Northbound SR 167 to Southbound 1-405 • Northbound 1-405 to Southbound SR 167 1-405 at Tukwila Commuter Rail Station I-405 at Rainier Avenue construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct direct connection ramp construct half interchange construct half interchange Ongoing transportation planning work will include further analysis of the freeway interchange and arterial corridor HOV improvements identified in the HOV plan to verify physical, operational and financial needs and scheduling of implementation. This further study may find that the planned HOV improvements may not be feasible on one or more of the selected corridors. Therefore, ongoing work will also include the examination of additional arterial corridors for HOV treatment on an as -needed basis (without over -developing or over- using this type of transportation facility). Over -development of HOV facilities can lead to under -utilization and HOV traffic dispersion, rather than consolidation. XI -38 Amended 03r'11r11 09 Level of Service As discussed in the Arterial Chapter, the City of Renton LOS policy emphasizes the movement of people, not just vehicles. This LOS policy is based on a set of multi -modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non - motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS standard will be used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures of this LOS standard will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. HOV improvements along with transit improvements should show great effectiveness in improving 2022 travel times and distance. Achieving this goal will guide the planning and programming of the elements of the HOV Plan. Further information on how the HOV index: of the Level of Service Standard was established is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Support Document_ XI -39 Amended 03 i 1 I i 1 l 12/9 98 NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION The non -motorized component of the City's Transportation Plan is designed to enhance the quality of urban life in Renton, to improve walking and bicycling safety, and to support the pedestrian and bicycle transportation modes as alternatives to the use of automobiles. The plan recognizes that non -motorized facilities along roadways and trails may serve multiple functions, including commuting and recreation. The on -street elements are specified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Program and as described later in this section. Off-street elements of the non -motorized transportation system are specified by the City of Renton Long Range Parks, Recreation Open Space and Trails Master Plan described in the Parks Element. 1. Renton's existing transportation system is oriented towards accommodating cars, trucks, and buses rather than pedestrians or bicycles. The intent of the objectives and policies that follow is to provide guidelines for reevaluating the existing system and providing a better environment for walking and bicycling. Overall, pedestrian facilities throughout the City are intended to be upgraded. 2. More facilities are also nceded for bicycle storage and parking in shopping areas, employment centers and in public places. 3- A better pedestrian network can be encouraged by creating an interconnected street system, developed to street standards, which include adequate walkways and street crossings. Traffic sanctuary islands and midblock crossings across busy arterials are also useful methods of improving the pedestrian environment. Objectives The Non -Motorized Chapter is based on the following objectives: Objective T -K: Improve the non -motorized tranisportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel. Objective T -L: Develop and maintain comprehensive trails system which provides non -motorized access throughout the City, maximizes public access to open space areas, and provides increased recreational opportunities for the public. Objective T -M: Integrate Renton's non -motorized transportation needs into a comprehensive transportation system serving both local and regional users. Objective T -N: Enhance and improve the non -motorized circulation system to, from, and within the City. Objective T-0: Develop and designate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle commuter routes along existing minor arterial and collector arterial corridors. Objective T -P: Improve the City's pedestrian and bicycle network to increase access to and circulation within the Urban Center - Downtown. Policies Policy T-47. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be accommodated within all areas of the City_ Policy T-48. Where right-of-way is available and bicycle demand justifies them, bicycle lanes should be marked and signed to accommodate larger volumes of bicycle traffic on select streets designated by the City. XI -40 Amended 03111111-1-44"8 Policy T-49. Pedestrian and bicycle movernent across arterial intersections should be enhanced Policy T-50. Obstructions and conflicts that restrict pedestrian movement should be minimized on sidewalks, paths and other pedestrian areas. Policy T-51. Convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided to and at the downtown Transit Center and all transit stops. Policy T-52. Bicycle storage facilities and parking should be encouraged within development projects, in commercial areas and in parks. Policy T-53. Secure bicycle parking facilities, such as bike lockers and bike racks should be provided at residential, commercial, and public establishments to encourage bicycle use. Policy T-54. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an interconnecting network and should connect to other streets. Policy T-55. Pedestrian spaces should be emphasized and connected throughout the downtown. Policy T-56. Pedestrians should be given priority use of sidewalks within the Urban Center — Downtown designated pedestrian areas. Policy T-57. New pedestrian facilities should be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and existing facilities should be upgraded to improve accessibility_ Policy T-58. Non -motorized transportation should be developed in tandem with motorized transportation systems, recognizing issues such as safety, user diversity, and experiential diversity. Policy T-59. Recognize the diversity of transportation modes and trip purposes of the following four groups: pedestrians, bicyclists, joggers and runners. Policy T-60. Foot/bicycle separation should be provided wherever possible; however, where conflict occurs, foot traffic should be given preference. Policy T-61. Adequate separation between non -motorized and motorized traffic should be provided to ensure safety. Policy T-62. The adopted Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan should be coordinated with and be an integral component of the City's on-going transportation planning activities. Policy T-63. Appropriate mitigation measures should be taken to address impacts on the City's transportation infrastructure. Contributions to the City's non -motorized circulation system will help alleviate such impacts. Policy T-64. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be promoted not only as a viable means of transportation, but as an important method for maintaining overall health and fitness of Renton's citizens. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The City's existing non -motorized transportation system is comprised primarily of roadside sidewalks. Pedestrians have the exclusive use of sidewalks within business districts and have shared use with cyclists in other areas of the city. Although the City Code requires that sidewalks be provided on all streets, many of the public streets were constructed before the existing code was enacted, and as a result, numerous roadways are currently without XI -41 Amcxaded 0311 111 t 12, )99 e8 sidewalks. Streets needing sidewalks include both local and arterial roadways. The City of Keaton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study addresses the sidewalks and walkways within the City. This report identifies a priority roster to construct "missing" sidewalk/walkway sections throughout the City_ The priority evaluation system is based on four sidewalk users: ])schoolchildren, 2) elderly persons, 3) transit riders, and 4) all other users. Except within business districts, cyclists may use existing sidewalks, provided that they yield the right-of- way to pedestrians. As of 2006, Renton has a combined bicycle/pedestrian facility along Garden Avenue North (North 6th Street to North 8th Street) and North 8 t Street (Garden Avenue North to Houser Way), and striped bicycle lanes on Southwest 16`h Street (Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Longacres Drive), on Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (SW 16th Street to SW 27th Street) on Duvall Avenue NE (NE 4L' Street to NE 8" Street), and on NE 4th Street (east of Duvall Avenue NE). Renton is located at the crossroads of a regional system of existing and proposed trails. Existing trails within the City include the Cedar River Trail System and a portion of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Regional Systems with proposed access to the City include the Green River Trail and the Interurban Trail. Figure 4-1 shows the existing (2006) non -motorized facilities within Renton and the nearby regional routes. XI -42 Amended 03 —`H A I 12JOW09 FIGURE 4-1 EXISTING NON -MOTORIZED FACILITIES Existing Non -Motorized Facilities Legend Transportation City Um4 Plan Renton Planning Area Seaft IS 7� :-7 2 s Renton 2) 4 LP iti Tuk� T 7 _j XI -43 No; To Scale r 1. TayiOrAveiHardie Ave 2. Lake AvefFobin St 1 Lake Washington Loop 4. Southwesl 16th Street 5. OakesdaJe Ave SW S. Duvall AveNE 7. NE 41h Street 1()L Cedar RiverlUrban Industrial Zone 11. Rainier Ave 12. Green River Trail 13- Interurban Trail 14, Garden Ave N 61h Sl 15. Springbrook`Trait 71 IEW 20. Cedar River Trait Amended o3/J I?11 12/08-'08 Design criteria for walkways, trails, and bikeways are contained in a variety of documents, including the City of Renton Municipal Code and Trails Master Plan, King County Road Standards, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, and Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (the MUTCD)_ Neighborhood and Regional Access The principal non -motorized facility type linking neighborhoods within Renton and providing regional access are sidewalks or walkways. These facilities provide safe non -motorized mobility for both pedestrians and cyclists outside of business districts. Within business districts, sidewalks provide safe mobility for pedestrians. Currently, the sidewalks that exist along most of the arterials within the City provide the primary .regional link as well. This "regional" access includes non-contiguous areas within Renton as well as areas outside of the City planning area. Some notable walkway deficiencies exist along sections of Maple Valley Highway (SR -169), Puget Drive, and Talbot Road South. These roadways do not currently provide safe non - motorized mobility through Renton. Installation of walkways/sidewalks has been either programmed into future transportation improvement projects, or identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study. Non -motorized neighborhood connections are made via sidewalks along arterial and collector roadways. Sidewalk connections between most neighborhoods within the City limits currently exist. In some locations, however, sidewalks are not continuous along a roadway. In potential annexation areas that are or were defined as "rural" by King County, sidewalks have generally not been constructed along either arterial or local roadways, because sidewalks are not required by rural area design standards_ Most existing county roadways have either paved or gravel shoulders for use by cyclists and pedestrians. Consequently, many of the potential annexation areas do not provide protected non -motorized inter -neighborhood connection. Another important consideration is the bicycle route connection to regional cycling corridors. The regional corridors, to which the Renton bicycle routes should connect, include the Interurban, Christeusen/Green River, Lake Washington Loop, Sammamish, and Soos Creek Trails. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan The City, per the Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study, will construct sidewalks/walkways at "missing locations." In some areas, sidewalks will be constructed along each side of the street. Because of physical constraints such as side slopes and roadway grades, or minimal expected pedestrian usage, some locations will have pedestrian/cyclist facilities constructed on only one side of the street. Sidewalk facilities will be constructed as part of a prioritized installation program. Additional non -motorized facilities will be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvement projects and as part of the Transit Improvement Program. Current annexation area roadways without sidewalks will be added to the Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study after annexation into the City. Sidewalk improvements on roadways could be improved through local improvement district (LID) and capital improvement projects (CIP). Table 4.1 lists routes that have been identified as important bicycle transportation elements. Along roadways designated as bicycle routes, roadway or shoulder widening may accommodate cyclists' needs. These improvements could be added when roadway improvement projects are constructed or implemented as individual improvement projects. XI -44 Amended 03/1 I /1 I l q'08'08 Further review by the City of Renton, in cooperation with citizen groups, will be necessary to determine which of the projects listed in Table 4.1 are selected for development. King County is pursuing development of bicycle facilities outside of the Renton city limits. Three routes leading into Renton have been identified in the King County Non -motorized Plan: • 140 Place/Avenue SgWtheast (Southeast 192nd— Street to Southeast Renton -Maple Valledy Road) • State Route 900 (13$ Avenue Southeast (Duvall Avenue Northeast) to Southeast 82- Street) • Coal Creek Parkway Southeast (Newcastle City Limits to Renton City Limits) The routes identified by the City of Renton and listed in Table 4.1 will be planned to connect with these proposed King County facilities. The City of Renton Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan identified in the Parks Element provides an in-depth description of proposed walking, bicycle, and mixed-use trails. By nature, these types of trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, and are not necessarily supportive of transportation goals. The creation of these trails would certainly supplement the City's non -motorized transportation system, and their development by the Parks Department should be encouraged. Routes that are found to be important transportation elements could be constructed through the transportation program. XI -45 Amended 11311111112/08IB8 TABLE 4.1 PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTES Facility Name Route Sunset Bypass Route Northeast 17t` Street (Duvall Avenue Northeast to Union Avenue Northeast) Union Avenue Northeast (Northeast 17`h Street to Northeast 126' Street) Northeast 120 Street or NE 10* Street (Union Avenue Northeast to Edmonds Avenue Northeast) Edmonds Avenue Northeast (Northeast 12"' 40t' Street to Northeast Park Drive) Northeast Park Drive (Edmonds Avenue Northeast to Lake Washington B oulevard N ortb) Monroe Avenue Northeast Monroe Avenue Northeast (Northeast 4`b Street to Northeast 12'h Street) Duvall Avenue Northeast Duvall Avenue Northeast (Northeast 10°i Street to Northeast 24's Street) Lake Washington Boulevard Lake Washington Boulevard (Northeast 44'x' Street to Coulon Park) (Partially (Lk Wasbin ton Loop Route) completed) Garden Houser Way North (Lake Washington Boulevard to North 81h Street) (Lk Washin ton Loop Route) Garden Avenue North (North 6`h Street to Bronson Way) Central Renton Connection Garden Avenue/North 6's Street to Airport Perimeter Road (Various routes (Lk Washington Loop Route) under consideration). Burnett Burnett Avenue South (Cedar River Trail to Southwest 7a' Street) Airport Airport Perimeter Road corridor (Logan Avenue North to Rainier Avenue) (Lk Washington Loop Route) Rainier Avenue North (Airport Perimeter Road to Northwest 3`d Street) Hardie/Rainier Bypass Northwest 3`d (Rainier Avenue North to Hardie Avenue Northwest) Hardie Avenue (Northwest 3 Street to Southwest 7'' Street) Southwest 7d' Southwest 7'' Street (Burnett to Oakesdale) Southwest 16ffi Lind Avenue Southwest (Southwest 70 Street to Southwest 166 Street) Southwest 16'b Street (Lind Avenue Southwest to Raymond Avenue Southwest) Southeast Area Main Avenue (Bronson Way to Benson Road South) Benson Road South (Main Avenue South to Southeast 168th Street) Puget Drive Southeast (Benson Road South to Edmonds Avenue Southeast) Edmonds Avenue Southeast (Puget Drive Southeast to South 157th Street) Strander Boulevard/Southwest Springbrook Wetlands Trail to Interurban Trail 27'x` Street Sunset Boulevard (West) Hardie Avenue Southwest to West City Limits Talbot Road South 7d' Street to South City Limits Northeast 3` /Northeast 4th Street Sunset Boulevard North to East City Limits Edmonds Avenue SEISE 116 Puget Drive to Southeast 192°d Street Avenue Southeast XI -46 Amended 0311 i i i 11" 109 L08 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/ COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (TDM/CTR) As stated in the Arterial, Transit, and HOV Chapters, a major challenge of the Renton Transportation Plan will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on encouraging and facilitating reductions in trip - making, dispersion of peak period travel demand throughout the day, increased transit usage, and increased ride sharing. In enacting the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law of 1991, the 1997 amendments, and the 2006 CTR Efficiency Act, the State Legislature found that decreasing the demand for vehicle trips is significantly less costly and at least as effective in reducing traffic congestion and its impacts as constructing new transportation facilities, such as roads and bridges, to accommodate increased traffic volumes. The legislature further found that reducing the number of commute trips to work made via single occupant cars and light trucks is an effective way of reducing automobile -related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use. The goals, objectives, and policies of the Transportation Demand Man agement/Commute "Trip Reduction Chapter also are based on these findings. Objectives The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter is based on the following objectives: Objective T -Q: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. Objective T -R: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand. Policies This Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains City policies concerning Transportation Demand Management and Commute Trip Reduction (including support for ride sharing and management of parking supply). Policy T-65. The disruptive impacts of traffic related to centers and employment areas should be reduced. (In this context, disruptive impacts are primarily traffic. They could be mitigated through techniques such as transportation management programs implemented through cooperative agreements at the work place, flexible work hours, and Community planning.) Policy T-66. Appropriate parking ratios should be developed that take into account existing parking supply, land use intensity, and transit and ride -sharing goals. Policy T-67. Alternatives to on -street or on-site parking should be explored. Policy T-68. Site selection criteria should be developed for location of park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. Policy T-69. The construction of parking structures in downtown Renton should be encouraged. Policy T-70. Parking ratios should be reduced as transit services are increased and an adequate level of public transit can be demonstrated. Policy T-71. Transportation demand management measures should be implemented at residential and retail developments, as well as at the workplace. XI -47 Amended 03/11/1112/08/09 Policy T-72. Employers affected by Commute Trip Reduction laws should be encouraged to implement measures that support reductions in SOV travel and vehicle miles traveled. Policy T-73. Site design and layout for all types of development should incorporate transportation demand management measures such as convenient priority parking places for HOVs, and convenient, direct pedestrian access from residential, commercial, and other facilities to transit stops/stations. Strategy T-51.1 Downtown (Central Business District) parking restrictions and/or removal resulting from TDM/CTR policies shall apply to commuter/employee parking, not to business patron/customer parking_ Also see related policies in the HOV section. Existing Parking Supply and Demand An inventory of the existing parking supply in the Downtown Core was conducted in 2001. The inventory gathered data for both on -street and off-street spaces. Figure 5.1 summarizes the results of the inventory. The Downtown Core has 2,055 off-street spaces. There are also 387 public off-street parking spaces within the Downtown Core. The remaining off-street parking spaces are private or signed for use by patrons of a specific business. Additional information on this parking inventory is provided in the Parking in Renton's Downtown Core report. Ongoing transportation planning work will include expanding the parking study area, possibly citywide, if needed for the refinement of parking policies and guidelines. X 1-48 Amended 03/11/114-'-V�WN FIGURE 5-1 DOWNTOWN CORE EXISTING PARKING SUMMARY 2001 I I 132 1+1E 147 I I 1F21i 104 2 . +8 + 5 1 J 1 108 7 6 ; S 3rd St 0 Notes +21 5 2 51 1 1 5 +21 72 25 +2752 T M k14 79 154 QD -66 56 I +12 i 78 +0 118 +3 121 Downtown Core Existing ----� .� Parking Summary 2001 m5 off,%m pa my ALr4h+387 2442 On-StreetParldn9 �.....r....r.� "+. TOW Papp Spaces "^`••••••,`•••'••,• XI -49 Amended 03/11/11 Prr Parking Policy Review As stated in the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law of 1991, there exists a close relationship between commuter behavior and the supply and cost of parking. As required by the CTR law, the City has completed a review of local parking policies and ordinances as they relate to employers and major worksites and revisions necessary to comply with commute trip reduction goals and guidelines. Maximum parking ratios have been established, and the existing minimums modified in the City's Development Regulations, to create a range of appropriate allowable parking ratios. Additional revisions have been made to support HOV, transit, and non -motorized usage and access. TDM/CTR Programs The City has adopted a CTR Ordinance and a CTR Plan (February 1993). The ordinance outlines the manner in which and the schedule with which affected employers located within the City of Renton are required to design and implement commute trip reduction programs at their worksites. As of February 2007, there are 22 active CTR sites in Renton (Figure 5-2). In compliance with the 2006 CTR Efficiency Act, the City has amended the CTR Ordinance and CTR Plan adopted in 1993. The CTR Plan is a summary document that describes the City's implementation approach. As stated in the Placa, the City has contracted with Metro to perform certain activities, including employer notification, employer assistance, and program review. The Plan summarizes the CTR goals and targets by 2011 a 10% reduction in sigle-occupant vehicles (SOV) and a 13% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (vmt). It explains the circumstances and procedures for employer appeals of CTR program administrative decisions. The Plan also states the City's commitment to implementing a CTR program for its own employees, to complete the parking policy review mentioned above, and to report on an annual basis to the state regarding progress towards meeting CTR goals. In the past, the City, with the support of Metro, has developed Transportation Management Programs (TMPs) for new residential, commercial, and office developments. These TMPs have usually been put in place through SEPA agreements. At some point in the future, the City may consider adopting a developer - XI -50 Amended 63%11.'1 112/08/0 FIGURE 5-2 RENTON ACTIVE CTR SITES LEGEND MEMO Bus Route WE a" vwykr ---- 6— Rundea .1th peak aYy m0N100 ActM CTR She !33 Rnd" c�v-#� Kw 10F +N percentof employ" TM" -K time U 0 0 ow o�dW 1.sw 610% �iow Slops wilhin m duper Me of Renbn AelW CTR Skes QLWW Mie BON AFound A7 Rerdon Bus Skgs Tmmlt Cnmier Pum nowt PG& Wde Lot --�- Srnmdg Cmnwnder Rai OW of Rmim ® Rerdoa U ban GMwdh Cerder e ua m ma w I im, f f 1, 909 j / Wrn� _ i i�A XI -51 140 Renton NAP CTR _ 7ramRCenler to B] COMPANY KANE '' ' 1Q1ap5, 11xl70, ,'1 1. E87460 Horveywetl i67,1lrQ ,2l�2.fN; '•. 1 w ,_; 2. EB0384 E R Sabs oos 3. E80663 U.S. Government 4. E8W97 Wipy Medical CeMer 5. E8W21 Pa=w Parts _ 6. E80747 PaccafTD •...-, .:, 7. E60762 101Tg COuMy Government f BtItAC+e',� Ride B. E817S4 Ckya!Rea6on . f0t,140,148,153, 9. E83097 KwwoMTnlekCompany 110,126. -- 167,199 7 10. E64749 The Boeing Company 440,154, �s 11. E8/761 1Ta Boeing Company Rei l' 12 E84772 The flaming Company - - 13. E85399 The Boeing Company 14. F85498 WRards of the CAMS! ® 15. E86561 tong Coufdy GovwT m nl - 16. WW7 Hunter Douglas 1 17. E87304 The Boeing Carrparry - - - 18. E88229 Cummins tlortimest -. 19. E55500 Cutter& Buck lne 20. E89433 CtassmffiOscan 21. £897M Rm*m Tedff&W Cdlege 22. E99442 Mcroew Systems, Inc R E N T D N ++M�rwur1�+Mr'iurr ..r,�4rartrr_ l�aWimww � w'�Me,�wwwa� sY,�Y1 r• e+�.�4�whr_r<»M_M.tip'!� M�MmMlr a��,t'1141i,Y� Active CTR Sites mew ��a4rrs�s,Y� �r+�_rrra.,r Fly 7.2007 i ti m �rer rpt M rr s�`+s r nA �.►, y XI -51 Amended 03/11/1112/08/0 based Transportation Demand Management ordinance (with site design and other requirements) to complement the employer -based CTR ordinance and its employer worksite requirements. Parking Management Regulations Parking regulations are specified in Section 4-4-080 of the Renton .Municipal Code. The regulations include requirements for new construction of parking including landscaping, screening, layout, paving, markings, and wheel stops. They also include requirements for size and amount of parking according to the land use activity involved. Ongoing transportation planning work will include refinement of criteria for locating park and ride lots serving residential areas to address factors such as the intensity of development in adjacent areas, the level of traffic congestion in the areas, proximity to arterial streets, and opportunities to buffer lots from living areas. Standards for construction of parking garages will be reviewed to address minimization of land area and the amount of impervious surface. Also, the city will be working with WSDOT, Puget Sound regional council, King county, Metro Transit and others to develop rules andereate new plans to implement the CTR Efficiency Act adopted by theWashginton state Legislature in 2006. The CTR Efficiency Act includes changes to the CTR law to make the program more effective, efficient, and targeted. The modified CTR program will officially start on January 1, 2008. AIRPORT Renton's Airport is more than a transportation facility_ It is also a vital element to Renton's commercial and industrial economy, providing aircraft services, manufacturing support, flight training, and other airport activities. The Airport Chapter of the Renton Transportation Element is implemented by the 2002 Airport Business Plan and the Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport. The intent of the objectives and policies is to support increased aviation activities and appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts when possible. (Nee also the Airport Compatihle Land Use section of the Land Use Element.) Objectives The Airport Chapter is based on the following objectives: Objective T -S: Promote and develop local air transportation facilities in a responsible and efficient manner and recognize the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique, valuable, and long-standing public transportation facility within the region. Objective T -T: Maximize available space on the airport site for uses that require direct access to taxiways and runways such as storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities_ Objective T -U: Continue operation of the Airport as a Landing Rights Airport, ultimately providing permanent inspection facilities to the U.S. Customs Service. Policies Policy T-74. Support the land base and seaplane base activities. Acknowledge that there are certain costs to the community associated with the existence of the Renton Municipal Airport, such as noise generation, but recognize that these costs have historically been accepted by the community in exchange for the economic and transportation -related benefits and the civic prestige that are also associated with the airport. Policy T-75. Promote and develop airport facilities and services for all wheeled and float -equipped aircraft, owners, pilots, and passengers in a manner that maximizes safety, efficiency, and opportunity for use. XI -52 Amended 03!1111 ]'"',"zz•)8,'09 Policy T-76. Lease airport property for aviation -related uses that create jobs and expand the City's tax base. Policy T-77. The Renton Municipal Airport provides the only publicly -owned seaplane facility in the area and, therefore, the northern shoreline of the airport should be restricted to seaplane access. Policy T-78. Develop appropriate land use plans and regulations for structures and vegetation within the airport's runway approach zone. (See Airport section of the Land Use Element, Objectives LU -E, LU -F, LU -G and Policies LU -19 — LU -30.) Airport Facilities The Renton Municipal Airport is a major general aviation airport in the Puget Sound area. The Renton Municipal Airport is formally designated as a Reliever Airport in the Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Regional .Airport System Plan. The airport is owned by the City of Renton and is located in the northwest corner of the city, bounded generally on the east by the Cedar River, on the west by Rainier Avenue North, on the south by Airport Way, and on the north by Lake Washington (see Figure 1.1). The Airport consists of approximately 165.46 acres. It is oblong in shape, and has one runway with two parallel taxiways with concrete and blacktop surfaces and surface water drainage. The runway, running southeast to northwest, is 5,379 feet long and 200 feet wide, with a 340 -foot displaced threshold at the south end. It is equipped with medium intensity runway lighting, runway end identification lighting (REiL), and precision approach path indicators (PAPI). Taxiways are lighted, and there is a rotating beacon, a windsock, and a non -directional radio beacon_ The Federal Aviation Administration operates a contracted Air Traffic Control Tower during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 pm_ May I through September. 30 and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. October 1 through April 30. Approximately 115,000 landings and take -offs per year take place at the Airport, making it the seventh busiest airport in the State of Washington. Contiguous to the Renton Airport is the Will Rogers -Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base. Landings and take -offs from the water are not recorded, but during the summer months the seaplane base is one of the busiest in the Northwest_ Airport Activities The Renton Airport serves general aviation demand generated by Renton, as well as by other communities generally within a 30 -minute driving time (e.g. Bellevue to the north, Issaquah to the east, Kent to the south, and Seattle to the northwest)_ The concept of "general aviation" includes all aviation uses except scheduled commercial passenger airline servicesand military operations. Consequently, nearly all of the aviation operations at Renton Airport are those of general aviation, including the flights of the transport -class aircraft produced by the adjacent Boeing plant. General aviation uses are both personal and revenue- producing, the latter category including business, charter, and flight instruction. The seaplane base provides facilities only for small general aviation types of aircraft (both personal and revenue-producing). Aircraft services available at the Airport include aircraft maintenance and service, fuel, flight instruction, aircraft charter and rental, and aircraft storage, both hangared and open. Fixed base operators (FBO's), which are aviation -oriented businesses offering a variety of services and products to aircraft owners and operators, provide these services to the aviation public. XI -53 Amended 03/ 1111111�08QS Airport Master Plan and Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan 1997 Airport Master Plan Update A 1997 update to the original 1978 Master Plan was approved by the City Council in August 1997_ A primary purpose of the 1997 update was to determine the existing and future role of the airport and to provide the City with information and direction in the future planning and continued development of the airport. The objective of the study was to develop a plan for providing the necessary facilities to best accommodate the aviation needs of the airport and contiguous seaplane base over the next twenty years. The study work scope consisted of inventories, forecasts of aviation demand, demand/capacity analyses, facility requirements, airport layout plans and land use plans, development staging and costs, financial plans, and an environmental impact assessment report. The Airport Master Plan is updated as necessary to reflect progress and changes from the original Master Plan. The 1997 Airport Master Plan should be updated in 2005 or 2006 as many of the recommendations from the 1997 Airport Master Plan have been implemented. The remaining recommendations should be re-evaluated in the next update of the Airport Master Plan as conditions have changed. 2002 Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan The 2002 Renton Municipal Airport Business Plan was prepared at the direction of the Renton City Council. The purpose of the plan was to review business potential for the Airport and develop a plan for the management and operation of the Airport, given the needs of aviation and the neighborhoods surrounding the airport. The Airport Business Plan reaffirmed Renton's commitment to strong management and operation of the Renton Municipal Airport. The recommendations reaffirmed the mix of uses presently at the Airport while supporting increased efforts to curb aircraft noise. Implementation of the Airport Master Plan The airport development and financial plan portions of the Master Plan identify the capital improvements that should be accomplished, specify when these improvements should be accomplished, and determine the economic feasibility of accomplishing the programmed improvements and developments. The schedule of developments and improvements is established in five-year increments, to coincide with the five-, 10- and 20 -year projections of the Master .Plan. Based upon the five-year schedule of improvements and developments, Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program Funds are requested for assistance with the accomplishment of those eligible projects programmed in the Master Plan. FREIGHT The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element addresses the needs and impacts of goods movement and distribution in Renton. The Freight Chapter focuses on the two primary providers of freight transportation: trucking and freight rail. Objectives The Freight Chapter is based on the following objectives: XI -54 Amended 03,1I/1 I'�rr,--� o Objective T -V: Maintain existing freight rail service to Renton commercial and industrial sites. Objective T -W: Maintain truck access between Renton industrial areas and the regional highway system, Objective T -X: Minimize the impact of truck traffic on general traffic circulation and on Renton neighborhoods. Policies Policy T-79. Heavy through truck traffic should be limited to designated truck routes in order to reduce its disruptive impacts. (In this context, "disruptive impacts" refers to nuisances, particularly noise and parking, associated with heavy trucks, In addition, the intent of the policies is to minimize the physical impact of heavy trucks on city streets,) Policy T-80. Transportation facilities should be designed to complement railroads. Policy T-81. Spur tracks should be located to provide a minimum number of street crossings and serve a maximum number of sites. Policy T-82. Strategies to minimize adverse impacts of railroad operations on adjacent residential property should be supported. Policy T-83. Support railroad crossing improvements that minimize maintenance and protect the street surface. Policy T-84. Where warranted, provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals, on at - grade crossings. Policy T-85. The City should continue to work with local, regional, state and federal agencies to address regional freight needs and to mitigate local impacts. Truck Routes The City has a system of truck routes (see Figure 7-1). . Trucks weighing over 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight are restricted to operating on one of the designated truck routes. Trucks needing to make deliveries off of the designated truck routes are required to take the most direct arterial route to/from one of the designated truck routes. When more than one delivery off the designated truck routes can be combined to limit multiple intrusions into residential neighborhoods, a truck driver has an obligation to combine those trips. The truck route ordinance does not apply to the operation of Renton School District buses on designated routes, public transit on designated routes, garbage trucks, city maintenance vehicles, or emergency vehicles. XI -55 Amended 0311 U11 T?,'0 FIGURE 7-1 TRUCK ROUTES Truck Routes; Legend Truck Route Transportation City Limn ! Plan 1 Renton ` Planning Area { ".1\y L' A W, Tp SCBQ r - s i K I � I 7 X41 X1-56 1 Amended 03 /11 /114 2/08/08 Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element recognizes the importance of maintaining rail transportation, which supports industrial and commercial land uses, and provides one component of a multi -modal transportation system. The Freight Chapter also provides guidelines to ensure that existing rail lines do not impact adjacent land uses, create maintenance problems for City streets or pose safety concerns. Freight rail service is currently available to several industrial and commercial areas of the City. Existing rail lines bordering the City of Renton include the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) main line tracks between Seattle and Tacoma. Within the City of Renton, the BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line connects Renton and the east side of Lake Washington to the BNSF main line_ The BNSF main line runs in a north -south direction and is located along the City of Renton's western city limits, separating Renton from the City of Tukwila. The BNSF main line is double -track, and carries a considerable volume of freight service, as well as passenger service provided by Amtrak under a trackage rights agreement. Only freight service is provided to the City of Renton from the BNSF main line. A single spur track with several branch lines serves the Renton Valley industrial area (southwest Renton)_ Another single spur track from the BNSF main line serves the Container Corporation of America plant, located north of 1-405 in the Earlington industrial area. Use of these spur lines is intermittent, usually on an as -needed basis with no particular set time or frequency. Commuter rail trains use the BNSF main line, with a stop at the new Renton/Tukwila (Longacres) station located just south of 1-405. The commuter rail service is an element of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move), approved by voters in 1996. The commuter rail service began in 2001. Three trains currently provide one-way service between Tacoma and Seattle during the weekday AM peak period and between Seattle and Tacoma in the weekday PM peak period, with stops at the RentowTukwila station. The BNSF 18'x' Subdivision Branch Line splits from the BNSF main line at the Black River Junction, and continues easterly through downtown Renton and then northerly through the North Renton industrial area. The line continues north along the east side of Lake Washington, and connects back with the BNSF main line in Snohomish County. Freight service on this branch line is provided by two trains per day (one in each direction). Passenger excursions are made on this branch line by the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train, which makes one round trip on weekdays and two round trips on weekends between downtown Renton and Woodinville at the north end of Lake Washington. Three spur tracks off of the branch line provide freight service to the Earlington industrial area in west central Renton. Two spur tracks serve the North Renton industrial area north of downtown Renton. Freight service can occur at any time during the day. The Spirit of Washington Dinner Train leaves downtown Renton at 6:00 p.m. and returns by 10:00 p.m. with an additional afternoon run on weekends. The infrequent use of the BNSF main line spur tracks and the BNSF branch line results in minimal disruption to vehicular traffic movement in Renton. The UPRR mainline track, located 200 to 300 feet west of the BNSF mainline and Renton's City limits, also runs in a north -south direction. The UPRR mainline is a single track, carrying a somewhat lower level of freight -only service. XI -57 Amended 03,11?1111i0910 Regional Accessibility Trucks and Industrial Traffic Truck access from City of Renton industrial areas to the regional highway/freeway system has the option of several alternative designated truck routes (see Figure 7-1). The galley industrial area (southwest Renton) is directly connected to the regional system via the S.W. 43– Street/SR-167 (Valley Freeway) interchange and the SR -181 (West Valley Highway)/1-405 interchange. The Earlington industrial area in west central Renton is served by designated truck routes on Rainier Avenue and Grady Way, which provide direct access to SR -167 and to 1-405 (via the SR -18111-405 and SR -167/1-405 interchanges). Truck access to the North Renton industrial area (north of downtown Renton and west of I-405) from I- 405 is provided via the designated truck route on Park Avenue North. Another truck route to I-405 and SR -167 from the North Renton industrial area is via North 6`h Street, Airport Way, and Rainier Avenue. Truck and industrial traffic access from I-405 to the King County waste transfer station and maintenance shops east of I-405 is provided via the Sunset and Maple Valley (SR -169) interchanges and N.E. 3`d Street-N.E. 4`h Street. The Stoneway Sand and Gravel complex, west of 1-405, generates industrial traffic that uses the North Park Avenue on-ramp to access I-405. Arterial improvement projects in the Transportation .Plan will enhance truck access between the industrial areas and the regional highway/freeway system. Freight and PassenLyer Rail Use Future land use development is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in rail freight service in Renton. Future plans call for additional commuter rail trains using the BNSF main line, stopping at the Renton/Tukwila (Longacres) station. FrOyA t Action Straterry (FAST) Corridor The Freight Action Strategy (FAST) corridor, and the projects which comprise FAST, evolved over several years. Beginning in 1994, the Freight Mobility Roundabout — a jointly -sponsored effort of the Puget Sound Regional Council and the public/private Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County — made a sustained commitment to freight mobility within and through the northwest gateway region, which ties the regional (and national) economy to the Pacific Rim. Roundabout participants include shippers and carriers representing all freight mobility modes: marine, rail, truck, air, and intermodal. Other participants are public agencies at all levels: local governments (including the City of Renton), the three ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett, WSDOT and the State Transportation Commission, and federal agencies (FHWA, FTA). Late in 1994 the United States Department of Transportation together with the Roundabout, the WSDOT, and the Puget Sound Regional Council established FAST Corridor. FAST Corridor is a collection of complementary grade separation and port access projects within the Everett -Seattle -Tacoma area of Washington State. Collectively, these projects will enhance the movement of freight within and through the region. Key points of the FAST Corridor projects include: • Between Everett in the north and Tacoma in the south, focus on the region's north -south rail routes and port access routes. • Helping to improve the state and region's transportation capacity to better meet the needs for freight and goods movements. • Implementation of a series of grade separation and port access improvements, along with some corollary improvements. These improvements will complement other freight and passenger rail improvements in the region, regional ITS efforts, and other planned highway improvements. XI -58 Amended 03/11/111_NOSJGS • Continuation of the FAST Corridor Partnership, which has been functioning since 1995 and is working on determining appropriate project level solutions to regional freight mobility issues. Local freight improvement projects identified at this time include additional rail lines for both the BNSF and UPRR lines. BNSF has plans to add a third and a fourth track to its mainline along the western edge of the City. UPRR also has plans to add a third additional track to its mainline that runs parallel to and is in close proximity to the BNSF mainline. A grade separation of the BNSF and UPRR mainlines at South 180`h Street in Tukwila (S.W. 43`d Street in Renton) was completed in 2003. These improvements are a constructive first step toward improving rail freight travel along the western boundary of the City of Renton and associated freight rail travel passing through Renton. The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB): • develops and maintains a comprehensive and coordinated state program to facilitate freight movement between and among local, national and international markets; • works to find solutions that lessen the impact of the movement of freight on local communities; • proposes policies, projects, corridors, and funding to the state legislature to promote strategic investments in a statewide freight mobility transportation system; and • proposes projects that lessen the impact of freight movement on local communities. In 2003, the FMSIB selected the SW 27h /Strander Boulevard project to receive $4,000,000. It is anticipated these funds will be programmed by 2009. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION The Financing and Implementation Chapter outlines the strategies and actions to finance and implement the transportation improvements and programs planned as part of the City of Renton's transportation plan Renton will meet transportation needs through arterial, transit, high occupancy vehicle, non -motorized improvements, travel demand management programs, and airport, truck and rail plans as outlined in previous discussion of the transportation plan. The Financing and Implementation Chapter includes: • Goals, objectives and policies relating to financing and implementation of the transportation plan. • Information on current revenue sources and future revenues. • Assessment of Renton's 20 -year transportation needs and funding capability. • Assessment of Renton's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with regard to transportation improvements and programs identified in this document. • Strategies and actions for financing and implementing the transportation plan over the next 20 years. • Identifying future ongoing work needed to finance and implement the transportation plan. Objectives The Financing and Implementation Chapter is based on the following objectives: Objective T -Y: Pursue adequate funding for transportation improvements from all potential sources in an efficient and equitable manner. XI -59 Amended 03/1111112/08/0 8 Objective T -Z: Develop a staging and implementation plan that expedites transportation system improvement projects that i) improve HOV flow, ii) improve transit service, iii) improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and iv) provide neighborhood protection against the impacts of through traffic. Policies Policy T-86. To support economic development, growth related traffic improvements should be funded by a combination of impact fees charged to new development and business license fees. Policy T-87. Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships to help pay'for transportation improvements. Policy T-88. Pursue federal, state and local sources of funding (e.g. loans, matching funds) for transportation improvements. Policy T-89. Establish a mechanism to provide multi jurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation improvements. This could include establishing joint and/or coordinated transportation mitigation systems with other jurisdictions. Policy T-90. Create a funding mechanism that can be applied across boundaries to address the impact of growth outside the city limits on the City's transportation system. Transportation Program Costs To determine transportation financing needs, a twenty-year (2002 to 2022) program (including arterial, HOV, transit and non -motorized components identified previously in this document) was established, and a planning level cost estimate prepared. Also included as an element of the 20 -year funding needs are annual transportation programs that include: transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance; traffic operations and safety projects and programs; Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction programs; neighborhood livability projects and programs; and, ongoing project development. These annual programs support and supplement the Street Network, HOV, Transit and Non -motorized Elements and are a necessary part of maintaining transportation level of service standards. The total cost of the 20 -year transportation plan is estimated at $171.24-34 riillion>p21.l The costs of the various components of this plan are summarized in Table 8.1. The costs for the arterial, HOV and non - motorized components represent Renton's costs (including Renton's share of responsibility under joint projects with WSDOT and other local jurisdictions). This cost does not include costs of transportation projects that are the responsibility of the state, King County, and other cities (Newcastle, Tukwila, and Kent). The transit costs include only local match for Renton's local feeder system improvements, park-and- ride lots, signal priority, and transit amenities. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement of the 20 -year transportation plan and costs_ Inventory of Funding Sources 1 It should be noted that the $171.2 million estimate of cost for the 20 -year transportation plan includes an estimated $37.2 million in transportation projects for the Sunset Area identified in the Sunset Area Planned Action EIS. These projects were analyzed for the 2010-2030 time frame, and therefore, a portion of these costs may fall outside the City's existing 2022 planning horizon. XI -60 Amended 03/11 / 115 Having established a 20 -year transportation funding level of $171.24-34 million, an annual funding level of $8_564 million can be determined. Sources of revenue to provide this annual funding need are identified on Table 82_ The Business License Fee is an annual per capita fee assessed to all businesses within the City of Renton. Currently, 85% of the annual revenue generated from this fee is dedicated to fund transportation improvements_ The Business License Fee is assumed to contribute 28% of the future annual funding level. XI -61 Amended 03/11/ 111 RiOgiO TABLE 8.1 RENTON 20 -YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES Arterial Plan: _ $ 82,500,00060 ;500;900 Additional Sunset Area = $ 14,648,000 Improvements HOV Plan: — $ 26,000,000 Transit Plan: — $ 15,000,000 Non -motorized Plan: _ $ 4,500,000 Annual Programs: _ $ 28,500,000 Total 20 -fear Cost = $ 171,148,0004 34;000,000 XI -62 Amended .0-111/11 2,'0809 TABLE 8.2 CITY OF RENTON SOURCE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Business License Fee Half -Cent Gas Tax Grants Developer Mitigation Annual $ 1.88 million $ 0.35 million $ 5.759x.99 million $ 0.57 million * TOTAL FUNDS: S 8.556-.70 million * In addition, there will be site-specific mitigation. 20 -Year $ 37.6 million $ 7.0 million $ 115.1-7$:9 million $ 11.4 million $ 171.21.V million The Half -Cent Gas Tax is a portion of the State gas tax revenue that is distributed to local jurisdictions based on population_ The Halt -Cent Gas Tax is assumed to remain at its current level and contribute 5.2% of the future annual funding level. The City of Renton has aggressively pursued federal and state grants in the past, which is assumed to continue, thus providing 58% of the future annual funding level. Examples of federal grants include the Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ), and Transportation Enhancements Program, which are awarded regionally by the Puget Sound Regional Council and bridge replacement, road safety, and railroad crossing improvement programs administered by WSDOT. State grants include those provided by the Transportation Partnership Program (TPP), the Arterial Improvement Program (AIP), and Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Program (PSMP), which are administered by the Transportation Improvement Board_ Developer mitigation revenue is obtained by the City of Renton through an assessment on development city-wide, based on the number of daily vehicle trips generated by a specific development multiplied by a fee per vehicle trip. Developer mitigation is assumed to contribute 9% of the future annual funding level. It should be noted that developer mitigation is not a reliable (or stable) source of transportation funds (as required by GMA). The irregularity of private development projects and thus uneven flow of mitigation revenue contribute to the unreliability of developer mitigation. It should also be noted that, in addition to a mitigation fee, private development approval will be conditioned on site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent off-site transportation facility impacts are mitigated. Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) are formed by property owners to provide funds for the portion of the cost of improvement projects that benefit the properties. Petitions from trvo-thirds of the property owners of property equal to two-thirds of the assessed valuation of the LID area are required in order to form an LI.D. Because it cannot be determined when there will be enough petitioners to form an LID and, therefore, it is not known when an LID can be formed to make improvements, LIDs have not been included as a source of transportation funds. XI -63 Amended 03/111111 Q:nu The above revenue sources are projected to remain approximately the same over the next 20 years, though the percent contribution from individual sources may change. However, trends in transportation financing are becoming apparent, which could affect the City of Renton's transportation revenue. The trends include: declining revenue available from several existing sources, such as the half -cent gas tax; transportation needs growing faster than available revenues; local, state, and federal requirements on transportation improvements lengthening the design process and increasing cost; the undetermined potential for new funding sources; and, the continued inability of regional agencies to address regional transportation needs. Ongoing transportation planning work will include a review and update of current revenue sources to reflect federal, state, and regional decisions regarding these revenue sources. Funding Program The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires "an analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources." This includes development of a "multi-year financing plan" based on the needs identified in the transportation plan with "appropriate parts" serving as the basis for the Six-year Transportation Program required by the RCW for cities. The following presents the City of Renton's transportation finance plan (as required by GMA) and the underlying assumptions, which are: 4 to provide both a 20 -year and a six-year transportation improvement program ♦ establish consistency between the six-year and 20 -year programs. A 20 -year transportation program (comprised of improvements discussed previously in the Street Network, HOV, Transit, and Non -motorized Chapters and annual transportation programs) and a planning level cost estimate of $171.24-34 million (summarized on Table 8.2) have been established first. Based on the 20 -year funding level of $171.24-34 million, an annual funding level of $8.56-.7 million was determined. Having established an annual funding rate it can reasonably be assumed that if this funding level is maintained, if the facilities being funded are consistent with the 20 -year plan, and if transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously emphasized, it should be reasonable to assume that the level of service can be maintained for the intervening years with the established funding rate. The City of Renton's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is part of an on-going process intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Six -Year TIP is also linked with various state and federal funding programs, regional/inter/jurisdictional planning and coordination processes, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Projects are developed and prioritized based on both specific goals to be achieved by the program and on general programming considerations. Those general programming considerations are: Planning_ How a project fits with or addresses identified future transportation goals, demands, and planning processes must be evaluated on both a local and regional level. This is strongly influenced by ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans. Financing. Many projects are dependent on receiving outside grants, formation of L1Ds, or the receipt of mitigation funds. Prioritization has to take into account the peculiarities of each of the various fund sources and the probabilities of when, and how much, money will be available. Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with, or interdependent on, other projects taking place, it is reflected in their relative priorities. XI -64 Amended 0311 I/I I I2T 60917)4 Past Commitments. The level of previous commitment made by the City in terms of resources, legislative actions or interlocal agreements also must be taken into consideration in prioritizing TIF projects. In addition to the general considerations discussed above, there are five specific project categories through which the TIP is evaluated and analyzed. They are: • Preservation of Existing Infrastructure • MuIti-Modal and Transportation Demand Management • Community Livability and Enhancement • Economic .Development • Operations and Safety These categories provide a useful analysis tool and represent goals developed through an evaluation of the City's transportation program in response to input from citizens and local officials and to State and federal legislation. Taken as a whole, the five categories provide a framework for evaluating projects both individually and as part of a strategy that seeks to meet and balance the transportation needs of Renton during a time of increasing transportation demand, decreasing revenues, and growing environmental concerns. Although each project can be identified with an important concern that allows it to be classified into one of the five categories, most projects are intended to address, and are developed to be compatible with, multiple goals. Preservation of the existing infrastructure is a basic need that must be met by the program. The Mayor, City Council and Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee have all addressed the importance of sustaining strong programs in this project category. The State Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to assess and address the funding required to maintain their existing transportation system. Multi -Modal and Transportation_Demand Management (TDM) projects and programs are oriented toward "moving people" through a balanced transportation system that involves multiple modes of transportation and provides alternatives to the existing heavy reliance on the single occupant vehicle (SOV). Included are projects that facilitate the movement of transit and carpools, and programs that promote the use of high occupancy vehicles (HOV's) and reduce the numbers of SOV's_ The Federal Transportation Efficiency Act, the State and Federal Clean Air legislation and the State Commute Trip Reduction Act have added momentum to regional efforts and placed requirements on local jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these transportation elements. Community livability and enhancement consists of projects that have been developed with major emphasis on addressing community quality of life issues by improving and/or protecting residential livability while providing necessary transportation system improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in this category. Economic development projects and programs involve transportation improvements necessitated by new development that is taking place. Thus, a significant source of local funding for these projects is projected to come from mitigation payments and from specific access needs financed by new development in the City of Renton. XI -65 ,mended 03/11/1112Q840 Operations and safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts, accident records and geometric data, but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. The City of Renton's adopted 2008- 2013 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program includes many of the transportation improvements and programs identified in the Street Network, Transit, HOV, Non - motorized and Transportation Demand Management Chapters of this Transportation Element. The projects or programs are listed in Table 8.3. Also shown in Table 8.3 are annual programs (transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance, traffic operations and safety; projects and programs, ongoing project development). The following lists various 2008- 2013 T1P projects under each of the chapters of the Transportation Element. XI -66 Amended 03,11 " I 112 609/0 TABLE 8.3 CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY OF RE%700 4 PLANNING f r3U:LD€NG i PIJ901w WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2068-2653 SIA -'TEAR TIP Total Project Costs -ta Proj¢ct 7=:.e P�� CDSrfiS 2008 2aae 7a1s1 2611 2912 � 'siz=Yex 201g P•riatl io[aE Total Gaet i r SSlaal (3rarla 1 ?0 54+ G55.^?�= 6d} C_Oi 585 EIV. 8?.': 08s MX i 4,�1C. 5:953,SGa� 'Art•,3al Rlhat, Pr :xrr j x35.004 47�,^%CJ 37G.M0'. 2C4 DOC 6%WLI 22p_r1 =C.L+OQ 2,'20.6iy 25S5000r NE 6$7,748 3. tq5?a.': '.a3. 025 , 582.- -6. fi9 435, a 'L`wati Ave NE . km0 CPunSY I 5E4.1 Ga 7.5y3.41S' x,=33.67 5>4?7.579, [ tk,vali Avr laE -NE 775 $t fu Su*,se153 mt ! i 5,004; 575IX)0 2 750.000' 7.380.40.'+ S.?5G. 5,259,000, ISR 76V 3:CJ 7a01h to 541959 'Rainier 0.358451 1544 Sp 55'640 4684. 70 �7a,981' A4e-Orad�Yta tla53r7d St! 7.8t:G.397 0,2CO3f199w.79G,DCOJ 7 5.}70, I 22.000- 26.595.781' e sw 27ln S!'Strar+dr3 8v Connect 9,328.048 C,t'6.CR,� - 9..'.4.070 E,i�5.690 ,.625. 5,492.3;17: JC,95�.i53� aS.442.86 54.??E,C�i 9 NLA lh Sfhi uiam 11, Ne i® Ri a L+ne 36&.564 20. DCQx47. 33� j 33";be QOQ P.C7. it 11 Garflan Av N Y1ldn ersi 504_("f'� SAG,oGG� 55T7.OQ4; 4 :.,000.om 1.¢, H 'Ma Cr•sk Bred a Q.Ixc-i 155.5x9 23 A:Gi 550,ODs�I t60,Cg9' 5,000 7 755,403 H2O.aG9; t>• §bldne•rr• +7JE 24rt1 9t w+rl xc:. __ 30,000E 33.DQQ 36 00c'. t 3®r1 a Inc C[iur 9 Rroair 735.27) }E ,Ct'�'r'- 39G:33Q: SO,kCR 55.DEgE Sd.QRCii SO000 &:S:DW3 to iint•rsecli m SAct 6 i4abibl 25 .xD x00.0 9 ? , GC': 2Y AX 25u. ?54. gQI 2 -0.400 655 6 1.90Q 000 +s Traffic Safe, lypro$,am 777.853 20.)63' 19,DAC[ a0.Qgp dD.D00------------------- ap,ppp #rj. ,�_ gf1L. 3?t ,3631 7t SCMfol Zane Si nE) saes 2,lOJ 7A7.0^_C _ tCG. itY7,163. tE T{R irassoatefl'Pt �7f 5.x93 5th%i S.J�:Gi sJTNA' 29 i}T 25.4gy' :.L R aCerMn7 Pr - [ lux 20_E�;3{ e'S,GOD! 34.000'. 3_{rSr`: sJ.Utl9 )7,000: 755,aocA as �Poie Pro ram, a 36.1325 20,E:1 ,23.009 pS.OQC+�� 25,0fl4' 25090. 25.000" 40!5A 1?5,528: 2z 7rattic tflreiancPr 153.;1 �Ci.00r' SDA03 SE.400 70 �. 34,004 37,900 ?a0,07 3.%i,'t3 :a TramsitN ram Prpgram 57,946 75 W114j -CS i6.0OD' ?Cow. 74404; 74,000i 7,^,+00 4a2,Q00 ag5 .45a _i+ I7i7M _ i xs 6;c c3a Rrwte [»v P�, rr :45,207 F397S OW, :5,Oco: 55.000; 18,009( £S,C40= 1?^. 004= C5,yxl 83.0'33'. 65, DCX+ SO. S 55000 SO,OfY' 39Q,Q7 305. 495 2V7 524.753'; fc W+dM Pr •a 420,372 ?Y.OW. :5;3.07']; 257 045- 250 f G; 380A00 380,t27fl 1.740. 2 &97,3.2'. v f4esd Lirtkc Fri fern _ .k jB.- Free Trans,tkn Pian Im 5°190 30,1 '. 50,000', t4.Sk34,�'WI SR,030 SC,CDi. 90;14 Sfl.'J.>4 �, SS),tirA1 33 6., SO= 156. 3kQ 234 19J'. 3411.944. >•s suu:h Rempn Mo ect aH?Pr¢' c[p¢rab 77¢nUPred¢sr n ap5=250 232.725 2 Ow 118,0004, 200, 23D LIDO 2A7. 2k0.0o0 203,0001 i, ±.'sg. 108.250 ?,4 yC?23 71 iAltati+l Gircvlaticn T+fT xx 283.475 200.3777 2 3 3 xS3:.kDk 230 256.000 290, 7A5Q.� 31 €EnvirgnmeM I m rei 70&.§89 5C.fO00 30.O70 313.030 10, 3 36.000 30.QOJ mm, 20ir, 91a,rn5y: 3+ W57bF Gourd na7ron yr 14.710 "' _ 6i 60(, 65 Dxr 60030. 50,fl 440W a+ :G�s Nerds Assessment 40,931 24,787` 26,93' 25.440; 250,00 ^,54.004' 350 550. 553,47•, aitx for llx. Arfa _77.505_ 30,D30 .. 3D,0:14 S0.G3C _ 37044 ]O.Qa' 30-OOD 204. v Ho ww b -m-fq Bl 't_35O,QD'2;' -,-_ _ i ;.050, t 454,060 ie NE 3_d l E _w Corrsdor 2'_}.72; 2.074 320. 4,0-Sv DD0'96x5,7?; _ Sv-Par# to Conlon Pq 375.47 ] 82:413: +3h 325, i 224.73 545 ; 8+ +E (Lind Av. SW 161h. -,VV a.3re _5003 5.=71:0 5.th',C 954;-I;M,i 526,04 2..550_ ^_.S55.yx1 + an Av Crrticrele Panat Ra a 460.000! I ate, 45.7 a:'0 +x Sse7m Ghast4in Laka iMA Trail Conn 84,700 654.87 a 30f3 090 I 5.070, S.kOC:';.Q 1'p1al Sourees ];.499.069 24928 0.z 2t ksp,62E 1S 843 5731 132ffi4 725! 72 02a 900, 27.333 900 1.1 d68.1 159 659.72) XI -b7 Amended 03/11/111-2'98'08 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DMSION 2006-2014 SIX-YEAR TIP � 'These ry ects vrere ana pec fo•, the 010-T0 ti 3tl2023meframe as nan o1 [h 5 nset w PW d ActA— Communi E15 Ahhou¢h D"Je7lS Would been m the;wte-onion of the six -rear t meper'iud pan ons of same of these _� _ ...._._ some pro]ects may occur outside of the Citys existine on da h izan. nri ns ar ___ XI -68 Anerial Ret4b Pmemm�iAAAA���l�smr'rA�r'� ITIS'^ AAAA9'i��i•����l�l mowm—A m.lt^ 1��"�A•I�.si !� = �I�AAAAAAA■AAAAAAA■AAAAAAA■��11 �AAAAAAAA■AAAAAAA■����111 MTotalSources ' �f 'These ry ects vrere ana pec fo•, the 010-T0 ti 3tl2023meframe as nan o1 [h 5 nset w PW d ActA— Communi E15 Ahhou¢h D"Je7lS Would been m the;wte-onion of the six -rear t meper'iud pan ons of same of these _� _ ...._._ some pro]ects may occur outside of the Citys existine on da h izan. nri ns ar ___ XI -68 A3ncnded 03/11/1 142438 08 Street Network • Rainier Avenue Grady Way to South 2nd Street (TIP 47) • Garden Avenue North- North 8d' Street to Park Drive (TIP #2) • Lind Avenue SW — SW I6"' Street to SW 43rd Street (TIP 440) • Duvall Avenue NE — Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits (TIP 433) • Strander Boulevard — SR -181 to Oakesdale Avenue SW (TIP #8) • NE 3'd /NE 4h Corridor Improvements (TIP # 38) • Lake Washington Blvd. — Park Avenue North to Coulon Park (TIP #39) • Sunset Boulevard -- Park Avenue N. to Monroe Avenue N. (TIP 443) • South Renton Neighborhood Improvements (#29) • NE 4d'/Roquiam Avenue N.E. (TIP #9) • NE 10t' Street — Sunset Boulevard to Harrington Avenue NE (TIP 944) • Sunset Lane --NE 10'h Street to Harrington Avenue NE (TIP 445) Included in the Six -Year TIP is the Arterial Circulation Program (TIP #31), which will provide funding for further development of multi -modal improvements on. Renton`s arterials to support the Transportation Plan and comply with clean air legislation. Also included are expenditures for project development studies (TIP 430) for development of future TIP projects and grant applications for currently proposed and future TIP projects. Transit Transit Program: facilities to support regional transit service, local transit service improvements; development of park and ride lots, transit amenities (TIP 423) Also, the HOV Chapter improvements identified below will be designed to enhance transit service. HOV th • SW 27— Street HOV (TIP #8) • SR -169 HOV —Sunset Blvd. to east City Limits (TIP #6) It should be noted that the expenditure shown for the Transit Program (TIP 423) includes coordination with the State and Sound Transit HOV direct access interchange improvements. Also included in the Transit Program (TIP 423) is funding for further development of Renton HOV improvements identified previously in the HOV Plan (Figure 3-1), and to examine additional routes and corridors for HOV facilities in Renton. Non -Motorized • Barrier Free Transition Plan implementation (TIP #28) • Sam Chastain Lake Washington Trail Connection (TIP #42) • Sunset Area Green Connections (TIP 446) Also included in the proposed Six -Year TIP is the Walkway Program (TIP #26), which will provide funding for sidewalk and handicap curb ramp needs identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Program. The Bicycle Route Development Program (TIP 425) will upgrade existing bicycle routes, construct missing links in the bicycle route system, and develop, evaluate, prioritize future bicycle XI -69 Amended 03111/1110910 facilities. These projects are in addition to bicycle and pedestrian improvements, anticipated as part of arterial, HOV and transit projects. Implementation of the non -motorized element falls into two categories - walkways/sidewalk and bike facilities. Each of these components are described below. Walkways/Sidewalks Implementation. The implementation procedures for the City's comprehensive walkway/sidewalk program is detailed in the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study. This report identifies the sidewalk and curb ramp needs within the City. Specific improvements will be prioritized and will respond to the needs of school children, the aged and persons with disabilities, and will support increased use of transit_ Bike Facilities Implementation. Bicycle facilities include lanes along roadways and signed bicycle routes. Current funding is provided for the construction of segments of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Bicycle route designation and signing along City roadways is provided on an as -needed basis by the Transportation Systems Division of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. Project prioritization is determined by the Transportation Systems Division in coordination with the Community Services Department. Funding for bicycle signing is provided through the capital improvement programs and the General Fund operating budgets of the Transportation Systems Division. Signing specifically identified as part of transportation projects will be funded through the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Trails Implementation_ Many of the planned pedestrian/bicycle facilities in the Long Range Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, administered by the Community Services Department, would be valuable components of the transportation system, and, therefore, are coordinated with the Transportation Plan. The Long Range, Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan contains the recommended six-year trails development program. Only projects that are specifically identified as transportation facilities will be included in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TDMICTR • Transportation Demand Management Program: implement Commute Trip Reduction Act requirements, other TDM programs (TIP #24) Funding Assessment(131 A 20 -year transportation program has been established having an estimated cost of $171.24-34 million. This program was the basis for determining an annual funding level of $8_564 million. Assuming this annual funding level can be maintained over the 20 -year period (2002-2022), it is reasonably certain that the 20 - year transportation program can be implemented. Annual reassessment of transportation needs, continuing to aggressively pursue grant funding, and/or continuation of the strong rate of growth in Renton, which will generate higher developer mitigation revenue, will be needed over the intervening years in order to assume the 2022 transportation program can be achieved. The City of Renton's proposed 2008-2013 Six -Year TIP includes 4246 individual projects and programs, with a total estimated cost of $196.94-59-.7 million. Of this total cost, approximately $121.7 million is to be expended over the 2008-2013 six-year period. (It should be noted that for several projects and programs, expenditures over the six-year period are shown, not the total project or program cost.) In addition. an estimated $37.2 million are for roiects identified as mitigation in the Sunset Area Community and are XI -70 Amended 03,111 Il 1 1 � �r�—,T:,,.�,e rna Manned to occur in the 2010-2030 time frame. The difference of about $38 million represents expenditures prior to year 2007. The projected revenues over the six-year period, based on the established $8.56-7 million annual funding, will total $51444 million. The TIP identified expenditures of $121.7 million is $70.785 million more than the projected revenues. Of this $70.7&-1 million, approximately $44 million represents the amount of participation anticipated by the State, Sound Transit, King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and private sector contributions on joint projects. As previously discussed, transportation improvement expenditures of other jurisdictions have not been included when establishing the $8_5&7 million annual funding level_ Therefore, the Six -Year TIP expenditures exceed projected revenues by $26.75 million. In order for projects to be eligible for projected funding, they must be, by law, included in the Six -Year Transportation improvement Program (TIP). Because it is not possible to know which projects will qualify for funding, the Six -Year TIP includes a cross-section of projects to provide a list of projects that will be eligible for funding from the various revenue sources, when and if, such funds become available. The result is a Six -Year TIP which has expenditures exceeding projected revenues. The challenge for the future will be to secure enough funding for the City of Renton, Cities of Tukwila and Kent, King County, Sound Transit, and the state to implement the improvements to their respective facilities included in the Transportation Plan. However, several strategies for acquiring needed funding are evident at this time. They include: ♦ Establish interjurisdictional funding mechanisms, such as payment of mitigation fees to address impacts of growth within adjacent jurisdictions that affect the City of Renton. ♦ Update transportation priorities annually and incorporate in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. ♦ Continue to work more aggressively with adjacent cities, King County, Washington State Department of Transportation and other agencies to fund their respective improvements in the Transportation Plan, i.e., through joint projects. ♦ Continue to work with regional agencies to encourage them to find and fund regional solutions for regional transportation problems. Mitigation Process There are new laws and regulations that have tremendous impacts on land use, the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs, and costs and funding of transportation projects. Examples are the Wetlands Management Ordinance, Surface Water Management Ordinance, the Clean Air Act, Commute Trip Reduction Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Growth Management Act_ As a result, a transportation mitigation policy and process has been developed as part of the transportation plan. This mitigation policy serves as a framework for the citywide mitigation payment system that was adopted by the City in 1996. This mitigation policy includes the City of Renton: ♦ Developing a citywide 20 -year transportation system improvement plan (defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan). ♦ Determining the cost of the citywide 20 -year transportation improvements to support new development. X1-71 Amended 03111!11' �'�z ^n °moo ♦ Establishing a fee for developments' pro -rated share of the cost of the citywide 20 -year transportation improvements (in addition to site-specific mitigation required by the City). This mitigation fee would be established during the SEPA review process and paid during the project development process_ ♦ Continuing the current established business license fee and percentage of the business license fee allocated for transportation purposes as has been the custom in the past. ♦ Having the flexibility to modify the citywide transportation plan as needed to address environmental/regional coordination issues. ♦ Approving future development conditioned upon site specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent transportation facility impacts are mitigated, and the payment of the mitigation fee as the development's fair share contribution towards: 1) ensuring that the cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated; and 2) maintaining the City of Renton adopted level of service standard. Site specific improvements could include construction of additional traffic lanes and/or traffic signals. Mitigation Payment System The development mitigation fairshare cost has been established at $75 per daily vehicle trip The developer mitigation fee is based on the total daily increase in vehicle trips generated by the specific development project multiplied by the vehicle trip rate fee. In addition to this fee, there may be site-specific improvements required by the City, such as construction or contribution towards construction of additional traffic lanes and/or traffic signals, to mitigate on-site and adjacent facility impacts. (New business development will also pay the annual per capita business license as currently required of all businesses in the City of Renton). Additional information on the determination of the mitigation trip rate fee is contained in the Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document. A development may qualify for reduction of the $75 per vehicle trip mitigation fee through certain credits for development incentives, construction of needed transportation improvements (arterial, HOV, transit), through public/private partnerships, and transportation demand management programs. Specific credits and the amount of reduction in the mitigation trip rate fee that could result from such credits will be determined on a case by case basis during the development permitting process. The Mitigation Payment System provides flexibility to modify the basic trip rate fee as needed to respond to the effect that credits may have on developer mitigation as a funding source. Concurrency Management System The Growth Management Act (GMA) describes concurrency as the situation where adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. This description includes the concept of available public facilities. The GMA defines "available public facilities" as facilities or services in place, or a financial commitment in place, to provide the facilities within a specified time. For transportation, the specified time is six years from time of development. City of Renton policies that support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land Use Element and in this Element. To address concurrency under the GMA and City of Renton policies, a XI -72 Amended 03i] 1 /1111'09'09 concurrency management system has been developed for the City of Renton that is based on the following process: • The City of Renton will adopt a multi -modal Transportation Plan that will be consistent with regional plans and those of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the Transportation Plan will be defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • The City of Renton Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy, although it differs from the traditional LOS for arterials, is consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies and will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. The Transportation Plan will include a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy. One of the fund sources will be mitigation fees collected from developers as a condition of land use development within the City of Renton_ The approval of the development will be conditioned upon the payment of this Transportation Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent facility impacts. « The City of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the improvement elements of the citywide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS and land use development is met. « The City of Renton will establish concurrency by testing the citywide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level of Service standard. The City of Renton will adjust the transportation improvement plan as necessary to meet the LOS standard_ • Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS -tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. Transportation Concurrency Regulations (Ordinance No. 4708, adopted 3-2-1448) and Guidelines and Procedures for Monitoring Transportation Concurrency (adopted 4-6-1998) comprise the procedures, standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new land use development. As specified in the Regulations and Guidelines and Procedures, a concurrency test is conducted by the City of Renton for each non-exempt development activity. The concurrency test determines consistency with the adopted citywide Level of Service standard and the Concurrency Management System., using rules and procedures established by the City of Renton. The concurrency test includes technical review of a development activity by the City of Renton to determine if the transportation system has adequate or unused or uncommitted capacity, or will have adequate capacity, to accommodate vehicle trips generated by the proposed development, without causing the level of service standard to decline below adopted standards, at the time of development or within six years. A written finding of concurrency is provided by the City prior to the approval of the development permit. If the development activity fails the concurrency test, the City allows the development applicant to submit alternative data, provide a traffic mitigation plan, or reduce the size of the development project in order to achieve concurrency. XI -73 Amended 031] 1/118 Monitoring, and evaluation of the City of Renton's Concurrency Management System and Transportation Concurrency Regulations will be reviewed as part of ongoing transportation work. XJ -74 Amended 03111/1I1 2'0119$ ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES The Environmental and Natural Resources Chapter describes objectives, policies, and strategies to help protect Renton's natural resources and Renton residents from unacceptable air and water quality impacts of the transportation system_ Clean air and water are necessary for healthful living in an urban society. Objectives Objective T -AA: Protect and promote clean air to ensure a healthful environment. Objective T -BB: Reduce vehicular emissions by encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and non -motorized transportation usage. Objective T -CC: Ensure the long-term protection of the quality of water resources of the City of Renton. Objective T -DD: Reduce the impact on water quality from vehicular pollutants associated with run-off from impervious transportation facility surfaces. Objective T -EE: Preserve and protect natural resources (particularly critical areas and wildlife habitat). Policies Policy T-91. Promote programs which maintain mobile source pollutant levels at or below those prescribed by the EPA, State Department of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Policy T-92. Comply with the stipulations described in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality compliance. Policy T-93. Promote water quality by encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and non - motorized transportation usage. Policy T-94. Incorporate in transportation facilities vehicular pollutant and surface water run-off management and treatment techniques that maximize water quality. Policy T-95. Comply with the stipulations described in federal, state, and local water quality standards and regulations. Policy T-96. Develop transportation plans and projects to comply with City, state, and federal regulations that address critical areas and wildlife habitat_ Also see related Policies in the Environmental Element, the Land Use Element, and the King County Countywide Planning Policies, which by this reference, are incorporated in this Chapter. Air Quality -- Implementation Plan The City will subscribe to the plans, policies, and programs catalogued in the State Implementation Plan for air quality non -attainment areas. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies will be encouraged, including the Commute Trip Reduction Law. Existing vehicle programs such as the winter oxygenated fuels and vehicle inspections will be continued, supported, and updated as requirements demand. XI -75 Amended 12/08/08 Ongoing transportation planning work will include the review of the latest information from state and local agencies regarding air quality non -attainment areas, severity of violations and implementation plans. Improving Water Quality The City of Renton will comply with federal, state, and local plans, policies and programs for water quality. The City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on increasing the availability and use of HOV, transit, and non -motorized transportation modes and transportation demand management strategies. The intent of this program is to reduce vehicular traffic which will make it possible to limit the expansion of the existing roadway system and, in certain locations, limit additional impervious surfaces. This, in turn, will reduce vehicular pollutants and their effect on water quality. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION A multitude of agencies are involved in transportation planning and improvement. To become better integrated into the regional transportation system, Renton needs to strengthen its role in the region, especially in South King County, East King County, and the Puget Sound area, and participate in regional forums as transportation decisions are made. This is particularly important since a disproportionate number of the vehicles on Renton's arterials are pass-through traffic. Also, Renton continues to be a major regional employment center and decisions made about future transportation systems for the Puget Sound area will directly impact the future of Renton's commercial and industrial base. With requirements of the Growth Management Act mandating concurrency between land use and transportation planning, the kind of interjurisdictional cooperation envisioned in the policies has become more of a reality. However, in this environment it will become increasingly important for Renton to support negotiation tools such as interlocal agreements, and participate in interjurisdictional decision making. Therefore, the City of Renton participates in regional forums and supports transportation plans that preserve the livability of our neighborhoods, maintain the economic vitality of our City, and provide for an improved environment for future generations. This will be accomplished by: • providing a multi -modal regional plan with HOV, transit and other modes serving Renton; and • providing regional financial strategies which encourage other than SOV travel. The City of Renton has prepared and adopted a multi -modal Transportation Plan, which is consistent with regional plans and plans of neighboring cities. XI -76 Amended 12/08/08 Objectives Objectives and Policies which address the need for coordination between regional and local agencies with respect to transportation planning and operation needs are presented below: Objective -T-FF: Coordinate transportation operations, planning and improvements with other transportation authorities and municipalities. Policies Policy T-97. A sub -regional transportation system should be designed and implemented in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. Policy T-98. WSDOT should provide funding for and construct grade -separated inside HOV lanes with direct access (or barrier -separated HOV facility) in the SR -167 corridor from Auburn to Renton and I-405 corridor, extending from Sea -Tac Airport north to Bothell. Policy T-99. The Regional Transit Plan (RTP) should include regional express bus service to downtown Renton. Policy T-100. Provide park-and-ride lots in unincorporated King County to intercept pass through traffic affecting the Renton street system. Transit service to these park-and-ride lots should be frequent in order to encourage transit usage. Policy T-101. King County Transit (Metro) should provide intra -Renton bus service to serve local activity centers and employment centers, and to provide frequent, convenient access to future commuter rail stations and light rail transit stations. Policy T-102. The City of Renton, in collaboration with King County Transit (Metro), should place high priority in providing transit service to areas experiencing high residential and commercial growth. Policy T-103. The Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) should provide transit service and transit - oriented capital improvements in Renton consistent in size, scope, and cost with those proposed in the voter - approved Sound Move. Policy T-104. Give priority to working with King County to ensure that King County policies regarding transportation consistency/concurrency in Renton's Potential Annexation Areas are compatible with Renton's transportation plans and goals. Also see related Policies in the Transit Section and King County Countywide Planning Policies. Current Coordination Activities The City of Renton has been actively involved in an ongoing dialogue with state, regional, and county agencies -- as well as adjacent jurisdictions and business and community groups in Renton -- concerning Renton's transportation planning goals and objectives. Coordination efforts underway include participation in the followingr�imary forums. (Note: not all committees are listed.) State Coordination [Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)l I-405 Corridor Study. The City is participating in this WSDOT study along with representatives of affected jurisdictions adjacent to 1-405. Renton elected officials serve on the study's Executive Committee and Renton staff serve on the Steering Committee and Technical Committee. The purpose of the study is to work with local jurisdictions to define transportation needs in the 1-405 Corridor from Tukwila to Swamp Creek, Xi -77 Amended 12/08/08 and to develop transportation improvement projects for the corridor that complement local plans, goals, and objectives. Regional Coordination South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd). The purpose of the group is to serve as a central forum for information -sharing, consensus -building, coordination to resolve transportation issues, and to implement transportation programs and projects that benefit the region in general and South King County area jurisdictions in particular. Voting members include King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila. Non -Voting members include Sound Transit, Pierce Transit, the Port of Seattle, the Puget Sound Regional Council, WSDOT, and the State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB). Eastside Transportation Partnership (ETP). ETP is a coalition of Eastside cities (similar to SCATBd), with representatives from Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, Bothell, Mercer Island, Sammamish, Woodinville, Newcastle, and Renton. Representatives from WSDOT, Sound Transit, King County, PSRC, TIB, and Snohomish County also are participants. Renton's primary affiliation and purpose for participating in the group is to coordinate Eastside and South County issues. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The PSRC is a regional council of governments and the local MPO and RTPO, with representatives from every agency, jurisdiction, and governing body in King County, Pierce County, Kitsap County and Snohomish County. Staff level technical committees meet regularly to discuss a wide range of transportation topics related to the region's long range growth and transportation strategy as envisioned under VISION 2020 and Destination 2030, including finance, transportation improvement programs, commute trip reduction issues, regional transportation forecast data, air quality, and other issues requiring regional coordination. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority/Sound Transit. The City coordinates regularly with Sound Transit staff, as Sound Transit is the regional transit service provider. For long range planning, Renton and other jurisdictions are working with Sound Transit to implement Phase 1 of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move), which includes Regional Express bus service and associated capital facilities, and HOV/transit exclusive interchanges and/or arterial HDV improvements in Renton. County Coordination King Count. The City is also coordinating with King County Transit (Metro) in the development of local bus service plans that will complement the Sound Transit regional transit service concept_ King County Public Works Directors. The City works as a member of this group on numerous and varied transportation action issues of concern to local jurisdictions including making recommendations for projects to be funded with the regional distribution of federal transportation funds. Commute Trip Reduction. Another group within King County is responsible for coordinating regional and South County Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) issues in cooperation with local jurisdictions and King County. Working groups have been established for the purpose of coordinating state -required CTR ordinance and plan development/adoption by local jurisdictions and King County. With most local jurisdictions having successfully adopted local CTR ordinances, the group is now focusing on the successful implementation of the ordinance requirements (working with affected employers) and on starting a parking review regional coordinating effort. XI -78 Amended 12/08/08 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions The City of Renton is coordinating and will continue to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions through interlocal agreements and through appropriate regional, county, local, and state forums to assure consistency between plans, and to work out acceptable and appropriate agreements regarding local plans. Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan The City of Renton has adopted a position that specifies the elements that must be included in a regional transit plan in order for the City to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The City Council supports the following elements in the voter -approved regional system plan (Sound Move): A bus element, with early emphasis on express bus service and TSM improvements proposed for the South County area; 2. A plan that increases local circulation transit services and feeder service connections and provides a variety of modal options; 3. High Capacity Transit (HCT) to urban and employment centers, including Renton; and 4. A plan that provides convenient connections within the regional bus service, local bus service, and between the light rail line and the commuter rail system. Renton is coordinating with Sound Transit to ensure commensurate transit services and/or roadway/freeway improvements should any elements of the approved regional plan that benefit Renton not be implemented. Strategies to Address Inconsistencies Inconsistencies between Renton, the State, King County, Sound Transit, and other local jurisdictions will be addressed by interlocal agreement as specified in King County Growth Management policies. ONGOING TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORK This Transportation Element includes a number of recommendations for ongoing transportation work. This additional work will include continued refinement of certain elements of the transportation plan and development of more detailed strategies and programs to implement the transportation plan. The specific transportation planning tasks are summarized in this section. Street Network Level of Service (LOS) Continue to refine and update Renton's LOS policy to reflect new information on regional and local transportation plans. Arterial Plan Conduct further analysis of the improvements included in the Arterial Plan to verify physical, operational, and financial feasibility_ The analyses will include development of conceptual plans and cost estimates, assessment of neighborhood and environmental impacts, and the development of more detailed scopes of improvement, as appropriate. Adjust the Arterial Plan, as needed, to reflect the results on this analysis. Re-evaluate residential, commercial, and industrial access street function definitions and classifications. X1-79 Amended 12/08/08 Transit Transit Plan Update and revise Renton's Transit Plan to reflect new information regarding the Regional Transportation Plan (Sound Move). Conduct further analysis of the local feeder system transit improvements identified in the City of Renton Transit Needs Assessment in order to verify operational and financial feasibility. (Includes the development and incorporation of more detailed bus routing and dial -a -ride needs_) Level of Service Continue to refine the transit index of Renton's LOS standard to address transit service frequency. HOV HOV Plan Continue the assessment of criteria for HOV facility planning, design, and operation_ Conduct further analysis of the HOV improvements identified in the HOV Plan in order to verify physical, operational, and financial feasibility. Also, investigate other potential locations for HOV improvements, and define scope and cost of the proposed improvements in more detail, as appropriate. Level of Service Continue to update the HOV index of Renton's LOS standards, if needed. Non -motorized Neighborhood and Regional Access Based on the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study, determine additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities that support Renton's access needs and complement the Regional Transit Plan and local transit system. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan Update the routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan to reflect the reassessment of neighborhood and regional access needs. Identify, in cooperation with other City of Renton departments and citizen groups, the facilities that could be included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. "LlIMM040 Existing Parking Supply and Demand Inventory existing citywide on-site and off-site parking facilities to determine number of spaces and utilization, if needed during future review of parking policies, guidelines, and regulations. Parking Policy Review and Revisions Continue to review, update and/or revise Renton parking policies to complement other elements of the Renton Transportation Plan and to be consistent with regional parking policies. Working in regional forums propose parking regulation revisions to be worked out on a sub -regional basis_ Employer Mode Split XI -80 Amended 1208'08 With assistance from King County, evaluate updated Renton employers CTR data and revise citywide employer mode split if needed. TDMICTR Programs Renton's CTR ordinance was amended in February, 1998. Public and private employers have developed programs for complying with the ordinance. Annual review of these programs will be conducted to monitor progress toward meeting CTR goals. Also, the city will be working with WSDOT, Puget sound Regional council, King county, Metro Transit and others to develop rules and create new plans to implement the CTR Efficiency act adopted by the Washington State Legislature in 2006. The CTR Efficiency Act includes changes to the CTR law to make the program more effective, efficient and targeted. The modified CTR program will officially start on January 1, 2008. Parking Management Ordinance Continue to review the City of Renton parking regulations for revisions to complement the Renton Land Use Element and Transportation Element and to be consistent with regional and other local jurisdictional parking policies. Airport Continue to update the goals, objectives, policies, functional requirements, and implementation strategies of the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element as needed. Freight Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users Update assessment of rail use compatibility with current land uses and FAST implementation strategies, as needed. Regional Accessibility Continue to review, and update if needed, the assessment of Renton rail use with respect to implications of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move) and to reflect Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) decisions. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Review and update the assessment of freight and passenger rail needs, as appropriate. Financing and Implementation Program and Project Costs Update the scope and cost of improvements determined from the continued feasibility analysis of the arterial and HOV elements. Also, update the scope and cost of transit, non -motorized and other programs included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. Update the cost of the 20 -year transportation plan, as needed. Mitigation Process Adjust the citywide developer mitigation fee structure, if needed, to reflect revisions to the financing plan resulting from further analysis of the Transportation Plan improvements and costs, and funding sources. Funding Program Adjust the priority of projects or programs identified under the Arterial, Transit, HOV, Non -Motorized, and TDM chapters as needed. Review the multi-year (20 years) financing plan and assess funding needs for the XI -81 Amended 32/08M identified projects or programs. Include appropriate projects and programs in the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Identify potential sources of additional funds, if funding from current sources is not adequate, and to reflect federal, State, regional or local decisions regarding availability of current sources. Concurrency Continue to review, and revise if needed, the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the Concurrency Management System (CMS) and update, as necessary, the rules, regulations and ordinances that implement the concurrency requirements. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions regarding CMS requirements and regulations. Environmental and Natural Resources Continue to review and revise, as needed, the objectives, policies and strategies to minimize or mitigate impacts of transportation plans on Renton's environment and natural resources. Review the latest air and water quality implementation plans from local and state agencies, and update if needed. Intergovernmental Coordination Continue to coordinate Renton's Transportation Element with adjacent jurisdictions' transportation and land use goals, countywide policies, regional land use and transportation plans, and statewide goals outlined in the GMA. Regulations, facilities to be provided, and development actions by regional and other local jurisdictions may change, which could affect the City of Renton. Pursue strategies to address inconsistencies, i.e. through interlocal agreements, and adjust Renton's Transportation Element, as needed. XI -82 Amended NiOS/08 UTILITIES ELEMENT GOAL Facilitate the development and maintenance of all utilities at the appropriate Ievels of service to accommodate the growth that is anticipated in the City of Renton. X11-1 Amended 12/08/08 Summary: The Utilities Element guides future utility service within the greater Renton area. It helps ensure that adequate utilities will be available to both existing and new development. It also ensures that utility improvements will be used to help implement the Comprehensive Plan and will be phased according to community priorities. The Utilities Element indicates how utility improvements can be used to maintain equitable levels of service, guarantee public health and safety, and serve new development in a timely manner. In addition, the Utilities Element defines how to minimize the detrimental impacts of utility improvements on surrounding development as well as the community as a whole. The Utilities Elements looks to promote efficiency in the provision or improvement of service wherever appropriate and feasible. In addition, it asks that the costs of improvements should be distributed in an equitable manner. Beyond the City's existing boundaries, the Utilities Element fosters coordination with regional and adjacent utility systems. It also guides the provision of services to areas outside of the City, but within the City's planning area especially in cases of annexation. The City of Renton provides water, wastewater, and storm water utility services for citizens residing within the city limits and by agreement with other purveyors for some areas located outside of the City's boundaries. Renton contracts with a private hauler for collection of solid waste and residential recycling. Other utility services that affect the City include: cable television, conventional telephone, fiber optic cable systems, cellular telephone service, natural gas, petroleum products, and electricity. (See the Annexation Section of the Land Use Element, the Stormwater Section of the Environmental Element and the Capital Facilities Element for additional policies related to the Utilities Element.) General Policies Discussion: The following general policies are designed to ensure that utility services are safely and efficiently provided, and are constructed in an environmentally sound manner that reasonably mitigates impacts on adjacent land uses. The policies also emphasize cooperation and coordination with other agencies, jurisdictions, and purveyors to create and maintain utilities. Objective U -A: Provide an adequate level of public utilities in response to and consistent with land use, protection of the environment, and annexation goals and policies. Policy U-1. Utility facilities and services should be consistent with the growth and development concepts directed by the Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-2. Promote the collocation of new public and private utility distribution lines with planned or pre- existing systems (both above and below ground) in joint trenches and/or right-of-ways where environmentally, technically, economically, and legally feasible. Policy U-3. Process permits and approvals for utilities and facilities in a fair and timely manner and in accord with development regulations that encourage predictability. Policy U-4. Strive to protect the health and safety of Renton citizens from recognized harmful effects of utility generated environmental hazards. Policy U-5. Encourage the appropriate siting, construction, operation, and decommissioning of all utility systems in a manner that reasonably minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy U-6. Where appropriate, encourage conservation in coordination with other utilities and jurisdictions. XII -2 Amended 12/08/08 Policy U-7. Continue to encourage the coordination of non -emergency utility trenching activities and street repair to reduce impacts on mobility, aesthetics, noise, and other disruptions. Policy U-8. Continue to coordinate the construction and replacement of City -managed utilities with other public and private infrastructure. in order to minimize construction related disruptions and contain costs. Policy U-9. Where appropriate, work cooperatively with other jurisdictions to ensure that reliable and cost- effective utilities are available to meet increasing demands resulting from local and regional growth. Policy U-10. Where appropriate require reasonable landscape screening of site-specific aboveground utility facilities in order to diminish visual impacts. Policy U-11. Identify utility capacity needed to accommodate growth prior to annexation. Do not annex areas where adequate utility capacity cannot be provided. City -Managed Utilities Discussion: The following general policies are designed to ensure that utility services are provided concurrently with new development. The policies are designed to prevent unplanned, disorderly land development, which can demand costly infrastructure upgrades and expensive temporary solutions. Annexation policies related to utility provision are intended to create a strong connection between land use and infrastructure implementation programs. City utility facilities expansion is intended to further the long-term development goals of the City rather than to promote extension of the utility system of a separate entity. Objective U -B: Provide and maintain safe, reliable and adequate utility facilities and services for the City's current and future service area to meet peak -anticipated demands of the City in an efficient, economic, and environmentally responsible manner. Policy U-12. Approval of development should be conditioned on utility systems with capacity to serve the development, without decreasing locally established levels of service being in place or with a financial commitment to provide service within a specified time frame. Policy U-13. Coordinate the extension of utility services with expected growth and development. Policy U-14. Apply level of service standards consistently throughout the service area for city -owned or managed utilities. If necessary, this level -of -service standard may be phased -in over time. Policy U-15. Preference should be given to capital facility improvements that will support the development and redevelopment of the Downtown, mixed-use centers, the Urban Center, and other high growth areas concurrent with anticipated growth. Policy U-16. Encourage the use of water and energy conservation technologies throughout the City. Policy U-17. Timely and orderly extension of City provided utility services (water, sanitary sewer, surface water, solid waste) should be provided within the City's existing and future service areas to meet public health and safety requirements. Policy U-18. Water, sewer, and storm water facilities and services should be in place prior to occupancy of development projects. XII -3 Amended 12/08/08 Policy U-19. Implementation and coordination programs for the improvement, phasing and financing of water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure should be developed consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-20. All development should be required to pay an equitable share of construction costs for improvements to utility systems for water, sanitary sewer, and storm water necessitated by that development. When utility improvements will provide a general public benefit, the City may contribute funds for the construction of improvements to utility systems to support the public interest. Policy U-21. Upon annexation, if there is a threat to health and safety, the City may require upgrading of the deficient infrastructure as a condition of the annexation. Policy U-22. The City shall not be responsible for funding the immediate upgrading of utility systems located in annexed areas. At such time that the existing infrastructure is replaced, upgraded or extended, the new infrastructure must conform to City of Renton standards. Policy U-23. When an annexation encompasses property served by a utility district, and that district continues to provide service, that district will be required to execute a franchise agreement with the City in order to operate within the City. Policy U-24. The owners of all properties, located in unincorporated portions of the Renton Planning Area and outside of municipal service areas, should agree to develop in accordance with specified City development standards, if granted City utilities. Exceptions would be allowed in the cases of threats to public health and safety. Policy U-24.1. The owners of all properties located in unincorporated King County that are within Renton's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) that receive City water services should be required to sign a covenant to annex. Policy U-25. Pursue future annexation of all lands that have recorded covenants to annex or that receive City water and sewer service using the 60% Assessed Valuation method of direct petition or other methods that allow for the enforcement of covenants not to oppose future annexation. Policy U-26. In the event of a threat to public health and safety, the City utilities may use utility resources to prevent or mitigate such threats. Non -City Managed Utilities Discussion: The following policies are designed to ensure Renton is aware ofproposed non -city managed utility facility upgrades and that utility purveyors are fully aware of the City's needs. Objective U -C: Ensure non -City managed utilities provide service commensurate with required state - mandated public service obligations and established safety and welfare standards. Policy U-27. Coordinate data exchange with utility planners for use with the City of Renton's geographic information system. Policy U-28. Upon renewal, all franchise agreements should be reviewed for compliance with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and the State of Washington Growth Management Act. XII -4 Amended 12/08/08 Policy U-29. New telecommunications and electric utility distribution lines should be installed underground within the City where practical in accordance with rules, regulations, and tariffs applicable to the serving utility_ Policy U-30. New or reconstructed structures, towers, and transmission lines should be designed to minimize aesthetic impacts appropriate to their surroundings whenever practical. Policy U-31. Coordinate periodic updating of the utility element and relevant implementing development regulations with adjacent jurisdictions and purveyors. Policy U-32. Encourage the exchange of information relevant to public and private planning processes. Policy U-33. Recognize and continue to allow existing utility facilities that may have regional significance within the City, consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Policy U-34. Ensure that development regulations are consistent with and do not otherwise impair the fulfillment of the serving utilities' public service obligations. XII -5 Amended 12/08/08 Water Supply Background The Renton Water Utility is operated as a self-supporting enterprise utility under the direction of the Mayor and City Council. Operations are guided by policies of the City of Renton Comprehensive Water System Plan, 1998. (Update scheduled for adoption in 2005.) City of Renton Utility Service Area The City of Renton's Water Utility System provides service to an area approximately 16 square miles in size, and to more than 14,700 customer accounts (Figure 2-1). In addition, the City supplies water on a wholesale basis to the Bryn Mawr/Lakeridge Water District through a single metered connection. Boundaries of the water service area are defined by the City and approved by King County. The City's service area boundaries are not necessarily the same as the corporate boundaries of the City. Agreements between Renton and adjacent purveyors allow Renton to serve some areas outside of the city limits and provide for other districts to serve limited areas within Renton's corporate limit. Existing City Water Supply Facilities Within City Limits Current active and primary water supply sources include five wells drawing water from the Cedar Valley aquifer, three wells from the Maplewood aquifer and one artesian spring. The wells provide eighty-six percent (86%) of the City's water production. In addition, the City maintains seven metered backup water supply interties with Seattle Public Utilities, one emergency intertie with the City of Kent and one emergency intertie with the City of Tukwila. Water treatment consists of chlorination, fluoridation, and corrosion control. As a result of Renton's topography, Renton's service area encompasses twelve hydraulically distinct pressure zones. A system of booster pump stations and pressure reducing stations allow water transfer between zones. Currently there are eight reservoirs in the City's water supply system, strategically located to provide adequate equalizing and fire flow storage. Pressure reducing valves are used to supply lower pressure zones from higher - pressure zones that contain water reservoirs. Capacity of Existing Facilities City's active wells and Springbrook Springs currently provide 11,900 gallons per minute (gpm) or 17.14 million gallons per day (mgd). The back up Maplewood wells and emergency well can deliver an additional 7,000 gpm or 10.08 mgd. Together, active, standby, and emergency wells provide 18,900 gpm or 27.22 mgd. Emergency interties with neighboring cities and water districts can provide 12,000 gpm or 17.28 mgd. The Washington State Department of Health has established guidelines for estimating the amount of supply necessary for adequate water supply. Based on composite growth forecasts, the City has sufficient on-line supply capacity to meet demands through at least 2020. Forecasted Conditions - City of Renton City of Renton Future Water Utility Service Needs The following forecasts are based on Puget Sound Regional Council projections, which have been allocated by the City of Renton, based on local assumptions. Expected increases in population will result in a total of 61,694 persons (or 26,940 households) living within the current city limits by the year 2010; and, 77,752 XII -6 Amended 12108/08 persons (or 29,128 households) in the annexation area_ The total forecast population of Renton's Planning Area is expected to be 139,446 persons (or 60,893 households) by 2010.. The total projected maximum day demand by 2010 of about 19.9 mgd is anticipated and provided for in the adopted and approved 1998 Renton Comprehensive Water System Plan. The completion of the Maplewood wells, booster pump station and water treatment facility in 1998 should produce adequate quantities of water to accommodate projected growth, provided the City's existing supply is not lost through contamination or some other unforeseen event. City of Renton Future Source of Supply Water demand will continue to increase as the City's population grows. In response, the City has rehabilitated one emergency well in the Cedar Valley aquifer and developed three others on the Maplewood aquifer. If no other supply sources are developed, the additional supply from the three wells will adequately meet demands until at least 2020, XII -7 Amended 170zS0Z8 V Figure z, Water Systemm_ 2§ � ■ ; § \ m /§ ` 62 § \z I 7 2 , \ ƒ 2 o in LIJ 2 ƒ \ \ G } $ \ k E grin, )\\ L U. Figure z, Water Systemm_ 2§ � ■ ; § \ m /§ ` 62 Amended 12/08'08 Discussion: Groundwater is Renton's primary source of drinking water. Nearly all of the City's water supply comes from the shallow Cedar Valley Aquifer and from Springbrook Springs. Development of groundwater supply has been successful in that it has provided substantial volumes of very high quality water. It is assumed that the potential far increased withdrawal rates is possible and that the aquifer is the City's best source of long-term water supply. The Cedar Valley aquifer is shallow and is covered by permeable material. Therefore, potential contamination problems exist from industrial, commercial, and residential development in the aquifer recharge area and from the transportation of contaminants through the aquifer area. Groundwater contamination would directly and immediately affect all Renton water customers. The Renton City Council has ranked aquifer protection as its number one priority, and it is the single most important issue in providing a reliable water supply to the service area. The City must assure that water supplies will be adequate to serve future growth. This can be accomplished through prudent use of current sources, the acquisition of new sources, and water reuse programs. In Renton, thousands ofgallons a day of high quality drinking water are currently expended in applications for which reclaimed water is a possible substitute. The cost of treating effluent far reuse is generally less than acquiring and developing potable water supply for non potable uses_ Using reclaimed water also improves the quality of water bodies by reducing the amount of effluent discharged into them from wastewater treatment plants. Renton is integrating a reuse program into its water resource management program. The maximum level of sustainable draw from the City's groundwater system is not currently known. Therefore, it would not be prudent to commit Renton's potable water resources to supplying future growth in areas outside of Renton's present city limits when other service options are available. Obligating the City to provide unincorporated areas with water might impede annexations. This policy direction is not intended to preclude provision to neighboring areas prompted by emergency conditions. These policies will help the City ensure that adequate water supply is available to serve all portions of the municipal service area at adopted standards. Objective U -D: Provide, protect, and maintain a consistent, ample, and safe water supply for the City and future service areas. Policy U-35. Protect water resources to assure continued long-term, high quality groundwater and artesian spring water supplies. Policy U-36. Ensure that there is an adequate supply of high quality potable water to meet current and future water needs. Policy U-37. The intensity and type of development should be limited in the Aquifer Protection Area to those types of development that do not create adverse impacts on the aquifer. Policy U-38. Designate and protect areas of aquifer recharge within the City's Potential Annexation Area boundary. Policy U-39. Water supply sources (i.e. wells, and Springbrook Springs) should be protected from uses and activities that have been determined to be hazardous to these sources. Policy U-40. Continue to promote the efficient and responsible use of water through conservation and public education programs. XII -9 Amended 12/08/09 Policy U-41. New alternative source supplies of potable water should be developed through wells or other sources. Policy U-42. The City's Water Utility will strive to meet maximum day demand during a reasonable "worst case" supply system failure. Policy U-43. Coordinate with the regional wastewater purveyor to develop programs to substitute reclaimed wastewater for potable water in landscape watering, heating and cooling buildings, and other safe uses, whenever practical. Policy U-44. The availability of adequate fire flow should be assured prior to the issuance of commercial or industrial building permits or the approval of residential subdivisions. Policy U-45. Allow extensions of water service without annexation, to areas outside of the city limits: 1) when such areas are within the City's water service area, or 2) when no other reasonable service is available AND it is determined by the City and/or State Department of Health that a public health emergency exists or is imminent. Policy U-46. Renton Water Utility will serve areas annexed to the City that do not have existing municipal supply. Policy U-47. Renton will not supply water to areas annexed with other existing municipal water suppliers and water districts. Policy U-48. Renton will use water service boundaries, established by agreement as a result of regional coordinated water system plans and agreements with neighboring cities and water districts. Policy U49. Renton will follow state guidelines in assuming portions of adjacent water systems as a result of annexation. Policy U-54. Continue to actively participate in regional supply forums in order to reduce the cost of service and improve reliability, quantity and water quality. Policy U-51. Pursue the elimination of all supply from the Seattle Cedar River Transmission Pipelines, and supply all customers within the Water System's service area from the City's supply sources. However, the Seattle supply meters will remain operational to provide emergency supply if it is necessary. Policy U-52. Areas annexed with existing municipal water supply should be responsible for the costs of utility system improvements needed to raise the level of service to City standards. These upgrades may be phased over time if necessary. Policy U-53. The City may defer compliance with Renton Water Standards in the case of temporary or emergency water service. Policy U-54. Utilize water conservation and reuse programs to ensure adequate water supply to meet the essential needs of the community. Wastewater System Discussion: Septic systems are not appropriate means ofproviding wastewater service in urban or aquifer protection areas. Therefore, these policies support the provision ofprimary wastewater service through an extensive sanitary sewer system throughout the municipal service area. This system is intended to serve both XII -lo Amended 12108'08 new and existing development in a manner consistent with planned land uses and at an appropriate level of service. Service by the sanitary sewer system should be in place at the time of development. Existing Conditions The Renton Wastewater Utility is operated as a self-supporting enterprise utility under the direction of the Mayor and City Council. Operations are guided by policies of the City of Renton Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan (current version adopted October, 1999). City of Renton Utility Service Area Renton's sanitary sewer service is provided by the City's Wastewater Utility. Portions of Renton are served by adjacent water and sewer districts, under interlocal agreements. Boundaries separating the City's sewer service area from adjacent districts have been agreed upon by the purveyors and the City. It has been Renton's policy to allow these districts to continue to serve areas after annexation by Renton until assumption of service to these areas is logical, in accordance with state law, and in the City's interest. Figure 3-1 shows existing service areas for Renton and adjacent districts. The City of Renton Wastewater Utility serves approximately 13,800 customers (residential and business) which includes approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the City's population and eighty-five (85%) percent of the City's land area. The remaining five percent (5%) of the population currently uses private, on-site, wastewater disposal systems. General Description of Existing City Wastewater Facilities The City of Renton is divided into seven major wastewater collection basins, each of which consists of one or more sub -basins. For the most part, these collection basins and sub -basins follow the natural drainage patterns of the Renton service area. Where the collection basins do not follow the natural drainage patterns, it is typically due to lack of downstream facilities and the need to pump from a given point into an adjacent drainage basin. Renton's sanitary sewer system consists of about 184 miles of gravity sewers, 23 lift stations with associated force mains, and approximately 3,400 manholes. Wastewater is discharged to regional facilities (King County) at over 70 locations within the City's service area. The sewage is then conveyed to King County's South Plant at Renton. Currently, King County's wastewater treatment consists of primary treatment, secondary treatment, and bio -solids processing. Capacity of Existing City Wastewater Facilities Computer hydraulic modeling of the City's system has revealed that facilities in several basins are near capacity. These areas are addressed in the Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan and the Six -Year Wastewater Capital Improvement Program. In addition, there is a capacity issue related to King County's handling of flows. During peak flows, King County will use its interceptors for storage of wastewater and for controlling flows in the South Treatment Plant in Renton. This results in wastewater backing up into King County interceptors. King County reserves the right to allow wastewater to back up in its interceptors to an elevation of 25 feet. Although King County has never reached this extreme, King County's storage of wastewater in its interceptors has caused Renton's sewers to surcharge (back up) in low-lying areas through manhole covers and back up side sewer connections into homes and businesses. X11-11 Amended 12/08/08 Reliability of Existing City Wastewater Facilities Problems associated with the City's gravity sewer system include the age of the system, improper construction or settlement, penetration by tree roots, and grease buildup. The 23 lift stations operated by the City pose a different kind of reliability problem. Unlike gravity sewers, lift stations are subject to power and mechanical failures, and thus are less reliable. They also require higher maintenance and operation costs and cause increased adverse impacts on downstream facilities. Some lift stations are in need of replacement because of age and deterioration. Other stations are in good shape, however, they lack some of the safety or reliability features required under current codes. XII -12 Amended 12/�w N n E / Figure 3-1 _ 2Lij : »nh9_r�a+_�_ z} E { § k / L\ d�E : \ } k q « § ) \ \ f 2 \ () ° »2 E. \\\/ ��\\ IP z0M � � � \}} Amended 12/08/08 Forecasted Conditions Future Capacity of Facilities The wastewater collection system currently has no capacity restraints. However, continued development within the Lake Washington East Basin will require that additional capacity be provided by means of the Sunset Interceptor. These improvements are currently scheduled in the Wastewater Six-year Capital Improvement Program. The most significant amount of increased flow is anticipated to occur in the East Cedar River Basin. Sufficient capacity exists within this basin to accommodate this anticipated growth due to the construction of the East Renton Interceptor in the mid-1990s. Significant additional growth will also continue to occur within the West Cedar River, Black River, and Lake Washington West Basins. The current modeling of the system shows sufficient capacity to accommodate this growth as well. The utility is currently developing a new hydraulic model to update its modeling to fit recently completed flow analysis performed system wide as part of King County's Regional Inflow and Infiltration Study, scheduled for completion in early 2005. This update to the program will help the utility to better understand what, if any, additional capacity restraints may exist within its system. The City of Renton has several agreements with adjacent utilities that allow joint use of facilities within the City_ Adjacent utility systems' comprehensive plans predict the future capacity they will need when they convey wastewater through Renton. However, adjustments to the City's interceptors may need to be made as these systems further clarify their needs. While these agreements restrict the volume of wastewater discharged to the joint use facilities, if wastewater flows from adjacent upstream utilities exceed the agreed upon flows, then capacity problems could occur. Reduction of inflow and infiltration in Renton's collection system will help to make additional capacity available for anticipated growth and development. This will also reduce King County's need to make expensive additions or improvements to increase the capacity of their treatment and conveyance facilities. King County's adopted wastewater plan, based on Puget Sound Regional Council population and employment projections, includes system improvements necessary to meet service levels in the area served by the regional wastewater conveyance system and treatment plant in Renton. Future System Reliability - City of Renton If proper attention is paid to the on-going inspection, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of City mains, the reliability of Renton's sewer system is expected to remain at an adequate level. A significant portion of the City's wastewater collection and conveyance system is over fifty years old. The materials used for sewers at the time these were installed are expected to have a useful life of approximately fifty years. Some of these mains are in an elevated need of repair and are ranked high in priority in Renton's 20 - year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)_ The old mains are continually being inspected to determine which ones will need to be replaced during the second half of the 20 -year CIP. Not all the fifty -plus year old mains are in the 20 -year CIP. Continual evaluation of these facilities may indicate the need to re -prioritize CIP projects and dictate the advancement of some programs to ensure the integrity of the system. The 2005 update of the Wastewater Long -Range Management Plan will further evaluate the priority of replacements. Proposed sewer projects are ranked according to a prioritization process based on defined needs. The ranking system, at this time, includes categories that give points for improving substandard or deteriorating facilities, increasing the efficiency of the system, and protecting the environment. }CII -14 Amended 12/08/08 Objective U -E: Provide and maintain a sanitary sewer collection system that is consistent with the public health and water quality objectives of the State of Washington and the City of Renton. Policy U-55. Ensure and encourage the use of the sanitary sewer system within urban areas in a manner consistent with land use and environmental protection goals and policies. Policy U-56. All new developments should be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system, except low- density single-family residential development located away from environmentally sensitive areas, outside of Aquifer Protection Areas, and having adequate soils to support on-site septic systems. Policy U-57. Sewer connections should be provided in presently unsewered areas if the areas, by remaining unsewered, pose a health hazard to the aquifer, or if other groundwater contamination occurs. Policy U-58. Adequate sewer service capacity should be assured prior to the approval of any new development application (e.g. short plat, long plat, multifamily, commercial, and industrial development). Policy U-59. Sewer service should be expanded so that the current levels of service are maintained through build -out of the adopted land use classifications. Policy U-60. Excess sewer capacity alone should not be sufficient grounds for challenging the existing zoning for an area. Policy U-61. Coordinate with the regional wastewater agency and adjacent jurisdictions in the planning and maintenance of regional wastewater systems in and near the City. Policy U-62. Development should be conditioned on the orderly and timely provision of sanitary sewers. Policy U-63. Coordinate with the regional wastewater agency and adjacent jurisdictions to ensure that wastewater lines passing through Renton are operated in a safe manner at all times. Policy U-64. The City of Renton will follow state guidelines that define a City's ability to assume facilities in annexation areas. Policy U-65. Areas annexed without existing municipal sanitary sewer service will be served by Renton unless a service agreement exists or is negotiated with a neighboring utility. Policy U-66. Areas annexed with existing sanitary sewer service must meet the City's sanitary sewer service objectives. Upgrading to City standards of sanitary sewer facilities within all or portions of newly annexed areas will be required if there is a threat to public health and safety. If improvements are necessary, they may be accomplished by developer installation or LID as a condition of the annexation. Policy U-67. All property owners in unincorporated King County and Renton's PAA, who are granted City sanitary sewer services, should be required to sign a covenant to annex. Policy U-68. In areas where annexation is logical, extensions of service may be contingent upon request for annexation. (See Annexation policies in the Land Use Element.) Policy U-69. Allow the extension of sanitary sewer services within the City's Potential Annexation Area according to such criteria as the City may require. Sanitary sewer services will not be established within another sewer service district, which provides sanitary sewer service except by agreement with that sewer service district. XII -15 Amended 12/08/08 Policy U-70. The City may assume existing portions of adjacent sanitary sewer systems, at the discretion of the City Council, when such assumptions promote the logical and efficient development of the City's sanitary sewer system area. Policy U-71. The City Council will consider annexations without assumptions of existing sanitary sewer facilities under conditions defined in the Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Policy U-72. Actively promote all residents within the City to connect to public sewer. Policy U-73. Private sewage disposal systems will be allowed within the City limits, subject to city, county, and state regulations and when public sewers are not available. Surface Water Discussion: Natural hydrologic systems play an integral role in effective surface water management. Engineering techniques can control much of the storm water through detention and retention systems. However, the cumulative effects of storm water can only be managed by a combination of engineering and preservation of natural systems. Surface water can dissolve and transport toxins from the human environment as well as carrying eroded materials. Renton's municipal water supply, as well as downstream water bodies, must be protected from water -borne contaminates through prudent management practices. Existing Conditions Renton's Surface Water Utility was organized to meet specific ordinances, regulations and to ensure that planned facilities meet defined engineering standards. The Utility is operated as a self-supporting utility under the direction of the Mayor and City Council_ Utility Service Area The Utility's service area currently includes all lands within the City boundaries, more than 17.2 square miles. However, surface flows from the urban area within the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and the rural area also affect the natural and constructed surface water management systems. This potential annexation area is currently serviced by King County. As areas within the PAA are annexed into the City, Renton will assume responsibility to provide surface water management services within the annexed areas. General Location of Facilities The existing surface and storm water facilities follow natural drainage patterns wherein surface water is collected and detained to reduce peak runoff rates, to provide water quality improvement, and for infiltration. Alternatively, it is conveyed through pipes to numerous surface water bodies. These surface water bodies include several creeks and rivers, and Lake Washington_ The major topographic elements of the service area include several major drainage areas or basins within the city limits (see Figure 4-1). The northern -most basin is the May Creek Basin, which begins northeast of the city limits and flows to Lake Washington. The Cedar River Basin runs through the heart of downtown Renton. This basin extends far beyond the city boundaries. Thus, hydrologic events and urban growth beyond the city limits may have a significant impact upon the surface drainage system, particularly near downtown and the outfall into Lake Washington. The facilities within the city limits for these basins include storm sewers, detention facilities, open channels, and other protective works. XII -16 Amended 12/08/08 The Black River Basin, also know as the Eastside Green River Watershed (ESGRW), is a major basin in the southwestern portion of the City. The basin encompasses approximately 24 square miles that includes areas of Kent, Tukwila, and King County. Thus, coordination with other agencies in this area is essential. The City of Renton makes up less than one third of the total basin area. The facilities within the city limits for this basin include the Black River Pump Station, Springbrook Creek (P-1 channel), storm sewers, detention facilities, open channels, and other protective works. The remaining basins within the city limits include the West Hill Basin, which drains to Lake Washington, the Lower Empire Sub -basin in the Duwamish Basin, which drains to the Green/Duwamish River and the Soos Creek Basin. The Soos Creek Basin is primarily outside of the city limits. Basin plans for the Black River Basin, the Maplewood Sub -basin, the Cedar River Basin (with King County), and the May Creek Basin (with King County) have been completed and actions identified in these plans are being implemented. Existing Capacity of Facilities The existing surface water drainage system is meeting capacity requirements under normal conditions. However, in some areas of the City, the system has become inadequate to serve present needs during large, infrequent storm events. Of particular concern are inadequate facilities located within several basins. These basins are each affected by upstream development activities that have occurred in their respective watersheds, creating downstream capacity deficiencies. Currently there are no special efforts for floodway protection outside of the development review process and emergency responses during flooding. The City is studying frequently flooded areas including the Cedar River, North Renton, and the Black River Basin. Problems in the Black River Basin include widespread flooding or surface water ponding in the valley during severe rainfall events and the loss of outlet culvert capacity from the Panther Creek Wetlands. Existing and future surface water quality issues, loss of wetland habitat and fishery passage problems are additional concerns, with the continued development of the upstream portion of the watershed within Renton's Urban Growth Area and areas within the Cities of Kent and Tukwila. XII -17 Amended 12/08/08 Figure d-1 Surface Water Drainage Basins i a -o � u - itJ '� € Q < m o, x c m' W V m u l 1 r .3�-C-l^i�3 iJ..� � CO © _j U Figure d-1 Surface Water Drainage Basins � i a -o � u - ° = o Z, m x —1 Co � 1 r = bOFt3 3 W n� Q K r O 0 O LL # O � � � a -o � u a� m m —1 1 r = bOFt3 3 W r 3 0 r 3 to Amended 12/08/08 Other areas within the City with surface water problems include much of the Downtown and Rolling Hills vicinities. Storm drain facilities in areas along SW 7th Street, near the Renton Center, and Renton Village are over capacity during severe storm events causing flooding of facilities that are undersized for current flows from their tributary uplands. North of Downtown, both the Gypsy Creek and the North Renton Basins experience flooding caused, in part, by inadequately sized pipes, ditches and detention facilities. Flooding in the Gypsy Creek Basin is associated with facilities located near an interchange of I405. Flooding in the lower portion of North Renton is largely caused by the system not being able to convey drainage from the Highlands neighborhood. Existing Reliability To a large extent, the reliability of the storm drainage system depends on three factors_ In areas where growth has occurred, or will occur, the facilities must be designed to control the flows that are discharged from new development to pre -developed conditions (detention), and conveyance systems that are sized to convey the increased storm water runoff due to future land use conditions. Additionally the facilities require regular maintenance to prevent debris and blockage, that impair the system's ability to function properly, and routine observation to ensure they operate as designed during high flows. Thus, reliability is a function of proper sizing of storm water conveyance systems and flow control systems, along with the need for routine maintenance and replacement of these storm water management systems. City facilities in the lower reaches of several watersheds no longer meet the capacity requirements and, in some instances, may not have been maintained on a regular basis. Thus, they may not be considered reliable. As part of the Surface Water Utility System Plan, a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has been developed to solve drainage problems and improve reliability. The Surface Water Utility System Plan also identifies maintenance and operation programs that are funded by the Utility to maintain public storm systems and address surface water management problems in the City. The Surface Water Utility has identified needed improvements through the basin plans. The current Surface Water Utility Six-year CIP is provided in the City Capital Improvement Program document. Surface Water Quality and Quantity Best Management Practices to be Implemented to Mitigate Future Land Use Impacts The City adopts surface water management design standards that require the implementation of storm water quantity and quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) and controls as part of the approval of project to mitigate the project's storm and surface water impacts during and after construction. These standards include erosion and sedimentation BMPs during construction, flow control, water quality treatment, and conveyance system sizing standards to manage the quantity and quality of storm water runoff from projects. The City has adopted the 4398 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual with City of Renton Amendments as the design standard that projects (new and redevelopment) must comply with to mitigate impacts to surface water. 14oweve as a ,., nditie with the stafidafds iii the 1998 King County Sur-faee Watef Design Manua] in epepi�.Aain pai4s of the City. The Washingteft State Depa#m.eant A-f—Ee-Riegy Sten:nwatff Management Meatial for- Westem Washing4en (August 200 1) The City of Renton is a Phase 2 community under the Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. The NPDES program is intended to protect water quality from non -point source pollution from stormwater runoff. City will be required to obtain a NPDES Phase 2 stormwater permit from Ecology for its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems in 2005, once Ecology completes development of the permit. The NPDES Phase 2 stormwater program requires the implementation of the following six minimum control measures: XII -19 Amended 12/08/08 1. Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts 2. Public Involvement/Participation 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control 5. Post -Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment 6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations The Surface Water Utility currently implements these six minimum control measures to some degree. It is expected that the NPDES Phase 2 stormwater permit will require some expansion of these programs and the adoption of new design standards for construction projects that are equivalent to the standards in the Ecology 2005+ Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The City has adopted wetland, stream buffer, steep slope, and flood hazard critical area ordinances, shoreline regulations and other development regulations that also protect surface water systems. The listing of Chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act will require additional stormwater controls and strengthening of Critical Area Ordinances, updates to development regulations, and land use changes that will further reduce future land use impacts on streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands in the City. The City currently operates a storm system maintenance program that includes cleaning catch basins, pipes and other facilities, along with a street vacuum sweeping program. The maintenance programs remove sediment and pollutants from City -owned and operated storm systems and streets, which reduces flooding and non -point source pollution from being discharged into water bodies in the City. Forecasted Conditions Future Utility Service Area The Utility's Service Area could enlarge substantially to approximately 35 square miles if the City of Renton annexes all areas within the Urban Growth Area. The areas that may be annexed are currently served by King County facilities. The City, upon annexation, would assume these facilities, their upkeep, and maintenance. General Location of Future Facilities The Renton surface and storm water system currently operates much like the gravity -based sewer system, although the destination is surface water bodies, rather than wastewater treatment plants. Storm and surface water facilities will generally remain in their current locations, although the individual sections may be replaced to convey higher flows. For new development, surface water facilities are usually constructed on a site -by -site basis, rather than on a comprehensive or system -wide basis. Storm water pipes and detention facilities will be constructed on-site during each construction project, and the off-site release rates should be limited to rates no greater than pre -development levels, per the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Most existing and new storm conveyance systems are constructed in public or private streets. Although peak flows are required to be regulated to pre -development levels, total volumes of flow will increase due to the increase in impervious area. New development may create negative downstream impacts although the development had complied with storm water controls and requirements due to the increase in runoff volume. The total volume of runoff will increase in all areas of new development, which may increase erosion and sedimentation and decrease surface water quality. XII -20 Amended 12/08/08 The unincorporated urban area has existing storm water conveyance systems that are planned and administered by King County. The County land use plans for these areas are similar to the Renton plan. Since the King County facilities are designed with the same standards as City facilities, they function the same as City facilities. Future Capacity of Facilities Many of the existing facilities within the city limits will require modifications to increase capacity to provide adequate conveyance capacity and flow control (detention). All facilities would be sized to provide flow control and water quality treatment in accordance with the adopted city surface water design standards. Stormwater conveyance systems are required to convey storm flows from the twenty-five year or greater design storm event. New development is required to detain flows on-site in accordance with the adopted surface water design standards and to discharge the post construction runoff at rates no greater than pre -developed runoff rates. Basin plans will be prepared to determine need for and sizes of new regional drainage facilities. Several basin plans have been prepared and the City is also participating in regional salmon conservation planning within Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 8 and 9. As the City annexes new areas within unincorporated King County additional basin/sub-basin planning will be needed. In addition, the Surface Water Utility System Plan will be updated and will comprehensively define resources, standards, and programs needed to effectively manage storm and surface water runoff in the City and potential annexation areas. The anticipated increase in impervious surface in all areas will increase surface runoff and require new facilities at development sites. In addition, new development, particularly infill development, may increase surface flows beyond existing facility capacity, requiring the enlargement of facilities downstream of the development. City standards require that new development mitigate for impacts to surface water by releasing runoff from the site at a rate no greater than the pre -developed runoff rate. Also, if downstream problems exist, new development is required to perform offsite analysis to ensure that the downstream problem is not made worse by the development. Surface Water Quality Requirements in Aquifer Protection Area Zone I, Zone I Modified, and 2 Development projects located in either Zone 1, Zone 1 Modified, or Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area (APA) are required to pass additional City review to ensure the projects do not produce water quantity and/or quality impacts that may affect the aquifer, which is used for the City's potable water supply. Areas of particular concern include areas subject to vehicular traffic or the storage of chemicals. The adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan proposes areas for development of more intensive land uses by the year 2022. This includes substantial development and redevelopment of the Downtown. Portions of this area are within Zone l ofRenton's APA. Zone I requirements include closed detention facilities including wet vaults on site, and pipe conveyance systems that meet pipeline specifications to prevent infiltration of storm water from these systems. APA Zone 2 and Zone 1 Modified requirements affect much of the northern and eastern portions of Renton. These requirements are not as stringent as Zone 1 requirements and generally require lining of conveyance system and water quality facilities to protect groundwater in areas with relatively porous soil. The APA regulations may increase the potential surface and storm flows generated from both zones, especially in Zone 1, since infiltration systems are not allowed. The increase in runoff may require existing facilities to be enlarged to meet the increased capacity need. Objective U -F: Provide and maintain surface water management systems to minimize impacts on natural systems and to protect the public, property, surface water bodies, fish habitat, and groundwater from changes in the quantity and quality of storm water runoff due to land use changes. XII -21 Amended 12/08/08 Policy U-74. Design storm drainage systems to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation problems, and to preserve natural drainage systems including rivers, streams, flood plains, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Policy U-75. Encourage the retention of natural vegetation along lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams, where appropriate, in order to help preserve water quality, protect fishery resources, and control erosion and runoff. Policy U-76. Filling, culverting, and piping of natural watercourses that are classified as streams shall not be allowed, except as needed for a public works project. In the case where a public works project requires the filling, culverting, or piping of a natural watercourse, if no other option is available, then such projects should follow specific design standards to minimize impacts to the natural watercourse. Such standards should prevent flooding and the degradation of water quality, aquatic habitat, and the effectiveness of the local natural drainage system. This would include providing mitigation to replace the lost functions provided by the natural watercourse that is filled, culverted, or piped by the public works project. Policy U-77. Promote and support public education and involvement programs that address surface water quality and other surface water management issues. Policy U-78. Encourage the safe and appropriate use of detention and retention ponds, biofiltration swales, clean roof run-off, and groundwater recharge technologies to reduce the volume of surface water run-off, to recharge aquifers, and to support base flows in streams for aquatic resources. Policy U-79. Work towards protecting surface water resources and groundwater resources from pollutants entering via the storm drainage system. Policy U-80. Implement stormwater standards that adequately control flow (quantity) and quality of stormwater runoff from new and redevelopment projects to protect public health and safety, prevent property damage, prevent erosion, and protect surface water quality, groundwater quality, and fish habitat. Policy U-81. Coordinate with adjacent cities, counties, and state and federal agencies in the development and implementation, of the Clean Water Act's National Pollution Eliminating System Phase 2 Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Policy U-82. Existing natural drainage, watercourses, ravines, and other similar land features should be protected from the adverse effects of erosion from increased storm water runoff. Policy U-83. Storm and surface water management programs should be coordinated with adjacent local and regional jurisdictions. Solid Waste Discussion: These policies support the provision of adequate and safe waste handling and disposal facilities. In addition, these policies support active recycling efforts aimed at extending the life cycle of these facilities XII -22 Amended 12/08/08 Existing Conditions Utility Service Area Solid waste collection within the city limits is mandated by state and city code and only the City's contractor may provide such service. The City sets rates for solid waste collection, and bills all customers directly for these services. The City contracts with Waste Management -Rainier for all solid waste collection within the city limits. State law also gives Renton the authority to contract for collection of residential recyclables and yard waste. Curbside collection of recyclables is available to all single-family and duplex residents of the City, and onsite collection is available to all multi -family and duplex residents fourplex and above). Yard waste collection is available to all single-family and duplex residents with the exception of mobile home park residents. Yard waste collection may be available to multi -family and mobile home residents for an additional fee. Waste Management, Inc. provides collection containers for all of these programs. The recycling and yard waste collection programs are voluntary_ The City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for these services_ Coordination with Other Solid Waste Purveyors Through an interlocal agreement with King County, the County's disposal system handles all solid waste generated within city limits, except solid waste diverted by waste reduction or recycling activities. King County regulates the types of waste accepted at its facilities as well as the disposal rates. Renton's interlocal agreement with King County also authorizes the County to prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and to include the City in the Plan. The County achieved its 1995 goal of fifty percent (50% waste reduction and recycling under the Plan. Renton works cooperatively with other jurisdictions in the region to implement the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (LHV W). Participants in the LHWMP include thirty-eight (3 8) suburban cities, the City of Seattle, King County Solid Waste Division, King County Water and Land Division, and the Department of Public Health, Seattle -King County. The LHWMP provides a regional program to manage hazardous waste generated in small quantities by households and businesses in King County. To provide funding for the LHWMP, the City of Renton and all other solid waste and sewer service providers in King County, collect hazardous waste fees from customers through utility bills. Regional Solid Waste Purveyors within the City Limits The King County Solid Waste Division owns and operates the Renton Transfer Station in the 3040 block of NE 4th Street in the Renton Highlands neighborhood. Local waste haulers and residents of unincorporated King County who haul their own waste use this facility_ City residents also use this facility for disposal of large and bulky items. Due to state legislation and Washington Utilities and Trade Commission (WUTC) regulations, the City does not have the authority to contract exclusively for collection of recyclable materials generated by businesses. However, a number of private companies do collect recyclables from businesses in Renton. Location and Capacity of Existing Solid Waste Facilities There are three existing solid waste facilities within the City's Planning Area: a King County Transfer Station, the Cedar Hills Landfill, and the Black River Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Transfer Station (CDL). King County's Renton Transfer Station is located in the Renton Highlands. A majority of the solid waste generated in Renton is transported there by the City's contractor, Waste Management, Inc. A majority of the vehicles that utilize the Transfer Station are garbage trucks from waste hauling companies. XII -23 Amended 1210$'08 Regional Disposal's Black River Transfer and Recycling Center (a Rabanco facility), located at 501 Monster Road SW, opened in late 1993. Under a contract with King County, this facility accepts construction, demolition, and land clearing waste. The facility received 89,300 tons of CDL material in 1999. There is no data on the amount of CDL processed at construction sites and hauled directly to a processor. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the amount of CDL waste being diverted from the facility. The City of Renton recognizes that the Mt. Olivet Landfill (closed 1991) was not closed in accordance with State of Washington closure standards. Areas of deficiency include excessively steep slopes, lack of adequate capping, possible negative environmental consequences, failure to obtain an approved closure plan, and other related deficiencies. The City continues to monitor groundwater quality in the vicinity of the landfill to assure that potential contaminants do not enter the City's drinking water aquifer. If contamination is detected, the City has contingency measures to address this problem, such as selective operation of the City's eight wells and groundwater pumping to remove contaminants. Identified areas of contamination would be monitored until the contaminants are removed. King County's Cedar Hills Landfill, owned and operated by the King County Solid Waste Division, and located southeast of Renton, will continue to receive all solid waste generated in the City of Renton. This facility's remaining permitted capacity is approximately 12.5 million tons (as of January 2000). At the current level of fifty percent (50%) waste reduction and recycling, Cedar Hills will be able to accept solid waste until 2012. Recyclables collected from single family, duplex, and multi -family residents in the City are taken to Waste Management, Inc.'s Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville, WA. Yard waste for single-family and duplex residents in the City is currently taken to Cedar Grove Recycling in Maple Valley. Their yearly capacity is 195,000 tons of organic material. Currently, the facility handles approximately 172,000 tons annually_ Cedar Grove is permitted by the Seattle -King County Health Department to have 250,000 cubic yards of organic material onsite. The City's residential yard waste collection program has diverted increasing amounts of the residential waste stream every year, successfully diverting over 30% in 2001, and more than seven percent (7%) of the City's total waste stream annually since it began in 1989. Yard waste makes up only 0.9 percent of the remaining residential waste stream; therefore any increase in diversion would be minimal. Food waste makes up almost thirty-five percent (35%) of the residential waste stream after recyclables and yard wastes are diverted. The Solid Waste Utility implemented a pilot food waste composting program in 1994 and 1995 to assess the feasibility of diverting this material from Renton's residential waste stream. Worm compost bins were delivered to approximately 200 residents and weekly measurements were made on their waste practices. This led to a period of several years in which residents could obtain a worm bin from the city for the purpose of residential food waste composting. Reliability of Existing Solid Waste Services and Facilities The services of the City's solid waste and recycling collection contractor, Waste Management, Inc., have been very reliable since the inception of the program in 1989. The number of missed collections has remained consistently low. Contingency plans for collection are provided in the solid waste contract in the event of extreme weather conditions. Interruption of service due to a contract dispute is not likely because the City has completed negotiations of a new contract with Waste Management, Inc. The new contract terminates at the end of 2005, but has the potential to be extended with two 2 -year extension options. At this time, the capacities of the Renton Transfer Station and the Cedar Hills Landfill are sufficient, and any regulatory issues are being addressed by the appropriate agency. XII -24 Amended I2/08/08 The capacity of the Cascade Recycling Center for processing recyclables and the capacity of Cedar Grove Recycling for composting yard wastes are both adequate to meet the City's needs. Forecasted Conditions Future Utility Service Areas The City's Solid Waste Utility will continue to provide solid waste collection to all residents and businesses within the city limits. Curbside collection of recyclables and yard waste will continue to be available to all single-family and duplex residents in Renton. Multi -family residences continue to be eligible for on-site collection of recyclables. Yard waste collection will continue to be offered to mobile home parks and multi- family complexes for an additional fee. When annexations take place, the franchise hauler in the annexed area has authority to collect solid waste for a period of up to seven (7) years. After seven years, the City's contractor may take over service in the annexed area. The City's contractor should be able to increase solid waste, recycling, and yard waste collection service to households and businesses as needed. Since King County has planned for both incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County, disposal facilities are anticipated to be adequate should the City annex areas of unincorporated King County. Location and Capacity of Future Facilities Currently, King County plans to keep the Renton Transfer Station operational and to install a compactor by 2012, at a cost of $4,000,000. This date coincides with the projected closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill, and will enable the facility to prepare waste for transport to a new location. Transportation of noncompacted waste costs approximately 1.5 times more than the cost of hauling compacted waste. Therefore, the installation of the compactor should minimize any necessary rate increases caused by the greater distance between the transfer station and a new facility. King County's Final 2000 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan suggests that a study be made of the possibility of privatization of the transfer system. The City of Renton is concerned that this may limit market competition in the private sector. The City is also concerned that ending public ownership of transfer facilities will limit the City's influence over rates and service levels. King County's Cedar Hills Landfill is the last regional landfill located in the County. While the diversion rate by City residents has risen sharply in the past ten years (diverting 5 8.6 percent as of J my 2001), the overall quantity of waste has also risen, and Cedar Hills is scheduled for closure in 2012. Under the 2000 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, the King County Solid Waste Division is exploring waste export possibilities. After the Cedar Hills closure, it is likely that solid waste will be exported outside the County. Waste Management, Inc.'s Cascade Recycling Center will continue to receive Renton residents' recyclables as long as the City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for collection. To increase their overall processing capacity, Waste Management Inc. has diverted paper generated in North King County and South Snohomish County from the Seattle plant to its Woodinville transfer station for processing. This change has allowed the Seattle plant to handle more recyclable material generated in South King County. The amount of yard waste collected through the City's program is not expected to increase significantly_ Therefore, capacity at the Cedar Grove composting facility in the County should be sufficient to meet future needs. XII -25 Amended 12/08/08 Coordination with Other Purveyors The interlocal agreement between the City of Renton and King County, which designates the County's disposal system for the disposal of all solid waste generated within city limits, remains in effect through June 30, 2028. Either party may request review and/or renegotiation of the agreement every five years. It is anticipated that the City will coordinate with the County to negotiate a new interlocal agreement upon the expiration of the existing agreement. Interlocal Agreements Chapter 70.95 RCW requires the County to regularly update the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (the Plan). According to the provisions of the City's interlocal agreement with King County, this update will occur every three years The City will be included in future Plan updates, and representatives of the City will continue to be involved in the Plan update process. The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (LIIWMP), in which the City of Renton participates, follows a five-year update schedule as required by Chapter 70.105 RCW. The first update occurred in 1995. The City will continue to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions and agencies involved in the LHWTAP to implement programs to manage hazardous wastes generated in small quantities from households and businesses in King County, including the collection of hazardous waste fees from City solid waste customers. Reliability Annexations to the City and the closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill are not expected to have a significant impact on the ability of the City's contractor to provide reliable solid waste, recycling and yard waste collection services. If changes within Waste Management, Inc_ affect the ability of their company to provide services to City customers, the City has the ability to renegotiate the contract, or enter into a contract with another service provider. Depending on regional regulations, the yard waste composting facility at Cedar Grove, may have problems handling significant increases in the amount of organic waste collected in the future. However, the City does not anticipate this to happen. Objective: U -G: To provide a responsible, comprehensive waste management program that includes economic efficiency, environmental sensitivity, and responsiveness to the needs of the community. The City should pursue a reduction of the overall waste stream, recycling, and long-term waste handling and disposal solutions. Policy U-84. Provide and maintain an adequate system of solid waste, recycling collection, disposal, and handling to meet existing and future needs. Policy U-85. Coordinate with regional agencies in planning for the facilities and services necessary for solid waste collection and disposal, including the siting of regional transfer and waste handling facilities. Policy U-86. Reduction of the waste stream should be supported and promoted for all residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the city (i.e. through programs and public education including recycling, composting, re -use, and energy recovery programs that meet environmental standards). Policy U-87. Where economically feasible and legally acceptable, citywide collection of recyclable materials should be supported and promoted. XII -26 Amended 12/08/08 Policy U-88. The proper handling and disposal of solid waste should be required to protect public health and safety. Policy U-89. Contamination of land, air, and water should be minimized or eliminated. Policy U-90. Coordinate with agencies in the region on educational and other programs for the safe management and disposal of hazardous household wastes. Policy U-91. Support products and practices that offer safe and effective alternatives to the use of potentially hazardous substances in order to reduce the total amount of hazardous waste. Policy U-92. Actively support the creation of markets for products made with recycled materials. Policy U-93. Actively support regionally coordinated efforts that promote producer responsibility and environmental stewardship. Electrical System Existing Conditions Background Three purveyors distribute electricity to and within the Renton Planning Area: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Seattle City Light (SCL), and Puget Sound Energy (PSE). BPA is the regional administrative entity of the U.S_ Department of Energy. Seattle City Light is a publicly owned utility serving Seattle and environs. Puget Sound Energy is a private, investor-owned utility that provides electrical service to approximately i million customers in the Puget Sound region. These three utilities are part of an integrated transmission grid that connects points of production and demand and permits inter -utility exchange of power across the region. To make this possible, the various elements of the individual systems were designed to function compatibly with the facilities of other network utilities. High capacity transmission lines also allow inter -regional and international power transfers to compensate for seasonal, region -wide variations in generation and demand. BPA owns and operates most of the major transmission lines and substations located throughout the Pacific Northwest. The agency sells transmission services on the high capacity grid to customers throughout the region. Additionally, BPA markets electricity generated by federal hydroelectric projects and the Washington Public Power Supply System_ Puget Sound energy, Seattle City Light, and other utilities purchase power and transmission services from BPA as local situations warrant. Electricity is retailed to customers in the Renton Planning, Area by Puget Sound Energy and, to a lesser extent, by Seattle City Light. For both utilities, the primary generation facilities are located outside their service areas. Puget Sound Energy supplements these sources with power generated and/or purchased within its greater service area. Each utility schedules electrical generation to meet anticipated local demand loads with excess production sold elsewhere on the power grid. Existing Utility Service Area Puget Sound Energy is the principal provider of electrical service within the Renton city limits, as well as most of the remainder of the Renton Planning Area. Electricity is provided to the Bryn Mawr and Skyway portions of the Renton Planning Area by SCL. XII -27 Amended 12/48/08 General Location of Facilities Electrical facilities can generally be divided into generation, transmission, and distribution functions. Transmission lines are identified by voltages of 115 kilovolt (kV) and above, distribution facilities have less than 55,000 volts (55 kV), and a distribution substation transforms voltages of 115 kV or greater to feeder circuits at lower voltages of 12 or 34 kV. Within the Planning Area, BPA operates transmission facilities, Seattle City Light operates transmission and distribution facilities, and Puget Sound Energy engages in all three functions. Renton's geographic position offers a logical location for transmission routes. Five BPA transmission circuits follow the Rocky Reach -Maple Valley right-of-way, which enters the Planning Area from the east, just south of the Cedar River, and terminates at BPA's Maple Valley Substation. The lines, two 500 kV, one 345 kV, and two 230 kV, originate at BPA facilities north, south, and east of Renton. As electrical service provider to most of the Planning Area, Puget Sound Energy builds, maintains and/or operates various facilities. These include high voltage transmission lines for bulk power transfers, substations for system monitoring and control and changing of voltage levels, and lower voltage feeder lines to carry the electricity to the consumers. The high capacity lines energized at 230 kV and 115 kV feed out from the Talbot Hill Station, which receives power from the adjacent BPA Maple Valley Station. From Talbot Hill these lines carry power to other transmission stations or to distribution substations where the voltage is stepped down for entry into the feeder system. The portion of Renton's Planning Area currently served by Seattle City Light is small, containing only two minor distribution substations, Bryn Mawr and Skyway. Power is provided to these substations by Seattle's Creston distribution substation. In addition, several Seattle City Light rights-of-way pass through the City and the Urban Growth Area. These circuits include: • The Bothell -Renton Right -of -Way (ROW), with one of two SCL 230 kV lines currently in use and leased to Puget Sound Energy. • The Renton -Creston ROW, with six 230 kV lines. • The Cedar Falls ROW, with one 11.5 kV line. Capacity/Reliability of Existing System Puget Sound Energy and Seattle City Light are both capable of meeting the current electrical load in their respective service areas. Puget Sound Energy operates eleven distribution substations in the Renton Planning Area with a total nameplate capacity of 284,400 kilowatts (kW). The residential/commercial peak load utilization factor for these substations is 87.5%. SCL's Creston substation is outside the Planning Area, but supplies power within it. Creston's capacity is 106,000 kW and has a utilization factor of 81 %_ The utilization factor, or the load to capacity ratio, is normally maintained in the 75% to 85% range. Leaving excess capacity under normal conditions allows a reserve for periods of extraordinary load during extreme cold weather, and for system diversity. The capacity of individual elements is not the sole consideration in evaluating an electrical system, however. Our dependence on electrical power is such that the overall grid and the constituent utilities must continue to furnish power even with the failure of individual components. XII -28 Amended 12.08/08 Electric service interruptions are most frequently a product of extraordinary circumstances. Either an unusual load has overtaxed an clement of the system or it has been weakened or removed by some external condition or event. Any such occurrence could cut off an area from the grid and/or endanger other parts of the system by a sudden transfer of power from one conductor to another of insufficient capacity. To mitigate these threats to the system, redundant lines and facilities of adequate capacity are necessary_ This diversity is programmed to meet reliability criteria, which assume a failure of one or two components of a system (single or double contingency) with no loss of customers or damage to equipment. Forecasted Conditions- Electrical Forecasted increases in population would result in 135, 161 persons and 91, 874 jobs, within the Planning Area, by 2010. Based on these forecasts the Renton Planning Area will have an additional load of 147.3 MVA, excluding industrial load increases, at the extreme winter peak in 2010. Industrial load additions will comprise some part of the 82.3 MVA increase that Puget Sound Energy anticipates for Renton industrial consumers by 2020. Future Capacity of Electrical Facilities To assure system reliability and to provide the capacity necessary to accommodate the growth anticipated for the Renton Planning Area, SCL, BPA, and PSE have planned for upgrades and additions to their respective systems. Puget Sound Energy has prepared a King County Draft GMA Electrical Facilities Plan. According to this plan, the utility has several system improvements in progress within the Renton Planning Area that are necessary to serve forecasted load growth for the next thirty years. Puget Sound Energy's plans for future transmission lines, facilities, and upgrades will increase system capacity and reliability. Also proposed is the Aqua substation. This substation may or may not be located within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, but in either case would likely serve residents both within and outside of the urban growth boundary. Existing SCL 4 kV lines are being replaced with a new 26 kV network. The Bryn Mawr and Skyway substations will no longer be needed and will be taken off-line when this upgrade is complete. Additionally, SCL has indicated the possibility of adding two 230 kV transmission lines from BPA's Covington Substation to South Seattle on existing transmission line. corridors to serve load growth within the next twenty years. The BPA has plans to increase reliability by installing additional 500 kV circuits and 500 kV to 230 kV transformers. While these will benefit Renton, they are not within the Planning Area. The only project that BPA currently has planned for inside the Planning Area is a static VAR for the Maple Valley Station. This device senses increased load and signals the capacitors to release stored energy. Conservation & Demand Management Conservation is one means to reduce loads, existing or projected, on the electric system. This can delay the need for new or expanded generation and transmission facilities. System wide, Puget Sound Energy expects that conservation will yield an additional 296 average MW and 592 MW on system peak in the year 2010. Conservation programs are enacted on a utility -wide basis and regulated by the WUTC. While conservation reduces overall electrical consumption, demand-side management influences when the demand will occur. Educating consumers to modify their consumption patterns, imposing a sliding rate structure for time -of -day and for increment of energy used, or directly controlling energy use by certain customers, can all serve to spread the load throughout the day. Since electric utility systems are designed to accommodate peak loads, this method can delay the need for additional capacity. XII -29 Amended 12,'08'0903/11 i 1 1 Objective U -H: Promote the availability of safe, adequate, and efficient electrical service within the City and the remainder of its Planning Area, consistent with the utility's regulatory obligation to serve. Policy U-94. The provision of electricity to the City's Planning Area should be coordinated with local and regional purveyors to ensure the availability of electricity to meet projected growth in population and employment. Policy U-95. Encourage purveyors of electrical power to make facility improvements/additions within existing electric facility corridors where appropriate. Natural Gas and Fuel Pipelines Existing Conditions - Natural Gas Background Natural gas is a mixture of hydrocarbon and non -hydrocarbon gases extracted from porous rock formations below the earth's surface. The gas makes its way from the producing fields via the interstate pipeline at high- pressures, often over one thousand pounds per square inch (psi). Colorless and odorless as it comes off the interstate pipeline, a powerful odorant, typically mercaptan, is added for safety purposes to make leaks easier to detect. Through a series of reduction valves, the gas is delivered to homes at pressures of from 0.25 to 2 psi. In recent decades, the residential popularity of natural gas has risen. Cleaner burning and less expensive than the alternatives, oil and electricity, it has become the fuel of choice in many households for cooking, drying clothes, and heating home and water. Natural Gas Utility Service Area Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service to approximately 650,000 customers in the Puget Sound Region, including Renton and its Urban Growth Area. General Location of Natural Gas Facilities Puget Sound Energy operates under a franchise agreement with the City of Renton, which allows PSE to locate facilities within the public street right-of-ways. The gas distribution system consists of a network of high-pressure mains and distribution lines that convey natural gas throughout the Planning Area. Natural gas is provided to PSE by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, which operates a system extending from Canada to New Mexico. Two parallel Northwest Pipeline Corporation high-pressure mains enter the Planning Area south of Lake McDonald and terminate at the South Seattle Gate Station. PSE high-pressure mains then extend to smaller lines branching -off from the primary supply mains. Through a series of smaller lines and pressure regulators the gas is delivered to consumers. PSE also operates an underground propane storage facility. Capacity of Natural Gas Facilities Although PSE serves most of Renton and its Urban Growth Area, a portion of the Planning Area, west of the Renton Municipal Airport, and straddling SR -900 is currently not served by Puget Sound Energy. Provision of natural gas service to this area would only require extension of intermediate service lines- XII-30 ines_ XII-30 Amended X803/111,1 I The capacity of the system is primarily constrained by the volume of gas entering the PSE network from the Northwest Pipeline Corporation mains. Current capacity of the South Seattle Gate Station, the point of entry for natural gas to the area, is nine million standard cubic feet per hour (scfh). This can serve approximately 180,000 residential customers. The minimum pressure at which gas can be delivered is fifteen pounds per square inch (15 psi). Methods for increasing supply to a particular area include replacement of the lines, looping, installing parallel lines, and inserting higher -pressure lines into greater diameter, but lower pressure mains. A reserve of natural gas supply is maintained in order to respond to temporary shortfalls in the natural gas supply due to weather -driven higher demand or supply interruptions. A number of separate utilities share the facility, however, and hence it is not dedicated to the Renton Planning Area. Natural Gas System Reliability Since natural gas is chiefly used as a home heating fuel, demand rises as the outdoor temperature drops. The locally available gas supply and the capacity of PSE's delivery system may not always be sufficient to provide product to all customers during periods of exceptional demand. Therefore, PSE has several short term., load - balancing strategies. As stated previously, PSE operates a storage facility that provides a reserve of additional gas for times of shortfall. Also, some gas customers are served under an interruptible service contract. For those times when gas resources become limited, these connections can be temporarily dropped from the system. Residential customers are always granted first priority for available gas supply. Another strategy to maintain system pressure is the looping of mains. Feeding product from both ends of a pipeline decreases the possibility of localized pressure drops and increases system reliability. Forecasted Conditions Puget Sound Energy predicts a growth rate of 41.2% in demand for this 20 -year planning horizon. According to this assumption, demand for gas will average 1,227,562.6 cubic feet per hour for December 2010 within the Renton. Planning Area. PSE has stated that they will be able to accommodate this increased demand. This will be accomplished through an upgrade of the South Seattle Gate Station to allow the entry of an additional two million scfh into the system, for a total capacity of eleven million sefh. The backfeed from Covington will add another three million scfh and, with the current peak hour feed of one million scfh from Issaquah, there will be sufficient supply capacity to serve the customer base anticipated for 2010. Proposed New or Improved Facilities There is one high pressure main proposed to meet the increased gas demand, which should result from the forecast growth. The ultimate placement of the line will be based on right-of-way permitting, environmental standards, coordination with other utilities, and existing infrastructure placement. PSE has a policy to expand the supply system to serve additional customers. Gas connections are initiated by customer requests. Maximum capacity of the existing distribution system can be increased by the following methods: increasing distribution and supply pressures in existing lines, installing parallel mains, replacing existing with larger sized mains, looping mains, and adding district regulators from supply mains to provide additional intermediate pressure gas sources. XII -31 Amended 12/08/08203111/11 Petroleum Fuel Pipelines Existing Conditions Utility Service Area Olympic Pipeline Company is a joint -interest company that provides a variety of fuel oil products via a system of pipelines throughout the region. The stock is held by Atlantic Richfield Corporation (Arco), Shell, and Texaco oil companies. Olympic transports oil products from the Ferndale British Petroleum (BP) refinery, the Cherry Point Arco refinery, and the Anacortes Shell and Texaco refineries through Renton to Seattle, Sea -Tac International Airport, and points south to Portland, Oregon. Olympic's Renton facilities function as a regional distribution hub, as well as supplying the local market with petroleum products. General Location of Fuel Product Pipelines and Other Facilities The Olympic Pipeline Company's facilities in the Renton Planning Area include a system of pipes, varying from 12 to 20 inches in diameter, and a central monitoring station at Lind Avenue SW. Petroleum products enter Renton via two pipes from the City's northern border, and then extend south and west to the Renton Station. From here, a 12 -inch main heads north, eventually intercepting the City of Seattle Skagit Transmission Line right-of-way toward Seattle. Two parallel branches also extend westward to the Green River, at which point one line heads west to Sea -Tac Airport and one turns south to serve Tacoma and beyond. Renton Station is the monitoring and control center for the entire pipeline network. Here, also, oil products are transferred to trucks for distribution. Capacity of Fuel Product Pipelines and Facilities The Olympic Pipeline Company currently carries an average of approximately 270,000 barrels of product per day, varying according to the transported material. The absolute capacity of the system is over 350,000 barrels. As the primary supplier of petroleum products to Western Washington, Olympic states that system capacity is sufficient to meet current demand. Forecasted Conditions Olympic, though not directly serving City of Renton, affirms that they can and will increase the capacity of the system to accommodate a demand commensurate with the expected population and land uses anticipated by 2020 in the Renton Planning Area. Aside from laying new pipelines, options for increasing capacity include introducing drag reducing agents to the petroleum products, increasing the horsepower of the pumps, and replacing individual sections of pipe where bottlenecks tend to occur. Objective U-1: Promote the safe transport and delivery of natural gas and other fuels within the Planning Area. Policy U-96. Coordinate with local and regional purveyors of natural gas for the siting of transmission lines, distribution lines, and other facilities within the Renton Planning Area. Policy U-97. Support cost effective public programs aimed at energy conservation, efficiency, and supplementing of natural gas supplies through new technology. Policy U-98. Allow for the extension of natural gas distribution lines to and within the city limits and Urban Growth Area, provided they are consistent with development envisioned in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. XII -32 Amended 1+98/8803/ ] 1 /] 1 Policy U-99. Require that petroleum product pipelines are operated and maintained in such a manner that protects public safety, especially where those facilities are located in the Aquifer Protection Area. Telecommunications Telecommunications: Conventional Telephone, Fiber Optic Cable, Cellular Telephone, and Cable Television Existing Conditions - Conventional (Wireline/landline) Telephone Utility Service Area - Conventional Telephone Service to Renton and its Planning Area is provided by Qwest Communications, Inc (formerly US West). Qwest is an investor-owned corporation, whose holdings include companies serving regional, national, and international markets, including telephone services to 25 million customers in 14 western states. The subsidiaries include directory publishing, cellular mobile communications and paging, personal communications networks, cable television, business communications systems sales and service, communications software, and financial services. All cities within the State of Washington fall within a particular .Local Access and Transport Area (LATA). These LATAs are telephone exchange areas that define the area in which Qwest is permitted to transport telecommunications traffic. There are 94 exchanges within Washington where Qwest provides dial tone and other local services to customers. General Location of Conventional Telephone Facilities Telephone service systems within Renton and its Planning Area include switching stations, trunk lines, and distribution lines. Switching stations, also called "Central Offices" (COs), switch calls within and between line exchange groupings. These groupings are addressed uniquely by an area code and the first three digits of a telephone number_ Each line grouping can carry up to 10,000 numbers. Renton has 14 of these groupings. Pour main "feeder" cable routes generally extend from each CO, heading to the north, south, east, and west . Connected to these main feeder routes are branch feeder routes. The branch feeder routes connect with thousands of local loops that provide dial tone to every subscriber. These facilities may be aerial or buried, copper or fiber. Local loops can be used for voice or data transmission (such as facsimile machines or computer modems). A variety of technologies are utilized including electronics, digital transmission, fiber optics, and other means to provide multiple voice/data paths over a single wire. Methods of construction are determined by costs and local regulations. Capacity of Conventional Telephone Facilities Capacity of a CO is a function of the type of switch employed. Advances in technology and the use of digital transmission provide for increases in switch capacity to meet growth. Reliability of the Conventional Telephone System Telephone service is very reliable with the exception of extraordinary circumstances such as severe weather events or natural disasters. In many cases, the system may still be operational, but the volume of calls being placed to and from the affected area creates shortfalls in service. In Renton, the Inauguration Day windstorm of XII -33 Amended 43(1111 1 !-2iWW January 1993 resulted in some system outages. Generally, following a catastrophic event, public telephone systems would be restored before service to individuals and businesses. Forecasted Conditions- Conventional Telephone Forecasted Capacity of Conventional Telephone Facilities Ample capacity exists in the Renton CO to accommodate growth projected in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. Recent technological advancements have resulted in consolidation of equipment at the Renton CO. Several additional floors are available in the building housing the CO for future expansion of the system. Line facilities within the Planning Area would require some upgrading, but no new buildings would be needed to meet projected growth. Regulations governing telecommunications require that the purveyor provide adequate telecommunication service on demand_ Upgrading facilities and constructing new facilities accommodate growth. New technology is employed to enhance service, when available and practical. Enhancements necessary to maintain adequate capacity are determined through regular evaluation of the system. Qwest has confirmed that they will be able to extend timely service to all current and new subscribers anticipated in the population forecasts for the Renton Planning Area. Existing Conditions - Fiber Optic Telecommunication systems Utility Service Area -Fiber Optic Telecommunications The Starcom Service Corporation, a Washington corporation of the Canadian Starcom International Optics Corporation of Vancouver, B.C. plans to locate facilities within the City of Renton Planning Area. The system is a "carriers carrier" and is not intended to connect with individual users in the City of Renton. Services are to be leased to other telecommunications purveyors. The cable based telecommunications system will provide a telecommunication link between Vancouver B.C. and Seattle. General Location of Existing Fiber Optic Telecommunications Facilities As of this writing, no Starcom fiber optic facilities are in place in Renton. However, the company is currently engaged in the permitting required to bury cable within the 100 foot wide Burlington Northern Railroad right- of-way, about four feet below ground. The line generally follows the eastern shore of Lake Washington from the northern city limits to the Boeing facility, and then roughly parallels I-405 until it intersects with I-5. Forecasted Conditions- Fiber Optic Telecommunications Systems Forecasted Capacity of Fiber Optic Telecommunications Facilities According to Starcom, the proposed fiber optic cable and latest technology regenerative equipment will provide capacity to meet growth envisioned in the City's Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Existing Conditions - Cellular Telephone XII -34 Amended 03?]]il],2'"- 'moo Background - Cellular Telephone Cellular system technology works on the principle of reusing radio frequencies. The same radio frequency can be reused as long as service areas do not overlap. In this way, shorter antennas can be used and located on top of existing structures, rather than constructing freestanding towers. Siting of cellular facilities depends on how the system is configured. The cell sites must be designed so that channels can be reused, because the FCC allocates a limited number of channels to the cellular telephone industry. As cell sites were initially developed, a few large cells were established using hilltops or tall buildings to site transmission and receiving antennas. This allowed for maximum coverage of the large cell. Clusters of smaller cells have since replaced the larger configuration, diminishing the need for larger antennas. Thus, shorter antennas and poles provide coverage for the smaller cell sites. This division of cells will continue to occur as the demand for cellular service grows. Eventually, cell sites will be placed less than two miles apart with antennas situated on poles about 60 -feet high, or the height of a four-story building. Cell sites are located within the center of an area defined by a grid system. Topography and other built features can affect signal transmission, so the cell is configured to locate the cell site at an appropriate place to provide the best transmission/reception conditions. Sub -cells are sometimes created because natural features such as lakes, highways or inaccessible locations prevent siting within the necessary one -mile radius from the ideal grid point. Preferred cell site locations include: existing broadcast or communications towers, water towers, high rise buildings, vacant open land appropriately zoned that could be leased or purchased, and areas with low population densities to diminish aesthetic impacts. When new antenna structures are required for the cell site, monopoles or lattice structures are often utilized. Monopoles generally range in height from 60 feet to 150 feet. The base of the monopole varies between 40 to 72 inches in diameter. Monopoles are generally more aesthetically acceptable, but changes in the system such as lowering of antennas are not possible without major changes. Lattice structures are either stabilized by guy wires or self -supported. Generally, the maximum height of a lattice structure is limited to between 200 and 250 feet. Guyed towers can be built to accommodate a greater height, but the guy wires can pose navigational problems to migrating birds and aircraft. In addition, the taller towers often are perceived to have more severe aesthetic impacts. All structures require that a six to eight foot separation occur between antennas for signal reception. This is termed "system diversity" and is needed on the reception antennas in order to receive an optimal signal from the mobile telephone. Utility Service Area - Cellular Telephone Cellular telephone service is licensed by the FCC for operation in Metropolitan Service Areas (MSA) and Rural Service Areas (RSA). The FCC grants two licenses within each service area. One of those licenses is reserved for the local exchange telephone company (also referred to as the wireline carrier). Qwest Cellular (NewVector) holds the wireline licenses in the Tacoma, Seattle, Bellingham, and Spokane MSA. The non -wire line licenses in these areas, and also in the Yakima MSA is held by McCaw Cellular Communications (Cellular One). Recently, Cellular One merged with AT&T. Existing Capacity of Cellular Telephone Facilities Forecasting for cellular facilities is accomplished using a two-year horizon. Information regarding current and future predicted number of subscribers is considered by the purveyors to be proprietary, and no data was furnished in this regard. However, statewide customer counts total approximately 250,000, with the number XII -35 Amended 1033/11/11 1 1 11109Jns anticipated to increase to several million by the year 2010. It is predicted that by the period covering the years 2005 to 2010, approximately twenty percent (20%) of the population in Washington State will be served. Reliability of Cellular Telephone Facilities Cellular communications are considered to be more reliable than conventional telephone systems because they can continue to operate during electrical power outages. Each cell site is equipped with a back-up power supply, either a battery or generator, or combination of the two. Severe weatber events or natural disaster conditions have validated the use of cellular telephones on numerous occasions throughout the country. When conventional telephone systems fail, or telephone lines are jammed, cellular calls have a better chance of being completed. Forecasted Conditions- Cellular Telephone Future Capacity of Cellular Telephone Facilities As previously stated, forecasting for new cellular facilities uses a relatively narrow time frame of two years. Expansion is demand driven. Raising the density of transmission/reception equipment to accommodate additional subscribers, cell splitting, follows rather than precedes increases in local system load. Therefore, cellular companies must maintain a short response time and a tight planning horizon. Existing Conditions - Cable Television Background- Cable Television Cable television or CATV (Community Antenna Television) originated with small-scale attempts to obtain a clear television signal in areas too remote or too obstructed to receive one via the airways. Dating from the 1940s, the early systems were constructed of surplus wiring and basic electronic hardware. Subsequent technological innovations in signal transmission have increased the number of available channels and permitted the emergence of new players in the television broadcast industry. The multiplicity of channels and the ability to direct the signal to specific addresses have opened up both niche and global markets to information and entertainment purveyors. In addition to the provisions of cable television services, advancements in technology have allowed the current purveyor to provide high speed access to Internet services with the provision of additional features expected as market demands dictate. Utility Service Area - Cable Television The current purveyor holds a cable television franchise to serve the City of Renton. The service area includes the entire incorporated area of the City, expanding with annexations. All residential neighborhoods within the City are currently served. Service is still unavailable in some commercial areas due to market conditions, which presently preclude line extension. General Description and Location of Cable Television Facilities The current purveyor's facilities supplying Renton with cable television service are composed of a receiver, a headend, a trunk system and a feeder system. The receiver and the headend, which amplifies, processes and combines signals for distribution by the cable network, are located north of Burien, Washington. The signal is then transmitted via low-power microwave to a site in Kent, Washington, where it enters the trunk system. Amplifiers placed at intervals along the cables maintain signal strength. The amplifiers also serve as junction points where the feeder system taps into the trunk cables. Service drops then provide the final connection from the feeder line to the subscriber. XII -36 Amended Q3/11111171�410R Generally following street rights-of-way, the present network encompasses residential neighborhoods to the east, north, and south_ The unserved portion of Renton generally includes the commercial and industrial areas located in the Green River Valley. Capacity of Cable Television Facilities A cable system is not subject to the same capacity constraints as other utilities. Providing and maintaining the capacity to serve is the contractual responsibility of the utility. According to the City's franchise agreement, the purveyor must make service available to all portions of the franchise area. In some circumstances, costs associated with a line extension may be borne by the service recipient. The current purveyor offers various packages including as many as 130+ active analog and digital television channels plus nearly 44 digital music channels, and has the capacity to greatly increase those numbers as well as the other types of services that they may decide to offer in the future. Forecasted Conditions - Cable Television. According to the provisions of the current purveyor's franchise agreement with the City, the company must continue to make cable service available upon request, when reasonable, for any property within the current or future city limits. Therefore, under the current teens of this franchise, the current purveyor would be required to provide cable service to projected growth within the City and the remainder of the Planning Area. Objective U -J: Promote the timely and orderly expansion.of all forms of telecommunications services within the City and the remainder of its Planning Area. Policy U-100. Require that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses_ Policy U-101. Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish aesthetic impacts, and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical. Policy U-102. Pursue the continued development of a wireless Internet communication grid throughout the City for the use and enjoyment of Renton residents, employees, and visitors. Policy U-103. Encourage healthy competition among telecommunication systems for provision of current and future telecommunication services. XII -37 March 2011 - Proposed ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington, establishing a Planned 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 2004 Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and WHEREAS, the City has engaged in extensive subarea planning for the Sunset Area since 2005 and adopted a Community Investment Strategy in 2009 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 adopted regulations and design guidelines for the Sunset Area in 2007; 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 Draft EIS was issued on December 17, 2010 and subject to a 45 - day comment period; and WHEREAS, the Final EIS was issued on April 1, 2011 and received a 30 -day review period; 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 Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 -Proposed WHEREAS, the Renton Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5 and April 6, 2011 regarding the proposed Planned Action; 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: SECTION I. - 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 43.21C,03I- 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 2. — Findings. 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 Iocated 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; Planned Action Ordinance - 2 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed 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 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 comments received, and, as appropriate, has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments; 1. 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 for Evaluating and Determining 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 December 17, 2010 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. Planned Action Ordinance - 3 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed 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 43.210.031. 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 3.1) of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of the City. D. Planned Action Qualifccaiians. 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 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). Action: (2) Development Thresholds. (a) The following amount of various new land uses are anticipated by the Planned Land Use Development Amount Alternative 3 FEIS Preferred Alt Residential 2,506 units 2,339 units Schools 57,010 gross square feet 57,010 gross square feet Parks 0.25 acres 3 acres Office/Service 776,805 gross square feet 745,810gross square feet Retail 476,299 gross square feet 457,119 gross square feet Utilities Tbd Tbd (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 Planned Action Ordinance - 4 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS, further environmental review may be required. (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 & Thresholds. The number of new PM Peak Hour Trips anticipated in the Planned Action Area and reviewed in the EIS are as follows: Alternative/Period PM Peak Hour Trips* 2006 2,082 tris _ 2030 Alternative 3 5,555 trips 2030 Preferred Alt 5,386 trips Net increase from 2006 -> 2030 Alternative 3 3,473 trips Net increase from 2006 -> 2030 Preferred Alternative 3,304 trips *all P.M. peak hour trips with at least one end (origin, destination, or both) in TAZs containing the study area Uses or activities that would exceed the range of 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) Off -Site 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) Administrator Discretion. The Administrator 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 Administrator 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. Planned Action Ordinance - 5 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 -Proposed E. Planned Action Review Criteria. (1) The City's Environmental Review Committee may designate as "planned actions", pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.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; (b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Section 3.D 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(l). (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.D 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. Planned Action Ordinance - 6 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed 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. (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 permit, 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) 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. (6) 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. - Monitoring 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 March 2011 - Proposed 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 five (5) days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Planned Action Ordinance - 8 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed EXHIBIT A PLANNED ACTION AREA Planned Action Ordinance - Sunset Area Planned Action EIS March 2011 - Proposed EXHIBIT B PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION MEASURES Planned Action Ordinance - 10 Sunset Area Planned Action EIS Exhibit B: Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Mitigation Measures Table of Contents Introductionand Purpose.......................................................................................................................3 SEPATerms.............................................................................................................................................3 GeneralInterpretation............................................................................................................................3 Summary of Proposal, Alternatives, and Land Capacity... ...... ...... ........................ .................... 4 Proposal and Alternatives................................................................................................................4 LandCapacity............................................................................................................... .................4 Location............................................•------•-------------------------------------------------...--------------....-----------------------.5 MitigationDocument...............................................................................:.:.:.........................................5 1. Earth....................................................................................................................................6 2- Air Quality...................................................................................:...................... .....8 3. Water Resources...............................................................................................................14 4. Plants and Animals............................................................................................................17 5. Energy................................................................................................................................19 6. Noise ------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....-.------- ............ ........ 21 7. Environmental Health.......................................................................................................23 8. Land Use............................................................................................................................26 9. Socioeconomics ............ ........:........................................................................................... 28 10. Housing..............................................................................................................................30 11. Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................32 12. Aesthetics .--------_---=---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...34 13. Historic/Cultural......:..................................................................................................37 14. Transportation...................................................................................................................40 15. Parks and Recreation .........................................................................................................44 16. Public Services-. ............ _,_ ....... ------------ ------ ........... ............ ___ ............ ....-....-..............46 17. Utilities..............................................................................................................................52 AdvisoryNotes......................................................................................... --56 Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery ........................................................................................................58 Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing ........................60 Water....................................................................... .......................................................................... ...61 Overview._ ................. ...... _-_ ----------------------------------- ...61 Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1.........................................................................................................61 NewLibrary ....................................................................................................................................61 New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library ...............................................................................62 RHA's Piha Site...............................................................................................................................62 Planned Action ordinance Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Sunset Terrace Redevelopment --....--•-------__-----------------------------------------------------------------------------62 Edmonds --Glenwood Phase 2.........................................................................................................63 WaterMain Costs...........................................................................................................................63 WastewaterCollection.........................................................................................................................64 Overview........................................................................................................................................64 DetailedDiscussion ........................................................................................................................64 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity--- Planned Action Alternatives .................................... :............... 5 Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts...................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................7 Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts........................................................................................................... 8 Table 5. Air Quality Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................11 Table 6- Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures........................................................................12 Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts............................................................................................14 Table 8. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts........................................................................................17 Table9. Energy Significant Impacts.................................................................................................................19 Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures.-..... ................................................................ __ --------------------------------- 19 Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts...................................................................................................................21 Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures............................................:...................................................................22 Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts......................................!.................................................................23 Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures..............................................................................24 Table15. Land Use Impacts...............................................................:::................................................................26 Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................27 'fable 17. Socioeconomics Impacts.....................................................................................................................28 Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures............................................................................................30 Table19. Housing Impacts..........::..........................................................................................................................30 Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures...........................................................................................................31 Table 21. Environmental JusticeImpacts.........................................................................................................32 Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures...............................................................................34 Table23. Aesthetic Impacts...................................................................................................................................34 Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................36 Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts...................................................................................................................37 Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................38 Table 27. Transportation Impacts.......................................................................................................................40 Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................42 Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts..........................................................................................................44 Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures.................................................................................45 Table 31. Public Services Impacts.......................................................................................................................46 Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................SO Table33s.: Utilities Impacts......................................................................................................................................52 Table 34: Utilities Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................54 Planned Action Ordinance 2 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Introduction and Purpose The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non - project proposals that are likely to have adverse impacts upon the environment. In order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and SEPA requirements, the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of Renton SansetArea Community Planned Action on December 17, 2010 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) far the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on April 1, 2011. The Draft together with the Final EIS is referenced herein as the "EIS". The EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of the Planned Action area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts. The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the EIS. The mitigation measures shall apply to future development proposals which are consistent with the Planned Action scenarios reviewed in the EIS, and which are located within the Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area (see Exhibit A). SEPA Terms As used in this document, the words action, planned action, or proposal are defined as described below. • "Action" means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or approved by a governmental Agency. "Project actions" involve decisions on a specific project such as a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area. "Non -project" actions involve decisions about policies, plans or programs. (see WAC 197-11-704) "Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are designated by ordinance for a specific geographic area and addressed in an EIS, in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development OF phased project. (see WAC 197-11-164) • "Proposal" means a proposed action that may be an action and regulatory decision of an agency, or any action proposed by applicants. (see WAC 197-11-784) General Interpretation Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will," inclusion of that measure in project plans is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where "should" or "would" appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a Planned Action. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. Planned Action Ordinance I Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Summary of Proposal, Alternatives, and Land Capacity Proposal and Alternatives The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and promote associated neighborhood growth and revitalization as part of a Planned Action. Redevelopment of the public housing community and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use transformation and growth, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process. The Renton. Housing Authority (RHA) is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community; however, RHA would likely redevelop the property in partnership with other public and private non-profit and for-profit developers and agencies. The City of Renton (City) is responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area: Community neighborhood, is the agency responsible for streamlining local permitting and environmental review through this Planned Action, and is the agency that would regulate private neighborhood redevelopment in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The City analyzed three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) as part of the Draft EIS to determine its Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is evaluated in the Final EIS. All four alternatives are described below_ Alternative 1 (No Action). RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented by the City, resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to 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.irivestment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a greater number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative. This alternative represents neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3 in the Planned Action Study Area, based on investment in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with a moderate number dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Land Capacity To determine future growth scenarios for the next 20 years, a land capacity analysis was prepared. The alternatives produce different future growth estimates. Each would affect different amounts of property. Planned Action Ordinance 4 Exhibit B: Mitigation document Alternative 1 assumes that about 16% (3S acres) of the 213 net acres of Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. • Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% (68 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. • Alternative 3 assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop. The Preferred Alternative assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop_ The latter two alternatives - Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative which is similar - represent the higher growth levels studied in the EIS and differ by about 7%; these two alternatives are considered for the purposes of this mitigation document to be the "Planned Action Alternatives." This mitigation document is based on the range of growth considered in the Planned Action Alternatives. More details on the components of the alternatives can be found in Final E15 Chapter 2. Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity-- Planned Action Alternatives Net New Growth Dwelling Units/Jobs _ Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Dwelling units 2,506 2,339 Population 5,789 5,403 Employment 5F 1,310,11.3 1,247,444-1.,259,944 Jobs 3,330 3,154-3,192 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_ See Exhibit A of the Planned Action Ordinance. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood. This broader neighborhood is the Planned Action Study Area considered in the EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. See Exhibit A of the Planned Action Ordinance. Mitigation Document Based on the EIS, this Mitigation Document identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur as a result of development of planned action projects. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS are reiterated here for inclusion in proposed projects to mitigate related impacts and to qualify as Planned Action projects. Consistency review under the Planned Action, development plan review, and other permit approvals will be required for specific development actions under the Proposed Action pursuant to WAC 197 - Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 11-172. Additional project conditions may be imposed on planned action projects based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to independent requirements of the City, state or federal requirements or review criteria. Any applicant for a project within the Planned Action area may propose alternative mitigation measures, if appropriate and/or as a result of changed circumstances, in order to allow equivalent substitute mitigation for identified impacts. Such modifications shall be evaluated by the City's SEPA Responsible Official prior to any project approvals by the City. In combination, regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures identified in the EIS and documented in this Mitigation Document that are applied to any planned action proposal will adequately mitigate all significant environmental impacts associated with planned action proposals, except for those impacts that are identified as "significant unavoidable adverse impacts." Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the EIS for the proposed action are: (a) summary of significant environmental impacts (construction, operation, indirect and cumulative); (b) a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts; (c) mitigation measures established by this mitigation document for both the Planned Action Study Area as a whole as well as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea; and (d) a list of City policies/regulations on which mitigation measures are based. Advisory notes are included at the end of the document to list the federal, state, and local laws that act as mitigation measures. 1. Earth Significant Impacts.. Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Erosion could increase as a result of soil Same as Planned Action Study Area disturbance; however, much of the existing soils are glacial outwash materials with low erosion potential. Codified best management practices minimize the potential for both erosion and erosion transport to waterways. Construction could require import and export of earth materials; however, with minimal planning and protection, the outwash soils in most of the study area could be reused as backfill, minimizing import and export Similar to Planned Action Study Area. The underlying glacial outwash soils have the highest potential for reuse within the Planned Action Study Area and consequently the subarea. There is an increased risk of landsliding There are no mapped geologic hazards, Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit R: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Potential Sunset Terrace Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea due to soil disturbance, changing and thus a low potential for impacts. drainage, or temporarily oversteepening slopes. However, a relatively small proportion of the study area is considered either steep slope or erosion hazard. Both the glacial outwash and till soils are generally strong and of low concern regarding slope instability. Operations Active seismicity in the Planned Action Study Area would require that inhabited structures, including buildings, bridges, and water tanks, be designed to withstand seismic loading. Indirect The major steep slope, erosion, and landslide hazard areas within the Planned Action Study Area extend beyond the study area boundaries. Development on the slope above (inside) the study area boundary could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding downslope (outside) of the study area. Cumulative Same as indirect impacts above; intensive development around this hazard area outside of the Planned Action Study Area by other projects is not currently anticipated, but could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures Same as Planned Action Study Area There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall apply to Mitigation measures shall be the same as the development throughout the Planned Action Planned Action Study Area, except that there are Study Area. no geologic hazard areas to avoid. Apply erosion -control best management practices (BMPs), as described in Appendix D of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual'. 7 City of Renton. 2010. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards. Planned Action Ordinance I Exhibit $: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Limit development in geologic hazard areas and their buffers, or require rigorous engineered design to reduce the hazard, as currently codified. Planned Action applicants shall identify in their applications the source of earth material to be used in construction and shall consider earth material reuse and provide information to the City regarding why earth material reuse is not feasible if it is not proposed. The City may condition the planned action application to provide for earth material reuse where feasible. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-5-050 International Building Code RMC 4-6-030 Drainage [Surface Water] Standards 2. Air Quality Significant Impacts Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts Planned Action Ordinance 8 Exhibit S: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction :'' Dust from excavation and grading Same as Planned Action Study could cause temporary, localized Area - increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Construction activities would likely Same as Planned Action Study require the use of diesel -powered, Area 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. Some construction activities could Same as Planned Action Study cause odors detectible to some Planned Action Ordinance 8 Exhibit S: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Operations Emissions from Commercial Operations Emissions From Vehicle Travel Potential Sunset Terrace Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea people in the vicinity of the activity, especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt Such odors would be short-term and localized. Construction equipment and material hauling could temporarily increase traffic flow on city streets adjacent to a construction area. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic -related emissions would increase. Stationary equipment, mechanical equipment, and trucks at loading docks at office and retail buildings could cause air pollution issues at adjacent residential property. However, new commercial facilities would be required to register their pollutant -emitting equipment and to use best available control technology to minimize emissions. Tailpipe emissions from vehicles would be the major source of air pollutant emissions associated with growth. The net increases in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) forecast as a result of Planned Action alternatives are inconsequentially small compared to the Puget Sound regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. This would not alter Puget Sound Regional Council's conclusion that future regional emissions will be less than the allowable emissions budgets of air quality maintenance plans. Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Same;as Planned Action Study .Area The forecasted VMT from the subarea is only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Future emissions from increased population and motor vehicles in the subarea would not cause significant regional air quality impacts. Planned Actian Ordinance n Exhibit & Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Air Quality Attainment Land use density and population Same as Planned Action Study Status would increase in the Planned Area. Action Study Area; however, these increases represent only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals_ Furthermore, this alternative would not result in land use changes that include unusual industrial developments. Therefore, development in the Planned Action Study Area would not cause a substantial increase in air quality concentrations that would result in a change in air quality attainment status. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Planned Action alternatives are Planned Action Alternatives Study Area and Subarea estimated to result in this would result in an estimated alternative would result in an 3,760 to 6,612 metric tons/year estimated 43,050 to 45,766 metric of GHG emissions. tons/year of greenhouse gas (GHG). emissions for the Planned Action Study Area. Outdoor Air Toxics The Planned Action Study Area is in Impacts on outdoor air toxics a mixed-use residential and would be similar to those commercial zone that does not described for the Planned Action include unusual sources of toxic air Study Area. pollutants. The major arterial street through the Planned Action Study Area (NE Sunset Boulevard) does not carry an unusually high percentage of heavy-duty truck traffic. Thus, the Planned Action Alternatives would not expose existing or future residents to disproportionately high concentrations of toxic air pollutants generated by local emission sources. Indoor Air Toxics See Potential Sunset Terrace RHA development would be Redevelopment Subarea constructed according to local building codes that require adequate insulation and ventilation. Regardless, studies have shown that residents at lower-income developments often suffer higher rates of respiratory ailments than the general public. Therefore, the City and RHA will explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally Planned Action Ordinance 10 Exhibit B: Mitigatior Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Arca indirect and Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Subarea, Study Area, and Region With the highest level of transit - oriented development in the study area of the studied alternatives, Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest regional GHG emission reductions, a net reduction of 3,907-4,164 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea achieved by simply complying with building codes. With the highest level of transit - oriented development in the subarea of the alternatives studied, Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest reduction in regional GHG emissions, a net reduction of 150-467 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the FIS_ No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described below are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. Mitigation Measures Table 5. Air Quality Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Construction Emission Control The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the study area. The air quality control plans shall include BMPs to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment The following BMPs shall be used to control fugitive dust • Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways. • Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces. • Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets. • Cover soil piles when practical. Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In addition to the mitigation measures for air quality described under the Planned Action Study Area, the following mitigation measures apply: • Should the phases of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur concurrently rather than in a phased and sequential manner, the City and RHA will consider adding the Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects - Model Contract Specifications or an equivalent approachz as additional mitigation measures. • The City and RHA and other public or private applicants within the subarea should explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes. For example, grant programs such as the Breath Easy Homes program could provide funding to foster construction methods that reduce dust, mold, 2 Northeast Diesel Collaborative. December 2010. Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, Model Contract Specification_ Available: <http://www_nartheartdieseLorg/pdf/NEDC-Construction-Contract-Spec.pdf.> Accessed: March 14, 2011. Planned Action Ordinance 11 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall be used to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by taitpipe emissions. Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. ip Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. Where feasible, Applicants shall schedule haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) to have the least effect on traffic and to minimize indirect increases in traffic related emissions. This shall be determined as part of traffic control plans required in Section 14 of this mitigation document. Burning of slash or demolition debris shall not be permitted without express approval from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction projects in the Planned Action Study Area. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Please see text and Table 6 below. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and air toxics concentrations in the homes, such as the following: o use of low-VOC [volatile organic compounds] building materials and coatings, o enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration, and o installation of dust -free floor materials and low -pile carpeting to reduce dust buildup. Planned Action applicants for residential ,. developments shall provide information regarding the feasibility and applicability of indoor air quality measures. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible indoor air quality measures. The City shall require development applicants to consider the reduction measures shown in Table 6 for their projects, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and why other measures found in the table are not included or are not applicable. The City may condition Planned Action applications t0 incorporate feasible GHG reduction measures. Table 6. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Reduction Measures Comments Site Design Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings. Minimize building footprint. Design water efficient landscaping. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity, and enhances carbon sinks. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption, materials used, maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction emissions. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and upstream emissions from water management Minimize energy use through building orientation. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption_ Building Design and Operations Construct buildings according to City of Seattle energy code. The City of Seattle code is more stringent than the current City of Renton building code. Planned Action Ordinance 12 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Apply Leadership in Energy and Environmental Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and Design (LEED) standards (or equivalent) for design off-site/indirect purchased electricity, water and operations. use, waste disposal. Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and public agency use. purchased electricity consumption. Incorporate on-site renewable energy production, Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and including installation of photovoltaic cells or other purchased electricity consumption. 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 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 code requirements. Reuse gray water and/or collect and reuse: rainwater. Use recycled building materials and products. Use building materials that are extracted and/or manufactured within the region. Use rapidly renewable building materials. Conduct third -party building commissioning to ensure energy performance. Reduces water consumption. Reduces water consumption with its indirect upstream electricity requirements. Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly reduces transportation of materials, encourages recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal_ Reduces transportation of purchased materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased materials_ Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Track energy performance of building and develop Reduces fuel combustion and purchased strategy to maintain efficiency. electricity consumption. Transportation Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking Reduced parking discourages auto -dependent requirements and, where possible, seek reductions travel, encouraging alternative modes such as in parking supply through special permits or transit, walking, and biking. Reduces direct and waivers. indirect VMT. Develop and implement a marketing/information Reduces direct and indirect VMT. program that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit information. Planned Action Ordinance 13 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules, telecommuting, and/or flex time. Provide a guaranteed -ride -home program. Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Use traffic signalization and coordination to improve traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety. Apply advanced technology systems and management strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets. Develop shuttle systems around business district parking garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes. Comments Reduces employee VMT. Reduces employee VMT. Reduces transportation emissions and VMT. Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing idling and maximizing transportation routes/ systems for fuel efficiency. Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect VMT. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology 2008b VMT = vehicle miles travelled. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations I Water Resources Significant Impacts Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact_ Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction impacts on water Same as Planned Action Study Area resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #S for Erosion and Sediment Control in the Renton Stormwater Manual and compliance with Ecology's NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land -disturbing activity. Also see Section 1, Earth, above. Operations Water Quality and Land Implementation of the green All untreated pollution -generating Planned Action Ordinance 14 Exhibit 9: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Cover Indirect and Cumulative connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7-15.7 acres of untreated pollution - generating impervious area and approximately 3.1-6.6 acres of effective impervious area. The operations analysis above presents cumulative impacts in terms of total impervious surfaces and potential water quantity and quality impacts, as well as indirect impacts on receiving water bodies outside of the study area_ The Planned Action Alternatives would implement a drainage master plan and mitigation would be provided in advance through the self -mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution -generating surface from the Johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11 %) to 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions. Same as the Planned Action Study area. In particular, the C4,proposes to construct a regional stormwater facility that would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space allowing water to be treated within a series of distributed of small integrate3.rain gardens along the edge of the proposed Sunset Terrace Park and connecting the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space. This will mitigate impacts in the subarea as well as portions of the larger Planned Action Study Area. [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 Planned Action alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described below. Mitigation Measures All of the alternatives would involve redevelopment and reduction of existing pollution -generating impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, per the requirements of the stormwater code, the redeveloped properties would be required to provide water quality treatment for all remaining pollution -generating impervious surfaces. The net reduction in untreated pollution -generating impervious surfaces throughout the study area is, therefore, considered to result in a net benefit to surface water quality. 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. Nanned Action Ordinance 15 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Self mitigating features of the Planned Action Alternatives are listed below: Under Alternative 3, mitigation would be provided in advance or incrementally through the self - mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Conceptual design and planning of the public stormwater infrastructure would be developed under a drainage master plan for the Study Area. It Lould be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the improvements. The extent and form of the public infrastructure projects would be refined through the drainage master plan . development and further design. The goal under Alternative 3 would be to provide sufficient' advance public infrastructure improvements to balance the anticipated increase in effrTtive impervious area. This strategy would only require that future developments implement flow - control BMPs, but could eliminate on-site flow control through a development fee or similar funding structure to compensate for the off-site mitigation provided by the public infrastructure investment. • The Preferred Alternative mitigation would be similar to Alternative 3. Harrington Avehue NE, including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identified as a high priority Green Connection project. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through -traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks. This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining green connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremntal redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds). In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City will implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment_ Locations of the regional facilities would include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball/softball field). A drainage master plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative. Planned Actions shall implement the City's adopted drainage master plan and be consistent with the City stormwater regulations in effect at the time of application. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards Planned Action Ordinance 16 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 4. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Table 8. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Individual redevelopment Same as Planned Action Study Area projects would result in short- term loss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Operations Redevelopment activities that Same as Planned Action Study Area would be facilitated under the planned action ordinance would have a limited effect on plant or wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area. New development being designed as Low Impact Development (LID) is likely to result in a measurable decline in total vegetated area, accompanied by a measurable improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Green connections and urban forestry plans offset to some degree by greater redevelopment, the net result is likely to be a reduction in habitat connectivity and a decline in total vegetated area, albeit with some improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Largely due to the absence of impacts on special -status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant- ignificantIndirect Indirect Planned Action Alternatives Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 17 _ Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunsct Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea would result in an indirect impact on plants and wildlife by contributing to a substantial increase in the human population within the area. This can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to road kill and predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. The stormwater commitments incorporated in Planned Action Alternatives would be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. Cumulative No impact Kia impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur for plants and animals under any alternative. Mitigation Measures With implementation. of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards RMC 4=3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations Planned Action Ordinance 18 Exhibit B: Mitigation document 5. Energy Significant Impacts Table 9. Energy significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction During construction, energy would be consumed by demolition and reconstruction activities. These activities would include the manufacture of construction materials, transport of construction materials to and from the construction site, and operation of machinery during demolition and construction. Operations Energy Usage: Study Area The annual energy usage is and Subarea estimated at 255,845 to 275,529 million British thermal units (Btu). Indirect and Cumulative Energy Usage: Subarea, With high levels of transit - Study Area, and Region oriented and high-density development the Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the study area compared to the No Action Alternative: 26,383 to 29,194 million Btu. Same as Planned Action Study Area The annual energy usage is estimated at 21,338 to 43,654 million British thermal units (Btu)_ With high levels of transit -oriented and high-density development the Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the subarea compared to the No Action Alternative: 1,145 to 3,624 million Btu. 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. 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. Mitigation Measures Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although the growth and development would In addition to the mitigation measures described for Planned Action Ordinance 19 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea result in increased energy demand in the Planned Action Study Area under all of the alternatives, expanding the beneficial transit - oriented development and high-density housing development within the study area would reduce regional energy usage. Therefore, all alternatives would provide a net benefit rather than adverse impact with regards to energy usage. However, to further reduce energy consumption, the City shall encourage future developers to implement additional trip -reduction measures and energy conservation measures. For example, 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 STAB 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 - 0 An energy reduction of 10% would comply with Seattle Energy Code for non- residential buildings. See also Air Quality mitigation measures. The City shall require development applicants to consider trip -reduction measures and energy conservation, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and which ones are not included (based on that are part of Table 6 or Table 10). The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible trip reduction and energy conservation measures. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan the Planned Action Study Area, according to the King County proposed GHG reduction regulation, energy reductions can be provided with the implementation of the following basic requirements of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating andAir-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 7S% of average size, and 12% energy reduction for office, school, retail, and public assembly buildings that are smaller than 1.00,000 square feet in floor area. RMC 4-5-051 Washington State Energy Code Adopted Planned Action Ordinance 20 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document G. Noise Significant Impacts Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Development in the study area Same as Planned Action Study would require demolition and Area construction activity, which would temporarily increase noise levels at residences close to the development site. This type of activity could cause annoyance and speech interference at outdoor locations adjacent to the construction sites, and could cause discernible noise. Operations Noise from New Commercial Operations Indirect and Cumulative Noise from Increased Traffic: Proposal with Future Traffic Levels Unless properly controlled, mechanical equipment (e.g_, rooftop air conditioning units) and trucks at loading docks of office and retail buildings in the study area could cause ambient noise levels at nearby residential housing units to exceed the City noise ordinance limits. For most residents adjacent to roadways in the study area, increased traffic would result in the greatest increase in ambient noise levels, caused by moving traffic and vehicles idling at intersections. Development would result in noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets. Same as Planned Action Study Area Development would result in noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset Boulevard and local streets The estimated day -night noise levels from NE Sunset Boulevard at the adjacent buildings indicates they would be exposed to "normally unacceptable" noise levels exceeding U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) outdoor day -night noise criterion of 65 dBA. The noise levels at these first row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed the criterion under Planned Action Alternatives. Planned Action Ordinance 21 Exhibit 6: Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational traffic noise impacts are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation, measures noted below. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT "substantial increase" impact threshold. Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed normally unacceptable under the HUD noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the adjacent street CNE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated in this subarea, if the noise control measures noted below are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria_ Mitigation Measures Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Construction Noise To reduce construction noise at nearby receivers, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated by Planned Action applicants 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 shall require all prospective future developers to use low -noise mechanical equipment adequate to ensure compliance with Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Mitigation measures described in the Planned Action Study Area would also apply to this subarea. Site design approaches shall be incorporated to reduce potential noise impacts including the following. Concentrating park and open space uses are away from NE Sunset Boulevard. Where park and open space uses must be located near NE Sunset Boulevard, avoiding activities that require easily understood conversation (e.g., instructional classes), or other uses where quiet conditions are required for the primary function of the activity. Allowing for balconies on exterior facing units only if they do not open to a bedroom. According to HUD noise guidebook, noise attenuation from various building materials are calculated using sound transmission class (STC) rating. Although the standard construction approaches can normally achieve the STC rating of more than 24 dBA as demonstrated in Final EIS Appendix E, the City shall require a STC rating of 30 dBA reduction for these first row residential dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows that the sound reduction achieved by different techniques may be a little optimistic3. . 3 HUD noise guidebook, Chapter 4, page 33"... use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2-3 dB overstating that you may get with the STC rating system." Planned Action Ordinance 22 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea the City's daytime and nighttime noise ordinance limits where commercial uses are abutting residential uses and where there is a potential to exceed noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City shall require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control measures. Compliance with the noise ordinance would ensure this potential impact would not be significant. Traffic Noise Mitigation Although traffic noise is exempt from City noise ordinance, based on site-specific considerations, the City may at its discretion require the new development to install double -pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under the Washington State Energy Code (RMC 4-5-040). Nexus City of Denton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations -:General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC'I'itle 8 Chapter 7 Noise Level Regulations 7. Environmental Health Significant Impacts Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts Type of Impact Potential Sunset Terrace Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential construction impacts Existing subsurface include releasing existing contaminations have not been contaminants to the environment identified on the redeveiopable by ground -disturbing or properties and, therefore, are not dewatering activities, expected to be encountered encountering underground during construction. Hazardous storage tanks (USTs) or leaking building materials such as lead- USTs, generating hazardous based paint and asbestos - building materials that require containing materials (ACMs) special disposal, and accidentally could be generated from releasing hazardous substances. demolition of the existing Sunset Terrace buildings. If there are lead-based paints or ACMs at the complex, appropriate permits and Planned Actian Ordinance 23 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations If development occurs on contaminated sites, where appropriate clean-up measures were not completed or residual contaminations were present, then there is a potential risk to public health for people using the site. Indirect No impact precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects. No impact No impact Cumulative No impact No impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are identified at the programmatic level throughout the Planned Study Area or for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for any of the studied alternatives. Contaminated sites would be avoided during project design when possible; implementing the mitigation approaches described below would.`minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. Mitigation Measures Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 40 Since encountering unreported spills or unreported underground fuel tanks is a risk when performing construction, contractors shall be required to provide hazardous materials awareness training to all grading and excavation crews on how to identify any suspected contaminated soil or groundwater, and how to alert supervisors in the event of suspected contaminated material. Signs of potential contaminated soil include stained soil, odors, oily sheen, or the presence of debris. Contractors shall be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)(WAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations. Contractors shall be reauired to d The construction and operation mitigation measures identified for the Planned Action Study Area are applicable to the subarea. Planned Action Ordinance 24 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, BMPs, and other permit conditions to minimize the potential for a release of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, or surface water during construction. Contractors shall be required to follow careful construction practices to protect against hazardous materials spills from routine equipment operation during construction; prepare and maintain a current spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, and have an individual on site designated as an emergency coordinator; and understand and use proper hazardous materials storage and handling procedures and emergency procedures, including proper spill notification and response requirements. All asbestos -containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint will be identified in structures prior to demolition activities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35. If ACM or lead-based paint is identified, appropriately trained and licensed personnel will contain, remove, and properly dispose of the ACM and/or lead-based paint material according to federal and state regulations prior to demolition of the affected area. If warranted, contractors :shall conduct additional studies to locate undocumented underground storage tank (USTs) and fuel lines before construction of specific development projects (areas of concern include current and former commercial and residential structures) and will permanently decommission and properly remove USTs from project sites before commencing general construction activities. Prior to acquisition of known or potentially contaminated property, the City shall require appropriate due diligence be performed to identify the presence and extent of soil or groundwater contamination. This can help to prevent or manage liabilities for any long-term clean- up activities that might be ongoing during project operations_ If contamination is discovered, the project proponent will Planned Action Ordinance 25 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea comply with all state and federal regulations for contaminated sites. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC Title 4 Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 8. Land Use Significant Impacts Table 15. Land Use Impacts Type of Impact Construction Operations Land Use Patterns Planned Action Study Area The incremental nature of development over the planning':'; period would minimize the number of nearby residents exposed to temporary construction impacts ineluding dust emissions, noise, construction traffic, and sporadic interference with access to adjacent. residences and businesses. Planned Action Alternatives would provide more than 2,300 to 2,500 dwelling units and 1-2 to 1.3 million square feet of commercial space compared to existing conditions. Redevelopment would provide more commercial development than residential development. This alternative would also provide more than two times as many residential dwellings as currently exist in the study area. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Alternatives would provide about 266-479 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. Plans and Policies Planned Action Alternatives Planned Action Alternatives provide the greatest degree of provide the greatest degree of consistency among the consistency with the City's land alternatives with the City use element goals and policies of Comprehensive Plan goals, all alternatives by promoting the objectives, and policies by redevelopment of the Sunset implementing the development Terrace public housing Planned Action Ordinance 26 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Indirect and Cumulative Planned Action Study Area types envisioned in the City's land use and zoning designations within the study area_ Anticipated growth would help the City meet its 2032 housing and employment targets. Public investments would need to be accounted for in amendments to the City's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements_ No indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the study area. The City applies its policies and development regulations to create a planned land use pattern. Density is most intense at the center of the study area and least along its boundaries with single- family residential land use patterns; it is unlikely to alter patterns or plans along the edges of the study area. The City will, as pati of its regular comprehensive plan review and amendment updates, control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment Process. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Potential SunsetTeri-ace Redevelopment Subarea community. It also does more than other alternatives to develop the Center Village. Development in the subarea under this alternative has a similar consistency as the study area for other City goals and policies, providing a greater degree of consistency with those goals and policies than other alternatives. Redevelopment of"the subarea under this alternative :would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Although intensification of land uses in the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment. Subarea, would occur and density would increase, this change would be consistent with applicable plans, zoning, and land use character. Plan consistency can be addressed by Comprehensive Plan amendments using the City's legislative process. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Under all alternatives, the City shall require planned action applicants to implement appropriate construction mitigation measures, including but not limited to dust control and construction traffic management The City should make efforts to minimize property acquisition that affects buildings as part of its refinement of study area streetscape designs Construction mitigation would he the same as described under the Planned Action Study Area. The City and RHA should coordinate on future Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affects buildings is minimized. The City shall require construction plans to: Planned Action ordinance 27 Exhibit 6: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area while balancing Complete Streets principles. As part of the Planned Action Ordinance adoption process, the City should amend its Comprehensive Plan's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements to ensure that planned public investments and their funding sources are accounted for and programmed. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Locate the majority of the most intensive non-residential development along or near NE Sunset Boulevard, where possible. Implement proposed open space and landscape features to offset the proposed intensification of land uses on the site. Provide new opportunities for public open space area. As part of site design, emphasize transitions in density, with less intense densities where abutting lower -intensity zones. RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards 9. Socioeconomics Significant Impacts Table 1.7. Socioeconomics Impacts Type of Impact Construction Operations Planned Action Study Area Construction activities could temporarily increase congestion and reduce parking, local access for businesses and residents, and access near the construction activities, which could negatively affect businesses; however, businesses located close to construction activities could experience an increase in revenue from spending by construction workers. The higher number of dwelling units and jobs would result in greater intensities in development and economic benefits. Improvements in the streetscape along NE Sunset Boulevard and the other civic and infrastructure improvements would make the study area more desirable to Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex to allow for the subarea redevelopment would require the relocation of the tenants. Moreover, the relocation of the tenants could affect some local businesses during construction, if the tenants are relocated outside of the immediate area; however, since the total number of relocations represents a small portion of the overall population any impact would likely be small in scale. The Planned Action Alternatives would increase dwelling units and jobs by 266-479 net dwelling units and 79- 117 jobs. The subarea would be developed with new park, street, and civic improvements that would promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. Planned ACtiDn Ordinance 28 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Tmpact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. The facilities that would be added under Alternative 3 include a family village and a wider reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard. The family village would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services that would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. Indirect Cumulative Construction spending would result in positive indirect effects on the economic elements of employment and income in the study area and the regional economy as businesses that support the construction effort would likely see increased spending. The additional public and private investment and associated economic benefits would be greater due to the increased spending. Cumulative effects would be positive with the addition of new development that would continue to enhance the area and continue to improve the neighborhood vitality. Unavoidable Adverse 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 area as well as local tax revenues. As the area changes and new housing is provided, no existing public units would be lost and improvements in the neighborhood would likely continue as new developments are constructed. No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Planned Action 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 Planned Action Alternatives, relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would result in short-term impacts; however, these impacts would he mitigated. The creation of new jobs and spending in the subarea during construction of new developments would result in short-term benefits. Planned Action Ordinance 29 Exhibit B: Mitigation 6neument Mitigation Measures Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Mitigation measures to minimize dust, noise, aesthetics, and transportation impacts during construction are identified in Sections 2, (, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Mitigation Document. These measures would address many of the construction -related impacts that could negatively affect the study area businesses. In addition, with the reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard, or with any new development, if access to businesses is affected, the following measures should be addressed by the City or WSDOT; Provide detour, open for business, and other signage, as appropriate. Provide business cleaning services on a case- by-case basis, as needed. Establish promotions or marketing measures to help affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction. Maintain access, as much as possible, to each business and, if access needs to be limited, coordinate with the affected businesses. Mitigation measures to address indirect impacts on housing affordability are addressed in.Section 10 of this Mitigation Document. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 10. Housing Significant Impacts Table 19. Housing Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In addition to mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area, the following mitigation measures apply: . Public housing tenants shall be provided relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. RHA should consider phased demolition and reconstruction to minimize the need to relocate all the residents at the same time, or the new affordable housing development could be constructed prior to demolition to provide opportunities to relocate tenants within the subarea. Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction of commercial, Construction of residential and residential, and civic uses in the civic uses would create temporary study area would create noise, dust, and construction temporary noise, dust, and traffic, which would affect construction traffic, which would adjacent residents to the subject affect current residents. properties. Operations The Planned Action Alternatives In this subarea, 110 public Planned Action Ordinance 30 Exhibit B: Mitigation document Type of Impact Indirect Cumulative Planned Action Study Area assume 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings replaced at 299. The Planned Action Alternatives would add up to approximately 2,339 to 2,507 new dwellings. In the study area there is a potential for additional market rate dwellings as well as affordable and public dwellings. Most new units would be multifamily. Increased housing could increase local resident spending at businesses in the study area, and could also create an increased demand for parks and recreation, public services, and utilities. Growth in the study area would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and would contribute to meeting growth targets for the. City's next Comprehensive Plan Update for the year 2031. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Potential SunsetTerrace Redevelopment Subarea housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. There would be a 1:1 replacement of public housing units on site and in the Planned Action Study Area. The number of units added would be 266-479 above existing dwellings, for a total of 376-589 units. About three quarters of the units would be affordable or public, and another approximate quarter would be market -rate dwelling units. The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to the Planned Action Study Area. The support of the new dwellings to assist the City in meeting growth targets is similar to the Planned Action Study Area. Housing in the Planned Action Study Area would likely redevelop to some degree to take advantage of adopted plans and zoning. However, the alternatives would allow for the construction of new dwelling units to replace those.that are eliminated. Lower-cost housing could be replaced with more costly housing. Implementation of City regulatory incentives and use of federal, state, and local housing funds and programs could reduce potential affordability impacts. Through its regular Comprehensive Plan review cycles, the City could monitor housing trends in the neighborhood and adapt measures to promote affordability. During construction and in the short-term, residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, relocation assistance mitigation measures for RHA units would mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 44-030 C) Construction mitigation would be as described Planned Action Ordinance 31 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area identifies construction hours intended to address noise in sensitive time periods. See Section 6, [Noise, of this Mitigation Document regarding other noise mitigation measures for construction periods. When federal funds are being used for a proposal, displaced tenants shall 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 should apply for federal, state, and local funding programs described in Draft EIS Section 3.10, Housing, to promote new housing opportunities for low and very low-income housing. RHA should establish a local preference for rental assistance. For example, RHA could establish a priority list for Section 8 vouchers for displaced low-income tenants in the Planned Action Study Area (in addition to the relocation assistance to be provided by RHA to the Sunset Terrace residents). Unit replacement and relocation assistance for the family village would be the same as described for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Nexus Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for the Planned Action Study Area. RHA has committed to replacement housing for the Sunset Terrace public housing units at a 1:1 ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement housing could occur on site and/or off site. During the time replacement housing is under construction, Section 8 vouchers, or equivalent measures, shall be used to relocate tenants. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General 11. Environmental Justice Significant Impacts Table 21. Environmental Justice Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Residents near construction The demolition of the Sunset activities would likely be affected Terrace complex and construction by temporary noise, dust, and of the proposed conceptual plans visual impacts due to would require the relocation of construction; these impacts would the tenants of the Sunset Terrace be short-term in nature. The complex likely through Section 8 population of the study area is vouchers. Because the tenants are predominately non -minority and low-income and predominately non -low-income and any negative minority, this would constitute a Planned Action Ordinance 32 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Operations Indirect Cumulative Planned Action Study Area impacts would likely occur- on these populations to a greater degree than the minority and low- income populations. Residential, commercial, and recreational development and civic and infrastructure improvements under Planned Action Alternatives would improve the overall neighborhood, making it a more cohesive and desirable place to live for all populations in the community, including minority and low-income populations. The family village would be beneficial for all populations in the Planned Action Study Area, but these benefits could accrue to a greater degree for minority and low-income populations due to the close proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle. The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the study area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities :would benefit all study area populations, but could benefit minority and low-income populations to a greater degree. The Planned Action Alternatives would increase the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low-income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations. Cumulative impacts would primarily be beneficial. As the area continues to redevelop with new investments, public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and would continue to create new jobs. The new development and addition of more market -rate units could cause the study area to become less affordable to Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea greater impact on these populations than other populations. Planned Action Alternatives would have a number of beneficial effects on minority and low- income populations in the subarea, including the redevelopment of the existing dwelling units, construction of additional units, transportation improvements, and the addition of other community facilities (i.e., senior day health, library, parks). These changes would result in improvements to public health and to .the aesthetics of the area. These would all improve community cohesion for subarea residents. Housing types and affordability would be more varied. New retail and commercial space wand provide new employment opportunities could be seen as more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or not have a their own vehicle and would, therefore, benefit more from the proximity. Adverse impacts are not anticipated. New dwelling units would be affordable, public, and market -rate units. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified under the Planned Action Study Area would be similar. Planned Action Ordinance 33 Exhibit e: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea lower-income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the study area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to environmental justice. The Planned 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. Mitigation Measures Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area . Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 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 shall be applicable to all populations. These measures are described in Sections 2, b, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Mitigation Document Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Mitigation measures during construction 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. See Section 9, Socioeconomics, of this Mitigation Document. RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General 12.: Aesthetics Significant Impacts Table 23. Aesthetic Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction The demolition of existing Same as Planned Action Study structures and construction of Area new buildings would expose nearbv residents to visual Planned Action ordinance 34 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Visual Character Height and Bulk Shade and Shadow impacts, including dust, the presence of construction equipment, stockpiles of construction materials, localized increases in vehicular traffic, and on-site construction activities. For each alternative, these activities would occur sporadically at various locations throughout the Planned Action Study Area, would be localized to the construction site, and would be temporary in nature_ The extensive public investment under the Planned Action Alternatives 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_ . The application of adopted design standards as new construction gradually replaces older buildings would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. The subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than under current conditions. The tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned Center Village_ Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, shading effects The visual character of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would change from its current state to a pedestrian -oriented community with a mix of residential, ground - floor commercial, and community uses linked by public spaces and landscaped pedestrian pathways. The Preferred Alternative concept would focus less residential development in the subarea than Alternative 3, making room for a larger neighborhood park. Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would range from one to four stories. The Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2 - story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the Planned Action Ordinance 35 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea 1 nd i reef/ Cumulative would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see some of the most intense commercial and mixed- use development. While redevelopment of the public facilities discussed under the various alternatives would be a coherent effort, private development throughout the study area would occur piecemeal. Individual private developments are likely to be of higher density, greater height, and a different architectural style than existing development, and have the potential to create temporary aesthetic conflicts where they are located adjacent to older structures;Over time, as more properties redevelop, the temporary conflicts would be less frequent and less noticeable. Unavoidable Adverse Imparts subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. Dependent on final design, building may potentially shade sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times.of the day. With the Preferred Alternative., the increased size of the central park, as well as the placement of 2 -story townhomes adjacent to the park, reduces the potential for adverse shading effects compared to Alternative 3. Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing facility would be a localized action, but additional private development is anticipated to occur in response to this public investment, and each private development project would contribute to the overall transformation of the area's aesthetic character. With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea In both the Planned Action Study Area and Potential See Planned Action Study Area. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, mitigation measures will be necessary to minimize impacts associated with increased height, bulk, and shading. Future development occurring under any of the alternatives shall conform to the Renton Municipal Planned Action Ordinance 36 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Code design standards, including but not limited to the following; . Urban design standards contained in RMC 4-3- 100, . Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115, and . Lighting Standards contained in RMC 4-4-075. As described in RMC 4-3-10OB3, portions of the Planned Action Study Area do not currently lie within an established Urban Design District, most notably those properties north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE, where the family village proposed under the Planned Action Alternatives would be located_ To ensure that future redevelopment exhibits quality urban design, the City should consider either including this area in Design District D or creating a new design district for this purpose. Prior to the enactment of new design standards, the City may condition development north of NE 16th Street to meet appropriate standards of Design District D in RMC 4- 3-100. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations RMC 4-4-075 bighting, Exterior On -Site 13. Historic/Cultural' Significant Impacts Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Typical project impacts that could No significant cultural resources disrupt or adversely affect are known to exist in the Potential cultural resources in the Planned Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Action Study Area include Subarea. demolition, removal, or substantial alteration without consideration of historic and archaeological sites and/or features. Operations, Indirect, and Development could occur on or Future development in the Planned Action ordinance mm� 37 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Cumulative Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea near parcels in the Planned Action Study Area that contain previously identified or unknown cultural resources_ This development would likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, a detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project -specific basis. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts subarea would have no impact any known National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low_ The impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with any alterative could be significant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth in Draft EIS Section 4.13.2 as amended in the Final EIS would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could.be taken. Mitigation Measures Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area In the event that a. proposed development site within the study area contains a building at least 50 -years of age that is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (N RHP) or Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the project shall be required to undergo review to determine if the property is considered eligible for listing. Itis 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 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Since no native "A" horizon was identified at the Edmonds -Glenwood site and throughout the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, no further archaeological investigations are recommended for these areas. Although a buried, native "A" horizon was identified on RHA's Piha site (east of Harrington Avenue NE), the potential for an archaeological discovery is very low. The project should proceed with no further archaeological investigations. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground disturbing excavations, the contractor shall halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. If human skeletal remains are discovered, or if during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Draft EIS ADnendix i and as amended by Final EIS Planned Action Ordinance 38 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea NRNP or WHR. For future projects that involve significant excavation in the study area the City must enter into consultation with Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to determine the likelihood of and recommendations for addressing potential archaeological resources. It may be necessary to complete archaeological testing prior to significant excavation in the study area, such as digging for footings or utilities. Archaeological project monitoring may be recommended for subsurface excavation and construction in high probability areas. 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 shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. Non -site-specific mitigation could include developing an educational program, interpretive displays, and design guidelines that focus on compatible materials, and professional publications_ Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 (and provided as Attachment 1 of this Exhibit B). If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact if avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in'design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. Planned Action Ordinance 39 Exhikiii S: Mitigation Document 14, Transportation Significant Impacts Table 27. Transportation Impacts Type of Impact Construction Operations Traffic Operations Transit Nonmotorized Planned Action Study Area Potential impacts that could result from construction activities include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes, and road closures. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction roadway improvements associated with the Planned Action Alternatives. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times, and may force reroutes through local''"'.: streets. At Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are predicted in both 2015 and 2030. At Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are expected in 2030. At both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and would be conveniently located near residential or retail land uses. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture. Planned Action Alternatives include improved nonmotorized facilities such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks. Design elements such as bike route signage, bike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included to promote bike ridership and safety. The Preferred Alternative includes a 5 -foot -wide eastbound Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area Delay times in the subarea could worsen slightly due to the increase in trips generated, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold_ Same as Planned Action Study A rea Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 40 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Potential Sunset Terrace Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea bicycle lane, rather than bicycle lanes in both directions (as in Alternative 3). Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative includes special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Sustainability The Planned Action Alternatives score a minimum of 33 with a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric,- therefore, etric;therefore, the alternatives meet the minimum Greenroads Indirect and Cumulative certification level and could achieve the highest level of certification. The Planned Action Alternatives score most strongly in the "Access and Equity" section of the Green roads. evaluation, as improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users are important elements of this alternative. The Planned Action Alternatives typically include higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving. Growth would increase in comparison to Comprehensive Plan land use estimates; however, the Planned Action Alternatives' operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City's current and planned roadway system and any operational deficiencies can be mitigated to meet City of Renton thresholds. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 41 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The alternatives are expected to contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic volumes within the study area, which could degrade some roadway operations. The increase in traffic volumes due to activities in the study area is considered unavoidable, but the roadway operation and LOS can be mitigated to meet applicable LOS standards. Mitigation Measures Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Operational Mitigation Planned Action applicants shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code, Planned Action applicants shall implement transportation mitigation measures identified below when required to meet concurrency management regulations in RMC 4-6-070 Transportation Concurrency Requirements: . Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street: an additional southbound left -turn pocket and westbound right -turn pocket would improve operations to LOS E, while added pedestrian- and::. bicycle -oriented paths or multi -use trails to encourage mode shifts would likely.improve operations to LOS D. At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection: the eastbound and westbound approaches could be restriped to increase the number of lanes and, therefore, the capacity of the intersection. With implementation, this intersection would improve to LOS D. Construction Mitigation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to or during construction within the Planned Action Study Area. Prior to construction: 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 raotential No permanent mitigation measures are recommended within Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The intersection operations under action alternatives are expected to be within the LOS D threshold. During construction, mitigation measures are those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Flaggers, advance warning signage to alert motorists of detours or closures, and reduced speed zones would likely benefit traffic operations. Planned Action Ordinance 42 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area construction. Motorists may be able to adjust schedules and routes to avoid construction areas and minimize disruptions. o Develop traffic control plans for all affected roadways. Outline procedures for maintenance of traffic, develop detour plans, and identify potential reroutes_ o Place advance warning signage on roadways surrounding construction locations to minimize traffic disturbances. During construction: o Place advance warning signage on NE Sunset Boulevard and adjacent arterials to warn motorists of potential vehicles entering and exiting the roadway. Signage could include "Equipment on Road," "Truck Access," or "Slow Vehicles Crossing." o Use pilot cars as dictated by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). a Encourage carpooling among construction workers to reduce traffic volume to.and from the construction site. o Employ flaggers, as necessary, to direct traffic when vehicles or large equipment are entering or exiting the public road system to minimize risk of conflicts between trucks and passenger vehicles. o Maintain at least one travel lane at all times, if possible, .Use flaggers to manage alternating directions of traffic. If lane closures must occur, adequate signage for potential detours or possible delays should be posted. o Revisit traffic control plans as construction occurs. Revise traffic control plans to improve mobility or address safety issues if necessary. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Planned Action Ordinance 43 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document 15. Parks and Recreation Significant Impacts Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Operations Indirect 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. Although there is an increase in community park acreage there would continue to be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area. Deficiencies are less than for the Preferred .Alternative than Alternative 3 which has a similar population but less proposed park facilities. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelop ment does not indicate an LOS deficiency. 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 Indirect impacts are expected to mostly fall on the City's regional and communitywide parks and recreation facilities. For example, as the population increases in the Planned Action Study Area, there will be a growing deficiency of Neighborhood and Community Parks. Due to proximity, those demands would likely be displaced to nearby regional facilities such as Gene Coulon Park as well as in surrounding communities_ No parks and recreation facilities exist in this subarea and no construction impacts are anticipated. 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. Under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Sunset Terrace Subarea. Additionally, this park would be expanded from 0.5 acres to 2.65 acres and would have a vacation of Harrington Avenue NE similar to Alternative 3. This increases the acreage in neighborhood park land for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area. Additionally, a library would be constructed in the subarea. Facility deficiencies in this subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities. Planned Action Ordinance 44 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Cumulative Increased demands for park and Same as Planned Action Study recreation facilities and services Area generated by the forecast population growth under each of the alternatives would add to those created by general population growth throughout the Renton community_ Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under studied alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there would be an increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. With the application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea During construction, impacts adjacent to or in parks within the Planned Action Study Area, such as an increase in noise, dust, and access limitations, shall be mitigated as per a construction mitigation plan developed by Planned Action applicants and approved by.the City. Planned Action Applicants shall pay a Parks and Recreation impact fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified by t he Renton Municipal Code. The following four mitigation measures would help improve the availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area. The City is initiating a parks, recreation, open space and natural resources plan for completion in 2011. That plan could identify alternative IAS 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 Dark and when that Dark can be safely With the prevalence of public facilities in the Planned. Action Study Area as a whole, and the addition of a central park and 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 shall apply to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Planned Action Ordinance 45 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea accessed by pedestrians. The City's package of amendments also includes park impact fees. • The City and Renton School District could develop a joint -use agreement for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. Joint -use agreements between the City and Renton School District could also be used to, at least partially, address the 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. Draft EIS Figure US -2 shows properties in public use. o The City could purchase private property for parks and recreation use. An efficient means would be to consider properties in the vicinity of existing parks and recreation facilities or where additional population growth would be greatest. Draft EIS Figure 4-15-2 shows locations where future demand could be greater and where the City could focus:acquisition efforts. Nexus Renton ComprehensivePlan Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan 16. Public Services Significant Impacts Table 31. Public Services Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Police The Renton Police Department Same as Planned Action Study could experience an increase in Area calls for service related to construction site theft, vandalism, or trespassing relating to Planned Action Ordinance 46 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Fire and Emergency Medical Services Education Health Care Social Services Solid Waste Planned Action Study Area construction. Construction impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services could include increased calls for service related to inspection of construction sites and potential construction -related injuries. The McKnight Middle School expansion would occur similar to other alternatives. In addition, changes would occur at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and the reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Centel, would be part of a family village concept that would include recreation and housing. The expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to health care services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to social services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. Construction at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as part of the family village redevelopment, would require relocation of the Friendly Kitchen weekly meal program that meets at that site. The Friendly Kitchen program would either be relocated permanently as a part of the redevelopment or may be accommodated as part of the range of social services provided at the family village. Planned Action Alternatives would result in construction - related waste generation. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area No impact Same as Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing development would displace the existing on- site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on- site social service programs can be minimized or avoided. Same as Planned Action Study Area Planned Action Ordinance 47 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Library Operations Police Fire and Emergency Medical Services Education When the library is relocated, library services may be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches. Applying the Renton Police Department staffing per population standard to the anticipated population increase would result in a need for an estimated 8.6 to 4.3 additional police officers to address increase in service calls related to growth. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area would result in the need for an additionall.2 t01.3 firefighter full- time equivalents (}"TEs) compared to existing conditions . to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Population growth would result in an increase in approximately S26 to 567 students in the Renton School. District compared to existing.c.onditions. The district's planned opening of Honey Dew Elementary, as well as construction of additions to McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School, would accommodate this increase in student population. New students within the study area would include a higher than average number of students speaking English as a second language, increasing demands on the district's English Language Learners Program. Same as Planned Action Study Area Applying the Renton. Police Department standard to the anticipated population increase would account for 1.0 tolA of the approximately 8.6 to 4.3 additional police officers to address population growth study area. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area to the population growth of in this subarea would result in the need for less than 0.14 to 0.2 of the 1.2 tol.3 firefighter FTEs needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Population growth would result in approximately 60 to 107 additional students compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that this additional increment of students would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements, including opening Honey Dew Elementary, expansion of McKnight Middle School, and redeveloping the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center which would provide additional student capacity in addition to early education programs that currently exist on the site. Health Care Increase in study area population Based VMC's existing ratio of would increase the need for hospital beds to district hospital beds in the Valley population, the anticipated Medical Center (VMC) service population increase would result area by approximately 4.1 to 4.4 in a small increase of beds, based on the current ratio of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 hospital hospital beds to district service beds of the total assumed for the area population. Additional entire study area. _population growth may also Planned Action Ordinance 48 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Type of Impact Social Services Solid Waste Library Services Indirect and Cumulative Planned Action Study Area result in increased demand at VMC's nearby primary care and urgent care clinics. Planned Action Alternatives include major public investments, which could expand upon or enhance social services in the study area. Among the key components outside of Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is development of a family village in the forth Subarea. Solid waste generation is expected to increase by around 129,689 to 139,000 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A portion of this waste stream would be diverted to recyclables. Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 1,940 to 2,079 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions. All alternatives increase growth above existing conditions and would add to a citywide increase in demand for public services; however, the alternatives are accommodating an increment of growth already anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan at a citywide level, and planned growth to the year 2031 will be addressed in the City's 2014 Comprehensive Plan update.. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The subarea's new affordable housing development for seniors would include enriched senior services on site, including elder day -health for off-site patients in a 12,500 -square -foot space on the northeastern vacant RHA parcel. The increased population of affordable housing and, in particular, affordable senior housing would increase the demand for social services, including senior services accessible to the subarea. Additional community space at the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea. Solid waste generation from the subarea would increase by about 14,750 to 9,300 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling. Anticipated growth in the subarea would account for approximately 221.-397 square feet of library facilities to meet the growth in demand. Same as Planned Action Study Area Demand for public services will continue to increase in conjunction with population growth. With advanced planning and implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse Planned Action Ordinance 49 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document impacts related to police, fire/emergency medical, education, health care, social services, solid waste, or library services are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police During construction, security measures shall be implemented by developers to reduce potential criminal activity, including on-site security surveillance, lighting, and fencing to prevent public access. Such measures shall be detailed in a construction mitigation plan prepared by Planned Action Applicants and approved by the City. Planned Action applicants shall design street layouts, open space, and recreation areas to promote visibility for residents and police. Street and sidewalk lighting would discourage theft and vandalism, and enhance security. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Developers will construct all new buildings in compliance with the International Fire Code and Renton Development Regulations (RMC Title 4), including provision of emergency egress routes and installation of fire extinguishing and smoke detection systems. All new buildings will comply with accessibility standard for people with disabilities, per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Planned Action applicants shall pay a Fire Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Education During renovation of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, the Renton School District shall provide temporary transportation or take other equivalent measures to ensure accessibility of the early education program to area children who attend the program. Since the school district typically plans for a shorter -term horizon than the 20 years envisioned for the Planned Action, the district will continue to monitor student generation rates into the future and adjust its facility planning accordingly. The district will continue to implement existing plans to expand permanent student capacity at area schools. In addition, the district may utilize portable classrooms or shift attendance boundaries to address student Planned Action Ordinance 50 Police Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Education No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Health Care No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Social Services RHA's provision of community space that could be used for social services or community meeting space for community organizations would serve as mitigation. See the discussion under the Planned Action Study Area. RHA should maintain a community meeting space within or near the subarea during construction phase of Sunset Terrace redevelopment that allows for on-site social service programs to continue to meet within the subarea. Solid Waste Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area capacity issues that arise on a shorter term basis. The district will also continue monitoring growth in the number of English Language Learner students in the district, and plan additional capacity in that program to meet growing demands for that service, particularly in schools with high percentages of English Language Learners, such as Highlands Elementary. The school district imposes a school impact fee for new residential construction. This funding source can be used to help provide expanded school facilities needed to serve the growth anticipated under all alternatives (RMC 4-1-160). Health Care There are no mitigation measures needed or proposed for health care due to the negligible change in the number of beds. Social Services The City's planned improvements to the streetscape and transit facilities that make walking, bicycling, and taking transit more viable modes of transportation would improve accessibility of social services located outside the Planned Action Study Area to area residents. RHA, Renton School District, and the City should work together to relocate the Friendiy Kitchen community feeding program when the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center campus, the current site of this program, is redeveloped as part of a family village. Relocation should occur at an accessible location nearby to maintain service to the existing community that relies upon the Friendly Kitchen services. If possible, Renton School:, District and RHA should incorporate space for the continuation of the Friendly Kitchen Program within the family village. RHA and the City should consider developing a community center facility as part of Sunset Terrace redevelopment or the family village development or at another location in the Planned Action Study Area. The center would provide an accessible on-site space for a comprehensive range of social services for residents in the Planned Action Study Area, focused on alleviating poverty, and addressing the needs of some of the more predominant demographic groups found within the Planned Action Study Area—seniors, individuals living with disabilities, those speaking English as a Second Language, and youth. Solid Waste The City shall require development applicants to consider recvcling and reuse of building materials Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea ?tanned Action Ordinance 51 Exhibit B! Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea when redeveloping sites, and as part of their application explain what measures are included. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible recycling and reuse measures. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement RMC Title IV Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 17, Utilities Significant Impacts Table 33. Utilities Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Where new construction occurs, Same as Planned Action Study it is anticipated that existing Area telecommunication lines would be removed, replaced, or abandoned in place. Redevelopment would require coordination with service providers regarding the location of proposed structures, utilities, and site grading. To accommodate the required demand and capacity for water and sewer services for new development and redevelopment in the study area, existing water and sanitary sewer lines would be abandoned in place or removed and replaced with new and larger lines. New and larger water and sewer mains would be installed in existing and/or future dedicated public rights-of-way or within dedicated utility easements to the City, and would connect with the existing Planned Action Ordinance 52 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Telecommunications Water 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. Increased capacity requirements with increased levels of population and commercial activity in each of the alternatives could require new fiber within the Planned Action Study Area and coordination with telecommunication providers as development occurs should be performed so that appropriate facilities can be planned. The increase in the average daily demand (ADD) is projected to be 0.56 to 0.59 million gallons per day within the Planned Action Study Area. The growth projected would increase the storage requirements for the Highlands 435 and 565 pressure zones and further increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone. In addition, the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire -flow requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The capacity of the existing water distribution system to meet these higher fire flows is inadequate if system improvements are not constructed. Same as Planned Action Study Area The increase in ADD for this subarea is 0.05 to 0.09 million gallons per day. The increase in the peak daily demand (PDD) for this subarea is 0.09 to 0.26 million gallons per day. The primary significant impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be related increased fire -flow requirements. These increased fire flow requirements are substantial and cannot be met by the existing distribution system serving the subarea. Water system pressure provided by the 435 pressure zone within the subarea is not adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems. New water mains extended from the higher - pressure 565 pressure zone system to service the subarea would need to be phased to accommodate growth. Planned Actiun Ordinance 53 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Wastewater Indirect and Cumulative The increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.57 to 0.59 million gallons per day. This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Action Study Area but it could increase surcharging that is currently experienced and observed within the Planned Action Study Area. 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_ Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The increase in wastewater flow in this subarea is 0.05 to 0.10 million gallons per day. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within the subarea. Same as Planned Action Study Area All studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and telecommunication services. Increased growth in the Planned Action Study Area has the potential to exacerbate existing water and wastewater system deficiencies. However, with application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Water To mitigate the current and projected water storage deficit in the pressure zones that serve the study area, the City completed the construction of the 4.2 -million -gallon Hazen Reservoir in the Highlands 565 pressure zone in March 2009. The City also completed a water distribution storage feasibility study to develop conceptual options and planning level cost estimates for expanding the storage capacity at two existing City -owned sites: the Highlands Reservoirs site and the Mt Olivet Tank site Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire -flow requirements would require the new 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12 -inch -diameter main for development Planned Action Ordinance 54 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area (HDR, Inc. 2009). Financial strategies for the planning, design, and construction of the storage -capacity expansion have not been determined at this time. To mitigate the fire -flow requirements for the proposed level of development and redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Area, larger diameter (12 -inch) piping is required throughout the Planned Action Study Area to convey the higher fire -flow requirements. The new water mains will be looped for reliability and redundancy of service, as required by City policies and water design standards. The larger mains will be installed within the dedicated right-of-way in a north -to - south and east -to -west grid -style water system. Additional mains within the development sites will also be required to provide water to hydrants and water meters, and should be looped within the development site around buildings. To provide the water pressure requirements for multistory buildings and to support the pressure requirements for fire sprinkler systems, the new water mains will be connected to the higher -pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. The options to address fire flow within the Planned Action Study Area are further described below. The Highlands 565 pressure zone typically has enough pressure to meet the pressure needs for fire -flow requirements for the proposed development and redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area, but is limited in providing the fire -flaw rate due to the size of the existing water mains that are generally smaller than 12 inches in diameter. The Highlands 435 pressure zone operates at lower pressures and has smaller -diameter pipes in this area of the pressure zone and, therefore, cannot meet both the pressure requirements and the fire -flow capacity (flow) requirements. The options developed to remedy fire -flow and pressure inadequacies are shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 and summarized below. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided in Attachment 2.Wastewater Collection The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City's Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided Attachment 2. A 12 -inch -diameter pipeline loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 was developed to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the existing Highlands 435 Pressure zone. This 12Anch-diameter loop was also extended north of NE 12th Street in the existing Highlands 565 pressure zone to improve the conveyance capacity throughout _ Planned Action Ordinance 55 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea the Planned Action Study Area. This 12 -inch - diameter loop improvement builds on the City's recent extension of the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the Highlands 435 pressure zone to support fire -flow requirements for the Harrington Square Development. In addition to the 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1, additional piping improvements for each development served from the 12 -inch -diameter loop are expected to be required to provide sufficient Fire flow and pressure throughout each development The sizing and layout of this additional piping will depend on the development layout, but will require that the development piping be looped around buildings and be sufficient in size to maintain the fire - flow requirements of the development. Wastewater Collection The local wastewater collection system n the Planned Action Study Area is scheduled for replacement based on age and condition as noted in the City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan (City of Renton 2009b). The local sewers have reached the end of their useful life and have been identified as high priority replacements due to leaks and current surcharging. However, the increased wastewater load with the development in the Planned Action Study Area could require that the local sewers be replaced with larger diameter pipe to provide sufficient capacity to the wastewater interceptors that serve the Planned Action Study Area. The locations where lines would be improved are identified in Draft EIS Section 4.17. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement RMC Title IV Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards Advisory Notes The EIS identified potentially applicable federal, state, and local laws and rules that apply to Planned Actions and that can serve to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. It is assumed that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be applied. The primary set of applicable local Planned Action ordinance 56 Exhibit & Ktigation Document regulations is the Renton M«nicipal Code. A list of specific requirements included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. Planned Action Ordinance 57 Exhibit a; Mitigation Document Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during Redevelopment of the Edmonds - Glenwood Lot, Harrington Lot, and Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex in Renton, Washington Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will be treated with dignity and respect. A. If any City of Renton employee or any of the contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has made an unanticipated discovery of human skeletal remains or cultural resources, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law_ The City of Renton project manager will be contacted. B. The City of Renton project manager or the City of Renton representative will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery. At a minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30) feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not he permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriff's office, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains are forensic or non -forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non -forensic, the King County Coroner will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. DAHP will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are [Native American or Non -Native American_ DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains. E. .If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes Planned Action Ordinance 58 Exhibit 8: Mitigation Document to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. CONTACT INFORMATION Erika Conkling, 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 SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Planned Action Ordinance 59 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing Planned Action Ordinance 60 Exhibit 6: Mitigation Document Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire -flow requirements would require the new 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12 -inch -diameter main for development adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided below. Overview Renton fire and building codes mandate minimum fire flows, durations, and pressure prior to occupancy of new structures. In the case of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea these mandated flows dictate substantial upgrades to the water distribution system. When the fire flow required for a new development exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), the City also requires that the mains providing that fire flow be looped. Looped water mains provide more reliability and higher pressures under fire -flow conditions. City regulations also require installation of fire hydrants along all arterials such as NE Sunset Boulevard. Taken together these code requirements would lead to a series of new water mains connected to the 565 pressure zone and extended to the various redevelopment projects within the subarea. It is not possible to predict the precise timing and sequencing of these redevelopment projects. The following paragraphs illustrate one scenario of water main sequencing that could meet fire -flow requirements. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Edmonds -Glenwood redevelopment project consists of townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Fire -flow requirements for this project are expected to be in the range of 2,500 gpm. The existing water system in Glenwood Avenue NE cannot provide that amount of fire flow. A new 12 -inch -diameter water main would be required to be extended from Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street in the 565 pressure zone, south along Harrington Avenue NE, and continuing along Glenwood Avenue NE past and through the project site, about 800 feet of new pipe (Segment A on Figure 3.17-1). New Library A new library is proposed in the northeast quadrant of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE If the fire -flow requirements for the new library are about 2,500 gpm or less, then the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard could meet that requirement. Planned Action ordinance 61 Exhibit 8: Mitigation Document New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library A new mixed-use community service/retail/residential structure is proposed adjacent to the new library between NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Sunset Lane NE. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of additional structure size and exposure (to the library) would mandate fire flows for this building in excess of 2,500 gpm. In that case, a looped system of mains from the 565 pressure zone would be required. This could be achieved by extending new mains from the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard northwesterly on both Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street to Sunset Lane NE. The loop could then be connected by installing a new 12 -inch - diameter main in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 10th Street. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could then be abandoned in place. This new loop would be about 700 feet in total length (Segment B on Figure 3.17-1). RHA's Piha Site Fire flows required for RHA's Piha site development have not been established. 'If the flow requirement is 2,500 gpm or less, then it could be met by extending a new 12 -inch diameter main in NE 10th Street past the site to Harrington Avenue NE. The extension could either be from NE Sunset Boulevard, if the project precedes the mixed use development adjacent to the library, or it could be from Sunset Lane NE, if the project occurs after the mixed use development adjacent to the library. The length of pipe required from NE Sunset Boulevard would be about 500 feet; from Sunset Lane NE it would be about 350 feet. (Segment C on Figure 3.17-1) It is possible that required fire flows for RHA's Piha site would exceed 2,500 gpm. In that situation a looped main system would be necessary. If RHA's Piha site development precedes construction of Sunset Terrace redevelopment, looping could he achieved by extending a new main north on Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). If Piha site development follows Sunset Terrace redevelopment, looping could be achieved by simply connecting the Piha main extension in NE 10th Street (Segment C) with Segment E at the.intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street. Sunset Terrace Redevelopment It is reasonable to assume that the fire flows required for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would exceed 2,500 gpm, mandating installation of a looped system. In addition, Sunset Terrace abuts NE Sunset Boulevard, triggering the requirement to install hydrants every 400 feet along that arterial. It may be possible to phase the Sunset Terrace redevelopment in a manner that would allow early elements of the redevelopment to be constructed without looping the water mains (see Edmonds - Glenwood Phase 1, above). In any case, all mains serving the redevelopment would be extended from the 565 pressure zone. Initially, a new water main would be installed in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (about 750 feet). This presumes that the new main in Harrington Avenue NE discussed in the Mixed -Use Building section, above, has been installed. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could be abandoned in place (Segment D on Figure 3.17-1). Looping the system could be achieved by extending the main from the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE along the newly aligned NE 10th Street to Harrington Avenue NE (about 250 feet) (Segment E on Figure 3.17-1). This presumes that the water main extension in NE 10th Street to serve RHA's Piha site has already be installed. Planned Action Ordinance 62 Exhibit B: Mitigation Document There are two ways to install the required fire hydrants along NE Sunset Boulevard, One option would be to extend the 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NF along the Sunset Terrace frontage (about $00 feet). This would be the most expensive option. Another option would be to extend fire hydrant leads southwesterly through the Sunset Terrace project from Sunset Lane NE to NE Sunset Boulevard at the appropriate intervals (Segments F on Figure 3.17-1). This would be the least expensive option for two reasons. First, the pipes would not be installed in a street avoiding significant restoration costs. Second, the pipes could be smaller because they would be single purpose and not part of the City's transmission/distribution system. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2 Fire -flow requirements for the Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2 project are expected to be about 4,000 gpm, triggering the requirement to loop the water system_ There are two options to meet this looping requirement: north or south. The north option would involve extending the 12 -inch -diameter main from Phase 1 westerly through the site to Edmonds Avenue NE. From there, the main would be extended north in Edmonds Avenue NE to NE 12th Street, then east in NE 12th Street to Harrington Avenue NE, a distance of more than 1,500 feet (Segment G on Figure 3.17-1). The south option would begin in the same manner by extending the Phase 1 main through the project site. Looping would be achieved by installing two new mains. One would extend from Sunset Lane NE north in Glenwood Avenue NE to the Phase 1 pipe. The other would extend northwesterly in easements adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE from the northern -most fire hydrant lead installed for the Sunset Terrace project through the Phase 2 site_ (A more expensive option would be to install this same section of pipe in the rights-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard and Fdmonds Avenue NE.) These loops would also comprise more than 1,500 feet of new pipe (Segment H on figure 3.17-1). Water Main Costs The cost of installation for new water mains is driven by a number of factors. Water mains installed in roads are more expensive than water mains installed within project or open space areas, because of the cost savings of avoiding conflicting utilities and restoring the road surface. New water main costs are also affected by whether they are stand-alone or part of a suite of infrastructure improvements. If the project is only installing a new water main, then all of the excavation, bedding, installation, and other costs are borne by that project. If the project involves installation of the other underground utilities such as sewers or storm sewers, the costs common to the project can be spread across each utility facility being installed. The cost of water mains is also affected by the project sponsor. If the project is being constructed by a private developer, new water mains are less expensive. If the project is sponsored by a government agency, numerous statutes make new water main projects more expensive. The City's recent experience with stand-alone water main projects in a major arterial indicate costs per foot of about $200 to $2S0. Applying these costs to the water main improvement described above would indicate costs in the range of $1 to 1.2 million. The improvements would be implemented with City and developer funding. Planned Action Ordinance 63 Exhibit D- Mitigation Document Wastewater Collection Overview The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City's Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided below. Detailed Discussion Mitigation issues related to wastewater fall into three broad categories: upsizing, rehabilitation, and relocation. Wastewater flows [forecast for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea] indicate that some existing sewer pipes must be replaced with larger pipes. One of those pipes is in Harrington Avenue NE. This sewer pipe would be replaced by the City as part of the overall Sunset Terrace redevelopment to accommodate forecast flows. Manholes along the Harrington alignment would be carefully designed and located to avoid interference with the planned park. The collection sewers in Sunset Lane NE are at or near the end of their design life. The condition of these sewers would be assessed to determine if they can be rehabilitated in place or if new pipes would need to he installed. The redevelopment concept proposes narrowing and shifting the alignment of Sunset Lane NE. If this action leaves the existing sewers too close to new structures, then the City would require that a new sewer main be installed within the new right-of-way of Sunset Lane NE. Planned Action Ordinance 64 Exhibit B! Mitigation DoCument LEGEND F1,0—Pfwse E B. Am 6 FIG URE 3.17-1 .3 Potential Subarea Fireilow Phasing 0 100 200 300 400 ExlaCng VYater Pipes Feet Planned Action Ordinance 65 Exhibit 9: Mitigation Document ICF Figure Planned Action Study Area IM7 SRN AT; QNt,l Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS Record of Decision Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Introduction................................................................................... ........... Background............................................................................... Summary of Alternatives Considered in Reaching Decision.._. ............................................................. 2 PublicInvolvement........................................................................................................................... ..12 Coordination with Other Agencies.......................................................................................................13 FinalFIS Comments..............................................................................................................................14 Clarifications and Corrections...............................................................................................................14 Attachments................................................................................ ..15 Introduction The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directs the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ rules require agencies to prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) after preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) (Title 40 of the Code of the Federal Register part 1505.2). The purpose of a ROD is to explain why the agency has taken a particular course of action. A ROD must include the following elements: • An explanation of decision on a proposed action; • Factors considered in making a decision; • Alternatives considered and the environmentally preferred alternative; • Adopted mitigation measures or reasons why mitigation measures were not adopted; and • A monitoring and enforcement program for adopted mitigation measures. This ROD addresses the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and its relationship to neighborhood growth and revitalization. Growth in the broader planning study area is not part of the proposal addressed in the ROD, and could occur independent of the Sunset Terrace proposal. Background The City of Renton (City) is the Responsible Entity and lead agency for NEPA purposes. In accordance with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA. Additionally, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action for the Sunset area which has had environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C). Record of Decision i The City has performed joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in cooperation with the Recipient, the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Accordingly, the City prepared a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze potential impacts of redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. Constructed in 1959, Sunset Terrace is the oldest multifamily public housing complex directly managed by RHA. It contains 100 dwelling units. The units, facilities, and infrastructure are antiquated and the project is dilapidated. The units are contained within 27 buildings, which are 50 - year -old, two-story structures, located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. RHA owns additional vacant and residential land (approximately 3 acres with two dwelling units) along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and the authority proposes to purchase additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace, along Harrington Avenue NE (which contains about eight dwellings). RHA plans to incorporate these additional properties into the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services. The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE onthe north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. There are three sites where land swaps or replacement housing for Sunset Terrace could occur located outside these boundaries, at the following locations: • the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street (Assessor Parcel Number [APN]: 7227802040); • vacant lots on Kirkland Avenue between NE 15th and NE 16th streets (APNs: 7227800200, 7227800185 and 7227800190.; and • Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE (APN: 7227801781) See Attachment A-1 for a study area map showing the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and land swap/replacement sites. The Sunset Terrace public housing community and the three land swap/replacement sites are part of the Sunset Area Community neighborhood.; the neighborhood is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. See Attachment A-2 for a neighborhood map. Summary of Alternatives Considered in Reaching Decision The proposal is to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and promote associated neighborhood growth and revitalization. RHA is the proponent of the proposal's primary development action, redevelopment of the existing Sunset Terrace public housing community; however, RHA would likely redevelop the property in partnership with other public and private non-profit and for-profit developers and agencies. The City is 1) responsible for public service and infrastructure improvements for Sunset Terrace and the broader Sunset Area Community neighborhood, 2) is the agency responsible for local permitting and environmental review, and 3) is the agency that would regulate public and private neighborhood redevelopment in accordance with its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Record of Decision I May 2011 The City analyzed three alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) as part of the Draft EIS to determine its Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is evaluated in the Final EIS. All four alternatives are described below. Alternative 1 (No Action). RHA would develop affordable housing on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. Very limited public investment would be implemented by the City, resulting in lesser redevelopment across the Planned Action Study Area. A Planned Action would not be designated. The No Action Alternative is required to 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 of dwellings developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Preferred Alternative. This alternative provides a moderate number of dwellings in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea developed in a mixed -income, mixed-use style oriented around a larger park space and loop road, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services leading to similar, slightly less neighborhood growth as Alternative 3, and adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. To determine future growth scenarios for the next 20 years, a land capacity analysis was prepared. The alternatives produce different future growth estimates. Each would affect different amounts of property. • Alternative 1 assumes that about 16% (35 acres) of the 213 net acres of Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop, including two mostly vacant sites in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Alternative 2 assumes that about 32% (68 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop, including all of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Alternative 3 assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop, including all of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. ip The Preferred Alternative assumes that approximately 40% (84 acres) of the Planned Action Study Area parcels would infill or redevelop, including all of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and some nearby land swap/replacement sites. The number of dwelling units and jobs under each alternative is compared in Table 1. Alternative 1 provides the least growth and Alternative 3 the most growth, with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative in the middle. Record of Decision I May 2011 Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity—Net Additional Growth above Existing --2030 1 The EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. 2 The lower range represents proposed concepts on RHA's two vacant sites based on funding applications. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 3 The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA's two vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea. 4 Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square. The first building was constructed in Summer 2010, and the other is under construction to be completed in spring/summer 2011. I Applies an average household size of 2.31, an average of two census tracts 252 and 254. 6 Includes retail, service, and education jobs. 7 The lower figure shown is based on a commercial employment rate of 400 square feet per employee for retail and service jobs. If applying a commercial employment rate of 250 square feet per employee, the employment would equal the upper range. This latter figure is more similar to Renton Transportation Zone assumptions. 6 The lower figure assumes less commercial/service space; whereas, the higher includes more commercial/service space. The Final EIS studies the lower number of jobs (38 fewer) in the technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models though this is considered a negligible difference from the upper range (less than 2%) and is captured in the range of the EIS analysis for all alternatives. Record of Decision May 2011 Dwelling Preferred Subarea Units/Jobs Alternative 11 Alternative 21 Alternative 33 Alternative Potential. Sunset Dwelling units 168-1.752 310 479 266 Terrace Jobs 493 164 182 79-117$ Redevelopment Other Subareas in Neighborhood Sunset Mixed Use Dwelling units 1,109 1,052 1,509 1,481 Jobs 414-652 1,728 2,875 2,802 Central, North and Dwelling units 206 296 518 592 South jobs 152-213 273 273 273 Total Study Area Dwelling units4 1,483- 1,65$ 2,506 2,339 Net Growth 1,490 Populations 3,430-3,442 3,830 5,789 5,403 Employment 251,740 844,351 1,310,113 1,247,444 - SF 1,259,9446 jobs 611-9147 2,165 3,330 3,154-3,1926 1 The EIS technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models studied two more net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternatives 1 and 3, and a slightly different mix of dwellings and jobs in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea under Alternative 2 (12 more dwellings and 38 fewer jobs). These differences are negligible and represent a less than 2% difference across the Planned Action Study Area. 2 The lower range represents proposed concepts on RHA's two vacant sites based on funding applications. The upper range represents the results of a land capacity analysis. 3 The estimate is based on a 90%/10% housing/employment split between residential and service uses; the housing/employment share based on example proposed developments prepared for RHA's two vacant sites in the Sunset Terrace subarea. 4 Includes 217 dwellings and approximately 8 jobs associated with Harrington Square. The first building was constructed in Summer 2010, and the other is under construction to be completed in spring/summer 2011. I Applies an average household size of 2.31, an average of two census tracts 252 and 254. 6 Includes retail, service, and education jobs. 7 The lower figure shown is based on a commercial employment rate of 400 square feet per employee for retail and service jobs. If applying a commercial employment rate of 250 square feet per employee, the employment would equal the upper range. This latter figure is more similar to Renton Transportation Zone assumptions. 6 The lower figure assumes less commercial/service space; whereas, the higher includes more commercial/service space. The Final EIS studies the lower number of jobs (38 fewer) in the technical analysis for transportation, water, and sewer models though this is considered a negligible difference from the upper range (less than 2%) and is captured in the range of the EIS analysis for all alternatives. Record of Decision May 2011 Each alternative is qualitatively described in more detail below. Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 1 would continue the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications, with limited public investment in redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and in civic and infrastructure improvements in the broader area. In the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, RHA would develop affordable housing and senior housing with supporting elder day health services on two vacant properties, but it would not redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing property. With a low level of public investment, private investment in businesses and housing would be limited and would occur incrementally at scattered locations in the Planned Action Study Area. Land use form would largely continue to consist of single -use residential and single -use commercial developments with an occasional mix of uses. The development pattern would begin to transition incrementally from its current suburban pattern to a village center, but, this transition would occur slowly over time due to the relatively low level of investment in public housing redevelopment and improvements. A Planned Action would not be designated and each proposed development would be subject to individual environmental review. Some pedestrian- and transit -oriented development would occur, but it would be the exception rather than the rule, because new development would represent a small portion of the overall Planned Action Study Area. More piecemeal development could preclude opportunities for leveraging and combining strategies among individual projects. The City would not make major infrastructure improvements. NE Sunset Boulevard would continue to emphasize vehicular mobility with less attention on pedestrian and transit facilities and limited aesthetic appeal (e.g., sparse landscaping). No changes to non -motorized facilities or transit are expected except for those non -motorized improvements identified in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan adopted in May 2009. Drainage systems would continue as presently configured; any improvements would be localized, incremental, and in compliance with the City's existing stormwater regulations. The current Highlands Library would be relocated from the Central Subarea to another location in the Planned Action Study Area; since a new site had not been selected as of the Draft EIS in December 2010, this alternative assumes a new community services building in the study area of sufficient size to house a library or other social services. Parks and recreation services would largely continue as they exist today. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 provides for a moderate level of mixed -income housing and mixed uses in the Planned Action Study Area, while continuing the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community according to a master plan on properties it currently owns; the redevelopment would allow for new public, affordable and market - rate housing accommodating a mixed -income community. All 100 existing public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio; some would occur on the current Sunset Terrace public housing property and some elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; a duplex would be replaced with affordable townhouse units. An estimated 310 new dwellings would be developed in the Potential Record of Decision I May 2011 Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, with more moderate -density flats and townhomes at a combined density of 40 units per acre, approximately. New public amenities would include civic and community facilities, which may include a single -use library building with a plaza and/or a community services center/office building, as well as ground -floor retail as required by zoning, and a proposed 0.89 -acre park. Senior housing on RHA's Piha site would include supportive elder day health services. Infrastructure and public services would be improved in a targeted manner in the Planned Action Study Area. Stand-alone residential uses and local -serving commercial development would continue but would he interspersed with mixed-use development at identified nodes throughout the Planned Action Study Area such as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and portions of NE Sunset Boulevard. Densities of new development would occur at moderate urban levels that are pedestrian- and transit -oriented. The environmental review process for development would be streamlined under a Planned Action Ordinance. NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to meet the intent of the City Complete Streets standards (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-6-060). Improvements would largely occur within the current right-of-way and would allow for signal improvements, expanded sidewalks, greater landscaping, new transit shelters and street furniture, pedestrian- and street -level lighting, a bike lane/multi- purpose trail in one direction, consolidated driveways, and a center median with left -turn vehicle storage. No on -street business parking would be available (consistent with current conditions). Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced through coordination between the Renton School District and the City such as through a joint -use agreement. Possible locations for enhancement include a reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and North Highlands Park and repurposed public properties or acquired private properties in areas where demand for recreation is anticipated to be higher. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 provides for a high level of growth in the broader area, and also maintains the current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning. RHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community into a mixed -income, mixed-use development according to a master plan. It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned or purchased by RHA, up to 479 additional new units could be created, some of which would be public, affordable, and/or market rate, resulting in a density of approximately 52 units per acre. The existing 100 public housing units would be replaced at a 1 -to -1 ratio. Replacement of the public housing units would occur on the current public housing site and elsewhere in the Planned Action Study Area; the duplex units located adjacent to Sunset Terrace would be replaced with townhouse units, some affordable and some market -rate. Public amenities would be integrated with the residential development and could include the following: a community gathering space in a vacated Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE); a new recreation/community center and senior center; a new public library in a mixed-use building; a new park and open space; retail shopping and commercial space; and/or green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a "third place." Record of Decision 6 May 2011 This alternative also includes major public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation, drainage, sewer, water, cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale, and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 2 would designate the study area as a Planned Action Ordinance. A "family village" in the 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 he integrated in design of streets, parks, and new development. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. For example, the family village concept would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K-12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. 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. Preferred Alternative An environmentally preferable alternative that best meets NEPA's goals to reduce impacts on natural and cultural features is required to be identified, no later than in the Final EIS. Designation of a preferred alternative is optional under SEPA. The City and RHA have identified an environmentally preferred alternative within the range of the Draft EIS Alternatives 1 through 3. The Preferred Alternative provides for: • mixed-use growth and transit and nonmotorized transportation improvements that result in regionally beneficial air quality and energy effects, • a drainage master plan that promotes green infrastructure and improves water quality, • expansion of parks and recreation facilities, and • greater housing and job opportunities. Key features are identified below. Record of Decision May 2011 Similar to Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative includes redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, as well as major public investment in Planned Action Study Area transportation systems; drainage, sewer, and water systems; and cultural, educational, and parks and recreation facilities. This public investment in Sunset Terrace and neighborhood infrastructure and services would catalyze private property reinvestment at a greater scale, and realize the existing permitted zoning uses and density, which would create greater opportunities for market -rate and affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and for local and regional shopping opportunities. Land use patterns would be of an urban intensity focused along the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and would allow for vertical and horizontal mixed uses. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, environmental review of development would be streamlined with a Planned Action Ordinance. BHA would redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of redevelopment of the entire Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. It would be redeveloped into a mixed -income, mixed-use development according to a master plan, featuring a "central" park of about 2.65 acres and a loop road. With a larger park space, the density of the Sunset Terrace development would be lower than Alternatives 2 and 3 at 33 units per acre, though some density would shift outside the subarea to other portions of the Planned Action Study Area. 1 Public amenities would be integrated with the mixed-use development and could contain the following: a new park space, including over a segment of Harrington Avenue NE (at Sunset Lane NE) to be vacated; a reconfigured Sunset Lane NE along the library that could be used as a plaza; an elder day health center; a new public library in a single -purpose building; retail shopping and commercial space; and green infrastructure. The civic and recreation spaces could act as a "third place." See Attachment B for the Preferred Alternative in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. See Attachment B for the Sunset Terrace conceptual plan as well as variations considered similar to the preferred conceptual plan. The Preferred Alternative provides for growth in the Planned Action Study Area similar to but less than Alternative 3, while maintaining current City Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning classifications. New growth in the neighborhood would be about 7% less than under Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 3, a family village in the North Subarea would provide an opportunity for integrated reinvestment in housing, education, recreation, and supportive services designed to promote a healthy, walkable, and neighborhood -friendly community. NE Sunset Boulevard would be transformed, similar to under Alternative 3, to improve all forms of mobility and to create an inviting corridor through urban design amenities. Improvements to traffic operations at intersections would prioritize transit vehicles; there would also be a planted median with left -turn lanes at intersections and two high-volume, mid -block driveway locations. Improved sidewalks and crosswalks, together with streetscape elements such as street trees, transit shelters, street furniture, public art, and lighting, would promote walkability. A multiuse trail along the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard would promote nonmotorized transportation. In addition to the multiuse trail on the west side of NE Sunset Boulevard, an eastbound bike lane would run from Edmonds Avenue NE up the hill to the City's bike route on NE 10th Street. 1 In particular, some potential sites for replacement housing include Sunset Court Park (as the park space would be relocated at Sunset Terrace), RHA -awned property along Kirkland Avenue NE, and the existing library site once it is relocated though another possible use for the library site would be for agency use (e.g., offices, maintenance). Record of Decision 8 May 2011 Natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the design of streets, parks, and new development, similar to Alternative 3. Several residential streets (designated as green connections) in the neighborhood would be transformed to improve pedestrian mobility, mitigate stormwater impacts (both for water quality and flow reduction), and create an inviting corridor to enhance the neighborhood. In addition to the green connections projects, the City would implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Active and passive recreation opportunities would be retained and enhanced. This would include the 2.65 -acre central park at Sunset Terrace. Due to the relocation and consolidation of Sunset Court Park at Sunset Terrace as well as the proposed vacation of a portion of Harrington Avenue NE, the central park space is enlarged compared to other alternatives to better meet the needs of the increased population of the neighborhood; with relocation, Sunset Court Park property would then redevelop with housing units. Additionally, the family village would allow for blending of education services outside the conventional K-12 spectrum such as early childhood education, the North Highlands Park, and RHA senior housing. Joint -use agreements could be forged between the City and the Renton School District to allow for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. When public properties are no longer needed for present uses, they could be repurposed for other public purposes, such as parks and recreation. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives The latter two alternatives - Alternative 3 and the similar Preferred Alternative - represent the higher growth levels studied in the EIS and differ by about 7%; these two alternatives are considered for the purposes of the ROD and associated mitigation document (Attachment C) to be the "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives." The mitigation document in Attachment C is based on the range of growth considered in the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives. Table 1. Summary of Land Capacity— Selected Sunset Area Alternatives Net New Growth Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Neighbor Sunset Neighbor- ,"Sunset.;` Dwelling [snits/Jobs hood rrace hood terrace Dwelling units 2,506 479 2,339 2f6a. Population 5,789 .:AJ06 06 5,403 Employment SF 1,310,113 S9 EJOI} 1,247,444- 38,100 1,259,944 Jobs 3,330 182 3,154-3,192 i17 a Does not include approximately 90-100 units to be developed on land swap/housing replacement sites. The purpose of identifying two "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives" is to define a range of acceptable growth and design considering the conceptual nature of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans as well as the 20 -year time horizon of the broader neighborhood planned action. The Preferred Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 with slightly lower growth and a reconfiguration of park space and road network; otherwise the two alternatives share greater public investment and associated beneficial impacts. The two alternatives are similar in terms of potential beneficial and adverse impacts and required mitigation measures. Record of Decision May 2011 Each is described in terms of their beneficial impacts below. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative is considered the environmentally preferred alternative, best meeting NEPA's goals to reduce impacts on natural and cultural features. The Preferred Alternative provides for: • mixed-use growth and transit and nonmotorized transportation improvements that result in regionally beneficial air quality and energy effects, • a drainage master plan that promotes green infrastructure and improves water duality, • expansion of parks and recreation facilities, and • greater housing and job opportunities. Elements of the Preferred Alternative implement the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy developed by neighbors and businesses. The Preferred Alternative would enhance the Sunset Area Planned Action Study Area as a destination by creating a multi -modal NE Sunset Boulevard with landscaping, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities; enhancing neighborhood streets to serve as green connections for improved pedestrian environments as well as water quality; and redeveloping Sunset Terrace as a mixed use, mixed income development with attractive features for the broader Highlands community, including a relocated and larger library at Harrington Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard, a "central park," and public plaza. Public investments described above are intended to spur private reinvestment in the neighborhood that is integrated and managed according to City standards for design and environmental quality. The Preferred Alternative includes a range of housing styles - single family, townhomes, and flats - that would meet the needs of a range households. Housing would include a mix of public, affordable, and/or market rate units. Sunset Terrace redevelopment as well as the family village will be models and catalysts for private investment in housing at all income levels to serve a diverse population. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 closely resembles the Preferred Alternative in most respects - mixed use growth, multi -modal transportation investments, green infrastructure, and greater housing and job opportunities. Alternative 3 also produces regionally beneficial air quality and energy effects. The primary difference lies with the configuration of open space and loop -road system that disperses density differently at Sunset Terrace and neighboring sites. In order to achieve the mitigation measures for parks and recreation, more park and recreation space would be required off-site whereas the park and recreation features of the Preferred Alternative are visually conceptualized and proposed on-site at Sunset Terrace. Findings Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative have similar adverse and beneficial impacts and equivalent mitigation measures identified in Attachment C. The City of Renton finds by this environmental ROD, after considering the effects of the studied alternatives, and considering the written and oral comments offered by agencies and the public, that Record of Decision 10 May 2011 the requirements of NEPA have been satisfied, as noted herein, for redevelopment, services, and roadway and utility infrastructure within Sunset Terrace, the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, and the Planned Action Study Area. Mitigation measures incorporated in Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, and additional consultation and mitigation documented in this ROD, represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse environmental effects and would reduce effects to acceptable levels. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS are contained in Attachment C. No development applications have been submitted for Sunset Terrace at this time; the Preferred Alternative for Sunset Terrace is still conceptual and is undergoing more detailed planning and engineering. The City of Renton, as the local land use authority, will incorporate the mitigation measures identified herein into any approvals for subsequent development applications. As planning progresses from conceptual to more detailed building and construction plans, there may be minor variations from the initial concepts—including land uses, building footprints, circulation layouts, and other features. For example, Attachment B identifies minor variants of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans that are similar to the Preferred Alternative and within the range of Planned Action Alternatives. Future refined plans will be considered to be consistent with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 provided the features are in the range of the two alternatives and associated environmental analysis. The environmental decision is based on the conclusions of the EIS, and considerations of federal, state and City policies and RHA redevelopment goals. Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize Harm The Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 have been designed to be consistent with the Community Investment Strategy developed by neighbors and businesses, as well as to implement other goals and objectives of the proposal. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives will generate impacts to various elements of the built and natural environments. With the application of City -adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, and application of other federal and state requirements, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.3, this decision to proceed with Sunset Terrace and actions in the broader area will be implemented and mitigation measures imposed through appropriate conditions in any land use or related permits or approvals issued by the City of Renton and through conditions of federal funding. Significant impacts and associated mitigation measures identified in the EIS are contained in Attachment C. Monitoring: The City shall monitor mitigation measures in Attachment C through application of the measures to development permits and projects. This ROD shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Record of Decision 11 May 2011 Public Involvement This ROD completes the City's planning and environmental review process for NEPA purposes. This section describes the steps followed by the City to obtain public input and shape the environmental review process. A public participation plan was developed in August 2010 during initiation of the EIS process, and guided public outreach efforts for this environmental review process, using proven techniques from past City and RHA outreach efforts. As part of the EIS process, the proposed EIS alternatives including conceptual plans for Sunset Terrace, NE Sunset Boulevard, and other features were presented to the public at a scoping meeting held on September 1, 2010. This scoping meeting was advertised via distribution of 3,700 postcards, posters, and notices to RHA residents, and publication in the newspaper. Meeting materials were made available in English and Spanish, and Spanish translators were available at the public meeting. Approximately 17 members of the public participated in the scoping meeting. The results of the scoping meeting are included in Draft EIS Appendix A. Additional public comment opportunities occurred within a 45 -day Draft EIS comment period extending from December 17, 2010, to January 31, 2011. Following direct mail and posting of notices, RHA held a meeting for Sunset Terrace residents on January 4, 2011, at which more than 25 participants attended. After mailing postcards in English and Spanish, posting notices, and publishing notice in the City's local newspaper, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at Renton City Hall on January 5, 2011, at which eight persons spoke. During the 45 -day comment period 12 pieces of correspondence were received as documented in the Final EIS. The City held a Planning Commission public hearing on the SEPA Planned Action Ordinance on April 6, 2011 and three citizens spoke. The City will hold additional public meetings with the City Council as the SEPA Planned Action Ordinance is completed. The City's action on the Planned Action Ordinance is expected to be completed in early June 2011 prior to the release of funds by HUD; however, the NEPA and SEPA decisions are independent. In mid-May 2011, the City issued a Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds and published the notice in the newspaper and sent written notice to parties sent EIS notices. The EIS public outreach process was built on long-term community outreach efforts. Recent City efforts that contributed to the proposal and alternatives studied in the EIS are described below. • Highlands Task Force on Land Use and Zoning, 2006-2007 • Highlands Phase II Task Force, 2007-2008 • Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy, 2009 Additionally, to conceptually plan the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace, RHA selected a development consultant, Shelter Resources, Inc. (SRI), in 2007, and SRI retained an architect to help plan the property. Conceptual redevelopment designs were first prepared in December 2007 by Bumgardner Architects, and have been the subject of RHA board meetings, throughout 2008 to the present, and of RHA resident meetings on June 19, 2009, and July 12, 2010 as well as January 4, 2011. Record of Decision 12 May 2011 Coordination with Other Agencies The City initiated consultation with agencies and tribes regarding permit requirements and to identify any areas of concerns regarding the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment as well as the overall Planned Action. Federal and state agencies were notified of comment opportunities through the scoping process and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS. Two agencies were particularly consulted consistent with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and the Endangered Species Act (Section 7) as described below. In addition, consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the City received a letter of consistency from the State of Washington Department of Ecology (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464). National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of funded or approved undertakings that have the potential to impact any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (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: 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. Identify cultural resources and evaluate them for NRHP eligibility (the process for which is explained below), resulting in the identification of historic properties. 3. Assess effects of the project on historic properties. 4. Consult with the SHPO and interested parties regarding any adverse effects on historic properties; and, if necessary, develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of these properties (e.g., a Memorandum of Agreement [MOA]). 5. Proceed in accordance with the project MOA, if an MOA is developed. The City completed Section 106 consultation for Sunset Terrace redevelopment and all properties fronting NE Sunset Boulevard in the study area as follows: The City sent a letter regarding potential Area of Potential Effects to the SHPO, i.e. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), and to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe on September 1, 2010; The City provided a copy of a Cultural Resources Survey Report and sent it to DAHP and the tribe. The City received an email and letter from DAHP, dated November 18, 2010, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions on eligibility; and Record of Decision 13 May 2011 • The City received a letter from DAHP concurring with conclusions of no adverse impacts, dated November 30, 2010. In addition, the City initiated the following consultation with agencies and tribes on three particular sites within the study area that may be locations for replacement housing for Sunset Terrace or other RHA activities as part of the Preferred Alternative: • The City sent a letter requesting consultation along with technical report, February 18, 2011 to DAHP and the tribe, and • The City received correspondence from DAHP, dated February 24, 2011, concurring with Cultural Resources Survey Report conclusions on eligibility and no adverse impacts. The cultural resources surveys are included in the Draft and Final EIS and the Environmental Review Record. Letters of correspondence are included in Attachment D of this RDD. Endangered Species Act Consistent with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the proposal has been evaluated with respect to its potential effects on species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. A biological assessment was prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in December 2010 for its concurrence with a finding that the proposal may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect, anadromous fish protected under the ESA, and would have no effect on any ESA -protected species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction. The City and NMFS corresponded in January, February, and April 2011 on NMFS questions. The City received a letter of concurrence in May 2011. The Biological Assessment and NMFS memoranda are included in the Environmental Review Record. The NMFS letter of concurrence is included in Attachment E. Coastal Zone Management Act Since the Sunset Area lies within Washington State's coastal zone lying in King County, the City completed a form titled "Certification of Consistency with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program for Federally Funded Activities" and received a letter confirming the project's consistency in December 2010. The letter is included in Attachment F. Final EIS Comments In response to the Final EIS notice of availability, the federal Environmental Protection Agency prepared a letter affirming that it's Draft EIS comments were satisfactorily addressed, and together with some monitoring language proposed in the Planned Action Ordinance believed that the Draft and Final EIS and Planned Action Ordinance were well done and would serve to monitor the Sunset Area's sustainability. The letter is included in Attachment G together with consultant documents references in the letter. Clarifications and Corrections As a result of preparing a formal drainage master plan for the planning area, some refinements in water resources data are warranted in the EIS and BA. The resulting clarifications and corrections Record of decision 14 May 2011 are included in Attachment 11. There are no changes in overall conclusions regarding the alternatives, impacts or mitigation measures. Attachments Attachment A: Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area Attachment B: Sunset Terrace Preferred Alternative and Concept Variations Attachment C: Selected Sunset Area Alternatives Mitigation Measures Attachment D: DAHP Section 106 Consultation Correspondence Attachment E: Endangered Species Act Consultation, NMFS Attachment F: Coastal Zone Certification Attachment G: EPA Letter on Final EIS Attachment H: Clarifications and Corrections Record of Decision 15 May 2011 Attachment A: Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area Record of Decision Q Land Swap/Housing Replacement Sites City Limits Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment N A 0 500 1,000 Feet Till ON[, 3 � � i t�' �t : � .'nNE 14TH STr +. r 1" x . _;NE 13TH PL Ar ; "+ STS LUM. Ain 10TH PL's j �i�. !RNE4110T�HiSTT, — AM .-NE 9TH PL , :.urr-1►, , ar _Lu 2 k Ali ,, NEE 9TH ST uj '# - Z ` ,,• cc Lu ^ lid►' ,ISE 8TH PL7ix +¢ tomb. Ax. k .. Z W I wi N�S7. "� ! s A �. RN�67hvPL as S), 3_.41k a s., ;i�l 74 Source City f Reston; King COLIly- s'�' - ''.4 ^_A k3 ,$ LL... y. +r 4`Q i O .. 040 1 L F., "`sem . v ,_:� .a �il►.� : �Nf 12TH c�7 . '—u: O_4is .s }V 0 <;.,NE 11TH -PL Wil►... y° , y aye iit.[VE 1ITH ST 4 NE 10THIPL �► S re AR �` i4 Sv rti r.. R r 4�w. ¢ NE40TH ST ter. 7f y� j �Aw1k alb W'r ii , �:. x h o p-�. NE 9TH ST t Ar k 21Z,ate �a. tf .,sT.: ca NE 8TH ST UjT NE*7oTHi5TAffdW ♦ i.s s:, rM M ;r _ . NE TTH PL ". Attach. 'CF Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Land Swap/Replacement Housing Sites Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS City Limits Planned Action Study Area Subarea Central North South Sunset Mixed Use Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment 0 500 1,000 _ y�:tdi eet $die -w za d � jW_ ' " +6NE 14TH ST 4NE 13TH PLS • i� .� iCr 'r r - �-���ll r �.Ic�, r it •g ' ?`;�i `- 'iw' >':+14TH ST il Zug - Az • o " _ m LII *E.O- W rl *' ,,� W ai`"ty W .., . 11, ,9 :'p W XYZ , w '' I I Z -: - a.s� r�Elor�k sr -9 ` j •' NE;9TH PL �- 4i F W ►: * w d 7 # '. LU y % *� rpt .t•'r e�ii� m� V a a -NE -9TH -ST ry W I Q0 . O i ', : gwl�' �3lfi r d I O �N "z zLLI LUtIL -+ . NE BTH.PL¢ ' " C7 ►. �`'i RA -Y 4g hill r,NE ary�sT +- ,k ALiij. NE �,� a ,,�IV141� ;a �li T9 - ■ SIS -MkM ~t 5curcc City of Hen r; King CountyS r,1 �g'�=• i ICF (Q Ir y, .✓ H--. i� Vis; R._ r -ice r$i! 'tis --NEt8�TH.s7 x N ar rah r1�1.. alp: Z kA40i 1 ol I��fly M,� So ll _ ✓ N . D ),..!v i7T ..., a. NEHi aE r v }4for ' r IC 1F, m Nil r m w y ry{ =NE 7TH Pt< Attach. A-2 Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS `W NE 21ST1sT F X uj- t z NE,1 TH PL F NE -15TH'ST -�� WZFI m NE115THPL r( , UJ o . VI NE 14TH ST + Z a z a—, W LL ;1 g W 0*4lNEJ12TWST=. --: ,' a rl f �- 4 o vim' �� 0,�z k 11TH sT =4k, J2 ; t' . ,kNE,IOTH AL c. F it ► PAN, w ��� ��1or g�� k a:• si � �rQ d W _ 10. _ m LII *E.O- W rl *' ,,� W ai`"ty W .., . 11, ,9 :'p W XYZ , w '' I I Z -: - a.s� r�Elor�k sr -9 ` j •' NE;9TH PL �- 4i F W ►: * w d 7 # '. LU y % *� rpt .t•'r e�ii� m� V a a -NE -9TH -ST ry W I Q0 . O i ', : gwl�' �3lfi r d I O �N "z zLLI LUtIL -+ . NE BTH.PL¢ ' " C7 ►. �`'i RA -Y 4g hill r,NE ary�sT +- ,k ALiij. NE �,� a ,,�IV141� ;a �li T9 - ■ SIS -MkM ~t 5curcc City of Hen r; King CountyS r,1 �g'�=• i ICF (Q Ir y, .✓ H--. i� Vis; R._ r -ice r$i! 'tis --NEt8�TH.s7 x N ar rah r1�1.. alp: Z kA40i 1 ol I��fly M,� So ll _ ✓ N . D ),..!v i7T ..., a. NEHi aE r v }4for ' r IC 1F, m Nil r m w y ry{ =NE 7TH Pt< Attach. A-2 Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS hill r,NE ary�sT +- ,k ALiij. NE �,� a ,,�IV141� ;a �li T9 - ■ SIS -MkM ~t 5curcc City of Hen r; King CountyS r,1 �g'�=• i ICF (Q Ir y, .✓ H--. i� Vis; R._ r -ice r$i! 'tis --NEt8�TH.s7 x N ar rah r1�1.. alp: Z kA40i 1 ol I��fly M,� So ll _ ✓ N . D ),..!v i7T ..., a. NEHi aE r v }4for ' r IC 1F, m Nil r m w y ry{ =NE 7TH Pt< Attach. A-2 Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS Attach. A-2 Planned Action Study Area Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS Attachment B: Sunset Terrace Preferred Alternative and Concept Variations Record of Decision May 2011 L �Y - w ail w' Ho ti 4JL� i F.'T Aw Oka L3l Ho yQ i ti 4JL� i F.'T Aw Oka L3l _ • f G F v ti'y r < 12 0: i t. Y. 4 .. Multifamily: Flats Multifamily: Townhouses r1 Civic/Community Services j RetaillCommercial/Mixed-Use Active park/open space A Passive open space 0' 100' 200' 300' 400' N Passive open space: plaza Note: The central open space will be designed and programmed at a later date. Considerations would Existing buildings to remainI include active and passive recreation, community gardens, and community gathering areas. Figure 2-11 MI T H U N Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Concept—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS m ._ C 3 7 � �t LA -, �> 4CE m � a E Q '_ m � t C � C a ELL C y U] W IL aLL 6 N N O f O �- i Z • � ap i III • � d h M t+Y p Q N m N p 4 q O p p p Qpap N N N O O LL Q '.yyJ M Cl O O 0 O LO T Q O I� Q 4 L,2 N ca W i U i• Q �f N [�F Q ? a Q Q Q N N N N N tt � � Q @ T 1 L � F 9L • 5 1 = ID Sn (/3 N N� N N N W ro 0 G c c O e LL 1L i- F-- 31 ii 11 @ � E E E E E E E E E .E 2 OIL m ._ C 3 7 � �t LA -, �> 4CE m � a E Q '_ m � t C � C a ELL C y U] W IL 1 I') c" �t 7" l Concent 1 Adjusted setbacks at library and building 10 IN Parking Diagram, NTS Parcel lines 1 • Adjusted library footprint • 10,000 sf footprint for Building 10 • On -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 25 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 49 stalls (31 at library; 18 at bldg 10) • Total parking provided: 74 stalls (asssumes 1 level of underground parking) • Parking required: Total: 101 stalls; Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (56 stalls, assuming 30 units = 36stails + 1 OK office = 20 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.4 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2110111 Note: Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. M I T H U H d>i�,�ir�fr7r Concept 2 Sunset Lane jog Parcel lines 1A -40 kxf NTS • Adjusted library footprint • New Building 10 configuration: 15,000 sf footprint • Shared access underground parking (one level) accessed from 10th Street • Plaza/3rd place/ drop off area • On -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 25 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 61 stalls (39 at library; 10 at plaza; 22 at bldg 10) • Total parking provided: 86 stalls (assumes 1 level underground parking) • Parking required: Total: 132 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (87 stalls, assuming 45 units = 54 stalls + 10K office = 20 stalls, 5K retail = 13 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.1 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2110111 Note. Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. M I T H U N tJ3 ' dor , _ `; •.. -moi,•-'-_� ; Concent 3 Realigned Sunset Lane Parking Diagram, NTS Parcel lines • Sunset Lane realigned north to accomodate 120' deep building and double loaded parking ga- rage • Adjusted library footprint • New Building 10 configuration: 15,000 sf footprint • Shared access underground parking (one level) accessed from 10th Street • Plaza/3rd place • an -street parking provided on Sunset Lane east of Harrington: 23 stalls • Off-street parking provided: 116 stalls (shared parking garage podium) • Total parking provided: 136 stalls • Parking required: Total: 132 stalls: Library (45 stalls), Building 10 (87 stalls, assuming 45 units = 54 stalls + 1 OK office = 20 stalls, 5K retail = 13 stalls) does not include shared parking or other reductions • Park area: 2.3 acres Sunset Area Planned Action EIS EIS: Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area Studies 2110111 Note, Sound Attenuation numbers are reversed east and west of Harrington Avenue NE - should be 65 and 70 feet respectively. M I T H U N Attachment C: Selected Sunset Area Alternatives Mitigation Measures Record of Decision May 2011 Attachment C: Sunset Area Selected Alternatives EIS Mitigation Measures Table of Contents Attachment C: Sunset Area Selected Alternatives EIS Mitigation Measures.........................................1 Introduction and Purpose.......................................................................................................................3 GeneralInterpretation............................................................................................................................3 Location..................................................................................................................................................3 MitigationDocument..............................................................................................................................4 .............................................................................................................4 2. Air Quality............................................................................................................................6 3. Water Resources................................................................................................... ......12 4. Plants and Animals............................................................................................................15 5. Energy................................................................................................................................17 6. Noise................................................................................................................. .....19 7. Environmental Health.......................................................................................................21 8. Land Use............................................................................................................................24 9. Socioeconomics.................................................................................................................27 10. Housing..............................................................................................................................29 11. Environmental Justice.......................................................................... ....31 ......................... 12. Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................33 13. Historic/Cultural................................................................................................................36 14. Transportation...................................................................................................................38 i5. Parks and Recreation.........................................................................................................42 16. Public Services...................................................................................................................45 17. Utilities..............................................................................................................................51 AdvisoryNotes......................................................................................................................................56 Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery ....................................................................................................•---57 Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing ........................59 Water................................... .................................................................................................................60 Overview..........................................................................................................................60 Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1.........................................................................................................60 NewLibrary ....................................................................................................................................60 New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library ........................................................................61 RHA's Piha Site........................................................................................................... ......61 Attachment C 1 Mitigation Document Sunset Terrace Redevelopment.....................................................................................................62 Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2.........................................................................................................62 WaterMain Costs...........................................................................................................................63 WastewaterCollection.........................................................................................................................63 Overview.............................................................................................................. Detailed Discussion 63 Attachment C 2 Mitigation Document ........................................................................................................................ List of Tables Table2. Earth Significant Impacts......................................................................................................................4 Table 3. Earth Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................5 Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts...........................................................................................................6 Table S. Air Quality Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................9 Table 6. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures........................................................................10 Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts............................................................................................12 Table 8. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts........................................................................................15 Table 9. Energy SignificantImpacts.................................................................................................................17 Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................................18 Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts....................................................................................................................19 Table 12. Noise Mitigation Measures.................................................................................................................20 Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts. ................................................................................... .................... 21 Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures...............................................................................22 Table15. Land Use Impacts................................................................................................................--...24 Table 16, Land Use Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................26 Table 17. Socioeconomics Impacts.....................................................................................................................27 Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures............................................................................................28 Table19. Housing Impacts.....................................................................................................................................29 Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures...........................................................................................................30 Table 21. Environmental JusticeImpacts.........................................................................................................31 Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures...............................................................................33 Table23. Aesthetic Impacts...................................................................................................................................33 Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................................35 Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts...................................................................................................................36 Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................37 Table 27. TransportationImpacts.......................................................................................................................38 Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................40 Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts..........................................................................................................42 Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures.................................................................................44 Table 31. Public Services Impacts.......................................................................................................................45 Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................48 Table33. Utilities Impacts......................................................................................................................................51 Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................53 Attachment C 2 Mitigation Document Introduction and Purpose In order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and SEPA requirements, the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of Renton SunsetArea Community Planned Action on December 17, 2010 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the City of Renton SunsetArea Community Planned Action on April 1, 2011. The Draft together with the Final EIS is referenced herein as the "EIS". The EIS has identified significant beneficial and adverse impacts that are anticipated to occur with the future development of the Planned Action area, together with a number of possible measures to mitigate those significant adverse impacts. The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon significant adverse impacts identified in the EIS. The mitigation measures shall apply to future development proposals which are consistent with the "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives" identified in the Record of Decision and which are located within the Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action Study Area (see ROD Attachment A). General Interpretation "Planned action applications" or "planned action projects" are those land use development or infrastructure proposals that are proposed consistent with "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives" identified in the Record of Decision. Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will," inclusion of that measure in project plans is mandatory. Where "should" or "would" appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. Location The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route [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 the EIS; it is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. See Attachment A of the ROD for maps. Attachment C Mitigation Document Mitigation Document Based on the EIS, this Mitigation Document identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur as a result of development of planned action projects. Mitigation measures identified in the EIS are reiterated here for inclusion in proposed projects to mitigate related impacts. Additional project conditions may be imposed on planned action projects based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to independent requirements of the City, state or federal requirements or review criteria. Any applicant for a project within the Planned Action area may propose alternative mitigation measures, if appropriate and/or as a result of changed circumstances, in order to allow equivalent substitute mitigation for identified impacts. Such modifications shall be evaluated by the City's NEPA and SEPA Responsible Official prior to any project approvals by the City. In combination, regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures identified in the EIS and documented in this Mitigation Document that are applied to any planned action proposal will adequately mitigate all significant environmental impacts associated with planned action proposals, except for those impacts that are identified as "significant unavoidable adverse impacts." Provided below for each element of the environment analyzed in the EIS for the proposed action are: (a) summary of significant environmental impacts (construction, operation, indirect and cumulative); (b) a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts; (c) mitigation measures established by this mitigation document for both the Planned Action Study Area as a whole as well as the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea; and (d) a list of City policies/regulations on which mitigation measures are based. Advisory notes are included at the end of the document to list the federal, state, and local laws that act as mitigation measures. 1. Earth Significant Impacts Table 2. Earth Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Erosion could increase as a result of soil Same as Planned Action Study Area disturbance; however, much of the existing soils are glacial outwash materials with low erosion potential. Codified best management practices minimize the potential for both erosion and erosion transport to waterways. Attachment C Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction could require import and Similar to Planned Action Study Area. export of earth materials; however, The underlying glacial outwash soils with minimal planning and protection, have the highest potential for reuse the outwash soils in most of the study within the Planned Action Study Area area could be reused as backfill, and consequently the subarea. minimizing import and export and thus a low potential for impacts. There is an increased risk of landsliding due to soil disturbance, changing drainage, or temporarily oversteepening slopes. However, a relatively small proportion of the study area is considered either steep slope or erosion hazard. Both the glacial outwash and till soils are generally strong and of low concern regarding slope instability. There are no mapped geologic hazards, and thus a low potential for impacts. Operutions Active seismicity in the Planned Action Same as Planned Action Study Area Study Area would require that inhabited structures, including buildings, bridges, and water tanks, be designed to withstand seismic loading. Indirect The major steep slope, erosion, and There are no mapped geologic hazards, landslide hazard areas within the and thus a low potential for impacts. Planned Action Study Area extend beyond the study area boundaries. Development on the slope above (inside) the study area boundary could increase the risk of erosion and landsliding downslope (outside) of the study area. Cumulative Same as indirect impacts above; There are no mapped geologic hazards, intensive development around this and thus a low potential for impacts. 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. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There are no significant unavoidable adverse earth impacts. Mitigation Measures Table I Earth Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall apply to Mitigation measures shall be the same as the development throughout the Planned Action Planned Action Study Area, except that there are Study Area. no geologic hazard areas to avoid. Attachment C I Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Apply erosion -control best management practices (BMPs), as described in Appendix D of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual'. Limit development in geologic hazard areas and their buffers, or require rigorous engineered design to reduce the hazard, as currently codified. Planned Action applicants shall identify in their applications the source of earth material to be used in construction and shall consider earth material reuse and provide information to the City regarding why earth material reuse is not feasible if it is not proposed. The City may condition the planned action application to provide for earth material reuse where feasible. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-5-050 International Building Code RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards 2. Air Quality Significant Impacts Table 4. Air Quality Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Dust from excavation and grading Same as Planned Action Study could cause temporary, localized Area increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Construction activities would likely Same as Planned Action Study require the use of diesel -powered, Area heavy trucks and smaller 1 City of Renton. 2010. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. February. Appendix D, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards. Attachment C I Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Emissions from Commercial Operations equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants that could slightly degrade local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the activity. Some construction activities could Same as Planned Action Study cause odors detectible to some Area people in the vicinity of the activity, especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt Such odors would be short-term and localized. Construction equipment and material hauling could temporarily increase traffic flow on city streets adjacent to a construction area. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic -related emissions would increase. Stationary equipment, mechanical equipment, and trucks at loading docks at office and retail buildings could cause air pollution issues at adjacent residential property. However, new commercial facilities would be required to register their pollutant -emitting equipment and to use best available control technology to minimize emissions. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Emissions From Vehicle Tailpipe emissions from vehicles The forecasted VMT from the Travel would be the major source of air subarea is only a small fraction of pollutant emissions associated with the Puget Sound regional totals. growth. The net increases in vehicle Future emissions from increased miles travelled (VMT) forecast as a population and motor vehicles in result of Selected Sunset Area the subarea would not cause alternatives are inconsequentially significant regional air quality small compared to the Puget Sound impacts. regional VMT and its implied impact on regional emissions and photochemical smog. This would not alter Puget Sound Regional Council's conclusion that future regional emissions will be less than the allowable emissions budgets of air quality maintenance plans. Attachment C I Mitigation Document Type of Impact Air Quality Attainment Status Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Area and Subarea Outdoor Air Toxics Planned Action Study Area Land use density and population would increase in the Planned Action Study Area; however, these increases represent only a small fraction of the Puget Sound regional totals. Furthermore, this alternative would not result in land use changes that include unusual industrial developments. Therefore, development in the Planned Action Study Area would not cause a substantial increase in air quality concentrations that would result in a change in air quality attainment status. Selected Sunset Area alternatives are estimated to result in this alternative would result in an estimated 43,050 to 45,766 metric tons/year of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the Planned Action Study Area. The Planned Action Study Area is in a mixed-use residential and commercial zone that does not include unusual sources of toxic air pollutants. The major arterial street through the Planned Action Study Area (NE Sunset Boulevard) does not carry an unusually high percentage of heavy-duty truck traffic. Thus, the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would not expose existing or future residents to disproportionately high concentrations of toxic air pollutants generated by local emission sources. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would result in an estimated 3,760 to 6,612 metric to of GHG emissions. Impacts on outdoor air toxics would be similar to those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Indoor Air Toxics See Potential Sunset Terrace RHA development would be Redevelopment Subarea constructed according to local building codes that require adequate insulation and ventilation. Regardless, studies have shown that residents at lower-income developments often suffer higher rates of respiratory ailments than the general public. Therefore, the City and RHA will explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally Attachment C o Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Indirect and Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Subarea, Study Area, and Region With the highest level of transit - oriented development in the study area of the studied alternatives, Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide the greatest regional GHG emission reductions, a net reduction of 3,907-4,164 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts achieved by simply complying with building codes. With the highest level of transit - oriented development in the subarea of the alternatives studied, Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide the greatest reduction in regional GHG emissions, a net reduction of 150-467 metric tons/year, compared with the No Action Alternative studied in the EIS. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated. Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities. The regulations and mitigation measures described below are adequate to mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated to occur as a result of study area growth increases. Mitigation Measures Table S. Air Quality Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Emission Control The City shall require all construction contractors to implement air quality control plans for construction activities in the study area. The air quality control plans shall include BMPs to control fugitive dust and odors emitted by diesel construction equipment. The following BMPs shall be used to control fugitive dust. • Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways. • Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces. • Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets. • Cover soil piles when practical. • Minimize work during periods of high winds when practical. In addition to the mitigation measures for air quality described under the Planned Action Study Area, the following mitigation measures apply: . Should the phases of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea occur concurrently rather than in a phased and sequential manner, the City and RHA will consider adding the Northeast Diesel Collaborative Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects - Model Contract Specifications or an equivalent approachz as additional mitigation measures. . The City and RHA and other public or private applicants within the subarea should explore measures to improve indoor air quality beyond what is normally achieved by simply complying with building codes. For example, grant programs such as the Breath Easy Homes program could provide funding to foster construction methods that reduce dust, mold, 2 Northeast Diesel Collaborative. December 2010. Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects, Model Contract Specification. Available: <http://www.northeastdiesel.org/pdf/NEDC-Construction-Contract-Spec.pdf.> Accessed: March 14, 2011. Attachment C Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The following mitigation measures shall be used to minimize air quality and odor issues caused by tailpipe emissions. Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. Where feasible, Applicants shall schedule haul traffic during off-peak times (e.g., between 9;00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) to have the least effect on traffic and to minimize indirect increases in traffic related emissions. This shall be determined as part of traffic control plans required in Section 14 of this mitigation document. Burning of slash or demolition debris shall not be permitted without express approval from Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). No slash burning is anticipated for any construction projects in the Planned Action Study Area. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and air toxics concentrations in the homes, such as the following: o use of low-VOC [volatile organic compounds] building materials and coatings, o enhanced building ventilation and room air filtration, and o installation of dust -free floor materials and low -pile carpeting to reduce dust buildup. Planned Action applicants for residential developments shall provide information regarding the feasibility and applicability of indoor air quality measures. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible indoor air quality measures. Please see text and Table 6 below. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures The City shall require development applicants to consider the reduction measures shown in Table 6 for their projects, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and why other measures found in the table are not included or are not applicable. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible GHG reduction measures. Table 6. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Reduction Measures Comments Site Design Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and buildings. purchased electricity, and enhances carbon sinks. Minimize building footprint. Design water efficient landscaping. Minimize energy use through building orientation. Building Design and Operations Construct buildings according to City of Seattle energy code. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption, materials used, maintenance, land disturbance, and direct construction emissions. Minimizes water consumption, purchased energy, and upstream emissions from water management Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. The City of Seattle code is more stringent than the current City of Renton building code. Attachment C 10 MRigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Apply Leadership in Energy and Environmental Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and Design (LEED) standards (or equivalent) for design off-site/indirect purchased electricity, water and operations. use, waste disposal. Purchase Energy Star equipment and appliances for Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and public agency use. purchased electricity consumption. Incorporate on-site renewable energy production, Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and including installation of photovoltaic cells or other purchased electricity consumption. 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. Reduces purchased electricity. Reduces on-site fuel combustion emissions and purchased electricity consumption. Minimizes fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Eliminate or reduce use of refrigerants in HVAC Reduces fugitive emissions. Compare systems. refrigerant usage before/after to determine GHG reduction. Maximize interior day lighting through floor plates, Increases natural/day lighting initiatives and increased building perimeter and use of skylights, reduces purchased electrical energy celestories, and light wells. consumption. Incorporate energy efficiency technology such as Reduces fuel combustion and purchased super insulation motion sensors for lighting and electricity consumption. climate -control -efficient, directed exterior lighting. Use water -conserving fixtures that surpass building Reduces water consumption. code requirements. Reuse gray water and/or collect and reuse Reduces water consumption with its indirect rainwater. upstream electricity requirements. Use recycled building materials and products. Reduces extraction of purchased materials, possibly reduces transportation of materials, encourages recycling and reduction of solid waste disposal. Use building materials that are extracted and/or manufactured within the region. Use rapidly renewable building materials. Conduct third -party building commissioning to ensure energy performance. Reduces transportation of purchased materials. Reduces emissions from extraction of purchased materials. Reduces fuel combustion and purchased electricity consumption. Track energy performance of building and develop Reduces fuel combustion and purchased strategy to maintain efficiency. electricity consumption. Transportation Size parking capacity to not exceed local parking Reduced parking discourages auto -dependent requirements and, where possible, seek reductions travel, encouraging alternative modes such as in parking supply through special permits or transit, walking, and biking. Reduces direct and waivers. indirect VMT. Develop and implement a marketing/information Reduces direct and indirect VMT. program that includes posting and distribution of ridesharing/transit information. Attachment C 11 Mitigation Document Reduction Measures Comments Subsidize transit passes. Reduce employee trips during peak periods through alternative work schedules, telecommuting, and/or flex time. Provide a guaranteed -ride -home program. Provide bicycle storage and showers/changing rooms. Use traffic signalization and coordination to improve traffic flow and support pedestrian and bicycle safety. Apply advanced technology systems and management strategies to improve operational efficiency of local streets. Develop shuttle systems around business district parking garages to reduce congestion and create shorter commutes. Reduces employee VMT. Reduces employee VMT. Reduces transportation emissions and VMT. Reduces emissions from transportation by minimizing idling and maximizing transportation routes/systems for fuel efficiency. Reduces idling fuel emissions and direct and indirect VMT. Source: Washington State Department of Ecology 2008b VMT = vehicle miles travelled. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations I Water Resources Significant Impacts Table 7. Water Resources Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction impacts on water Same as Planned Action Study Area resources would be addressed through compliance with Core Requirement #5 for Erosion and Sediment Control in the Renton Stormwater Manual and compliance with Ecology's NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit, if the project results in 1 acre or more of land -disturbing activity. Also see Section 1, Earth, above. Operotions Water Quality and Land Implementation of the green All untreated pollution -generating Attachment C 12 Mitigation Document Type of Impact Cover Indirect and Cumulative Planned Action Study Area connections and the NE Sunset Boulevard reconstruction project is estimated to result in a net reduction of approximately 14.7-15.7 acres of untreated pollution - generating impervious area and approximately 3.1-6.6 acres of effective impervious area. Exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea the net change in pollutant generating surfaces is approximately 40-42 acres reduction. Exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 1.3 acres (0.8%) to 4.24 (2.6%) from existing conditions. Considering the reduction in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea as wll as the overall Planned Action Study Area, the net change in effective impervious area would be smaller at 0.7S-3.17. The operations analysis above presents cumulative impacts in terms of total impervious surfaces and potential water quantity and quality impacts, as well as indirect impacts on receiving water bodies outside of the study area. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would implement a drainage master plan and mitigation would be provided in advance through the self -mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea impervious surfaces within the subarea would be eliminated, resulting in a reduction of 1.83 acres of untreated pollution -generating surface from the johns Creek Basin. The estimated change in effective impervious area would result in a decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11%) to 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions. Same as the Planned Action Study area. In particular, the City proposes to construct a regional stormwater facility that would be designed to maintain active and open recreation space allowing water to be treated within a series of distributed of small integrated rain gardens along the edge of the proposed Sunset Terrace Park and connecting the subsurface to an underground infiltration bed beneath open space. This will mitigate impacts in the subarea as well as portions of the larger Planned Action Study Area. Attachment C 13 Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None of the alternatives would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources, because the redevelopment would likely result in an improvement of runoff and recharge water quality. In addition, the net change in effective impervious area can be adequately mitigated through the self -mitigating features of the Selected Sunset Area alternatives and through implementation of the stormwater code, as described below. Mitigation Measures All of the alternatives would involve redevelopment and reduction of existing pollution -generating impervious surfaces in the Planned Action Study Area. In addition, per the requirements of the stormwater code, the redeveloped properties would be required to provide water quality treatment for all remaining pollution -generating impervious surfaces. The net reduction in untreated pollution -generating impervious surfaces throughout the study area is, therefore, considered to result in a net benefit to surface water quality. Each of the alternatives would result in a slight increase in the effective impervious area of the Planned Action Study Area. Self mitigating features of the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives are listed below: M Under Alternative 3, mitigation would be provided in advance or incrementally through the self - mitigating public stormwater infrastructure features including a combination of green connections, regional stormwater flow control, and possible public-private partnership opportunities for retrofits. Conceptual design and planning of the public stormwater infrastructure would be developed under a drainage master plan for the Study Area. It could be developed in advance of (likely through grants or city funds) or incrementally as development occurs depending on opportunity costs of constructing the improvements. The extent and form of the public infrastructure projects would be refined through the drainage master plan development and further design. The goal under Alternative 3 would be to provide sufficient advance public infrastructure improvements to balance the anticipated increase in effective impervious area. This strategy would only require that future developments implement flow - control BMPs, but could eliminate on-site flow control through a development fee or similar funding structure to compensate for the off-site mitigation provided by the public infrastructure investment. The Preferred Alternative mitigation would be similar to Alternative 3. Harrington Avenue NE, including portions of NE 16th and NE 9th streets, has been identified as a high priority Green Connection project. This corridor would be enhanced by narrowing through -traffic lanes to calm traffic, create wide planter areas to accommodate large trees and rain gardens to mitigate stormwater runoff, and create wider sidewalks. This project would be implemented as a public infrastructure retrofit project pending available funds. The remaining green connections projects would likely be implemented as revised roadway standards to require incremental redevelopment of the frontage as redevelopment occurs (constructed either by future developers or the City, depending on availability of funds). In addition to the Green Connections projects, the City will implement regional detention/retention improvements to provide advance mitigation for future increases in impervious area that could result from redevelopment. Locations of the regional facilities would include the western margin of the newly created park at Sunset Terrace and/or the northern corner of Highlands Park (beyond the outfield of the existing baseball /softball field). A drainage master plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative. Attachment C 14 Mitigation Document Planned Actions shall implement the City's adopted Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan, and associated street frontage improvements, and be consistent with the City stormwater regulations in effect at the time of application. Planned Action applicants shall also demonstrate compliance with RMC 4-1-180 Charges for Equitable Share of Public Works Facilities. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards 4. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Table 8. Plants and Animals Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Individual redevelopment Same as Planned Action Study Area projects would result in short- term loss of vegetation cover, along with noise and activity levels that would result in little or no use of the construction areas by wildlife during the period of construction. Redevelopment actions would be required to comply, during construction, with City regulations requiring temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent water quality impacts from work site stormwater runoff. Operations Redevelopment activities that Same as Planned Action Study Area would be facilitated under the planned action ordinance would have a limited effect on plant or wildlife habitat in the Planned Action Study Area. New development being designed as Low Impact Development {LID] is likely to result in a measurable decline in total vegetated area, accompanied by a measurable improvement in Attachment C 15 Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat Green connections and urban forestry plans offset to some degree by greater redevelopment, the net result is likely to be a reduction in habitat connectivity and a decline in total vegetated area, albeit with some improvement in plant diversity and quality of the remaining habitat. Largely due to the absence of impacts on special -status species, effects on wildlife would be less than significant. Indirect Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would result in an indirect impact on plants and wildlife by contributing to a substantial increase in the human population within the area. This can be expected to result in effects such as increased wildlife mortality due to road kill and predation by pets, and reduced wildlife diversity due to increases in opportunistic species such as starlings, crows, and rats. These indirect impacts can be expected to result in reduced numbers, vigor, and diversity of plant and wildlife species. The stormwater commitments incorporated in Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would be sufficient to avoid substantial impacts on aquatic habitats and fish. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area Cumulative No impact No impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur for plants and animals under any alternative. Mitigation Measures With implementation of proposed stormwater features or standards, no mitigation is required. Attachment C 16 Mitigation Document Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations 5. Energy Significant Impacts Table 9. Energy Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction During construction, energy would be consumed by demolition and reconstruction activities. These activities would include the manufacture of construction materials, transport of construction materials to and from the construction site, and operation of machinery during demolition and construction. Operations Energy Usage: Study Area The annual energy usage is and Subarea estimated at 255,845 to 275,529 million British thermal units (Btu). Indirect and Cumulative Energy Usage: Subarea, With high levels of transit - Study Area, and Region oriented and high-density development the Planned Action Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the study area compared to the No Action Alternative: 26,383 to 29,194 million Btu. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Same as Planned Action Study Area The annual energy usage is estimated at 2 1,33 8 to 43,654 million British thermal units (Btu). With high levels of transit -oriented and high-density development the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide the greatest estimated regional energy usage reduction for the subarea compared to the No Action Alternative: 1,145 to 3,624 million Btu. Additional energy would be consumed and would contribute to increases in demand associated with the growth and development of the region. As described in the Utilities Element of the City Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that existing and planned infrastructure of affected energy utilities could accommodate growth. Energy conservation features would be incorporated into Attachment C i7 Mitigation Document building design as required by the current City building codes. For the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, HUD encourages public housing authorities such as RHA to use Energy Star, renewable energy, and green construction practices in public housing. As such, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on energy use are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 10. Energy Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Although the growth and development would In addition to the mitigation measures described for result in increased energy demand in the the Planned Action Study Area, according to the King Planned Action Study Area under all of the County proposed GHG reduction regulation, energy alternatives, expanding the beneficial transit- reductions can be provided with the implementation oriented development and high-density of the following basic requirements of the American housing development within the study area Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning would reduce regional energy usage. Engineers Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide Therefore, all alternatives would provide a for residential and non-residential building in the net benefit rather than adverse impact with subarea: regards to energy usage. However, to further + 30% energy reduction for residential dwelling reduce energy consumption, the City shall encourage future developers to implement that are 50% of average size; and 15% energy additional trip -reduction measures and reduction for residential dwelling that are 75% of energy conservation measures. For example, average size; and energy and GHG reductions can be achieved . 12% energy reduction for office, school, retail, through implementation of the following and public assembly buildings that are smaller energy conservation techniques or equivalent than 100,000 square feet in floor area. approaches. An energy reduction of 12% can be achieved by implementing sufficient strategies established by the Northwest Energy Star Homes program for multifamily residential buildings. The Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010) is designed to help builders construct energy-efficient homes in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to meet energy -efficiency guidelines set forth by the EPA. An energy reduction of 10% would comply with Seattle Energy Code for non- residential buildings. See also Air Quality mitigation measures. The City shall require development applicants to consider trip -reduction measures and energy conservation, and as part of their application explain what reduction measures are included and which ones are not included (based on that are part of Table 6 or Table 10). The City may condition Planned Action applications to _incorporate feasible trip reduction and energy Attachment C 18 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea conservation measures. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-5-051 Washington State Energy Code Adopted 6. Noise Significant Impacts Table 11. Noise Significant Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Development in the study area Same as Planned Action Study would require demolition and Area construction activity, which would temporarily increase noise levels at residences close to the development site. This type of activity could cause annoyance and speech interference at outdoor locations adjacent to the construction sites, and could cause discernible noise. Operations Noise from New Commercial Operations Indirect and Cumulative Unless properly controlled, mechanical equipment (e.g., rooftop air conditioning units) and trucks at loading docks of office and retail buildings in the study area could cause ambient noise levels at nearby residential housing units to exceed the City noise ordinance limits. Same as Planned Action Study Area Noise from Increased For most residents adjacent to Development would result in Traffic: Proposal with roadways in the study area, noise increase from vehicles Future Traffic Levels increased traffic would result in traveling on NE Sunset the greatest increase in ambient Boulevard and local streets The noise levels, caused by moving estimated day -night noise levels traffic and vehicles idling at from NE Sunset Boulevard at intersections. Development the adjacent buildings indicates would result in noise increase they would be exposed to from vehicles traveling on NE "normally unacceptable" noise Sunset Boulevard and local levels exceeding U.S. streets. Department of Housing and Attachment C 19 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Urban Development's (HUD's) outdoor day -night noise criterion of 65 dBA. The noise levels at these first row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD noise criterion and would continue to exceed the criterion under Selected Sunset Area Alternatives. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse construction or operational traffic noise impacts are anticipated in the Planned Action Study Area with the implementation of mitigation measures noted below. No significant unavoidable adverse traffic noise impacts are anticipated at residences along NE Sunset Boulevard in the Planned Action Study Area per WSDOT criteria, because the noise increase caused by NE Sunset Boulevard traffic is less than the WSDOT "substantial increase" impact threshold. Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed normally unacceptable under the HUD noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the adjacent street (NE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated in this subarea, if the noise control measures noted below are implemented to reduce anticipated future traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria. Mitigation Measures Table 22. Noise Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction Norse Mitigation measures described in the Planned To reduce construction noise at nearby Action Study Area would also apply to this receivers, the following mitigation measures subarea. shall be incorporated by Planned Action applicants 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. Site design approaches shall be incorporated to reduce potential noise impacts including the following. Concentrating park and open space uses are away from NE Sunset Boulevard. Where park and open space uses must be located near NE Sunset Boulevard, avoiding activities that require easily understood conversation (e.g., instructional classes), or other uses where quiet conditions are required for the primary function of the activity. • Turn off idling construction equipment. Allowing for balconies on exterior facing units • Require contractors to rigorously maintain only if they do not open to a bedroom. all equipment According to HUD noise guidebook, noise Attachment C 20 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Train construction crews to avoid attenuation from various building materials are unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping calculated using sound transmission class (STC) bundles of rebar onto the ground or rating. Although the standard construction dragging steel plates across pavement) near approaches can normally achieve the STC rating of noise -sensitive areas. more than 24 dBA as demonstrated in Final EIS New Commercial Operation Noise Appendix E, the City shall require a STC rating of The City shall require all prospective future 30 dBA reduction for these first row residential dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows developers to use low -noise mechanical that the sound reduction achieved by different equipment adequate to ensure compliance with techniques may be a little optimistic3. . the City's daytime and nighttime noise ordinance limits where commercial uses are abutting residential uses and where there is a potential to exceed noise ordinance limits. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, the City shall require the developer to conduct a noise impact study to forecast future noise levels and to specify appropriate noise control measures. Compliance with the noise ordinance would ensure this potential impact would not be significant. Traffic Noise Mitigation Although traffic noise is exempt from City noise ordinance, based on site-specific considerations, the City may at its discretion require the new development to install double -pane glass windows or other building insulation measures using its authority under the Washington State Energy Code (RMC 4-5-040). Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC Title 8 Chapter 7 Noise Level Regulations 7. Environmental Health Significant Impacts Table 13. Environmental Health Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential construction impacts Existing subsurface 3 HUD noise guidebook, Chapter 4, page 33"... use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2-3 dB overstating that you may get with the STC rating system." Attachment C 21 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Indirect Cumulative 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. If development occurs on contaminated sites, where appropriate clean-up measures were not completed or residual contaminations were present, then there is a potential risk to public health for people using the site. No impact No impact Unavoidable Adverse Impacts contaminations have not been identified on the redevelopable properties and, therefore, are not expected to be encountered during construction. Hazardous building materials such as lead- based paint and asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) could be generated from demolition of the existing Sunset Terrace buildings. If there are lead-based paints or ACMs at the complex, appropriate permits and precautions would be required. Accidental release of hazardous substances during construction could still occur as in all construction projects. No impact No impact No impact No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are identified at the programmatic level throughout the Planned Study Area or for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea for any of the studied alternatives. Contaminated sites would be avoided during project design when possible; implementing the mitigation approaches described below would minimize or eliminate adverse effects on human health and the environment. Mitigation Measures Table 14. Environmental Health Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area • Since encountering unreported spills or unreported underground fuel tanks is a risk when performing construction, contractors shall be required to provide hazardous materials awareness training to all grading and excavation crews on how to identify any suspected contaminated soil or groundwater, and how to alert supervisors Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The construction and operation mitigation measures identified for the Planned Action Study Area are applicable to the subarea. Attachment C 22 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea in the event of suspected contaminated material. Signs of potential contaminated soil include stained soil, odors, oily sheen, or the presence of debris. Contractors shall be required to implement a contingency plan to identify, segregate, and dispose of hazardous waste in full accordance with the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)(WAC 173-340) and the Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303) regulations. Contractors shall be required to develop and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, BMPs, and other permit conditions to minimize the potential for a release of hazardous materials to soil, groundwater, or surface water during construction. Contractors shall be required to follow careful construction practices to protect against hazardous materials spills from routine equipment operation during construction; prepare and maintain a current spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, and have an individual on site designated as an emergency coordinator; and understand and use proper hazardous materials storage and handling procedures and emergency procedures, including proper spill notification and response requirements. All asbestos -containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint will be identified in structures prior to demolition activities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35. If ACM or lead-based paint is identified, appropriately trained and licensed personnel will contain, remove, and properly dispose of the ACM and/or lead-based paint material according to federal and state regulations prior to demolition of the affected area. If warranted, contractors shall conduct additional studies to locate undocumented underground storage tank (USTs) and fuel lines before construction of specific development projects (areas of concern include current and former commercial and residential structures) and will permanently decommission and properly remove USTs from vroiect sites before Attachment C 23 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea commencing general construction activities. Prior to acquisition of known or potentially contaminated property, the City shall require appropriate due diligence be performed to identify the presence and extent of soil or groundwater contamination. This can help to prevent or manage liabilities for any long-term clean- up activities that might be ongoing during project operations. If contamination is discovered, the project proponent will comply with all state and federal regulations for contaminated sites. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General RMC Title 4 Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 8. Land Use Significant Impacts Table 15. Land Use Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction The incremental nature of Same as Planned Action Study development over the planning Area period would minimize the number of nearby residents exposed to temporary construction impacts including dust emissions, noise, construction traffic, and sporadic interference with access to adjacent residences and businesses. Operations Land Use Patterns Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide more than 2,300 to 2,500 dwelling units and 1.2 to 1.3 million square feet of commercial space compared to existing conditions. Redevelopment would provide more commercial development Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would provide about 266-479 more dwelling units than existing conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. Attachment C 24 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Plans and Policies Indirect and Cumulative than residential development. This alternative would also provide more than two times as many residential dwellings as currently exist in the study area. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives provide the greatest degree of consistency among the alternatives with the City Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies by implementing the development types envisioned in the City s land use and zoning designations within the study area. Anticipated growth would help the City meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. Public investments would need to be accounted for in amendments to the City's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements. No indirect or cumulative land use impacts are anticipated outside the study area. The City applies its policies and development regulations to create a planned land use pattern. Density is most intense at the center of the study area and least along its boundaries with single- family residential land use patterns; it is unlikely to alter patterns or plans along the edges of the study area. The City will, as part of its regular comprehensive plan review and amendment updates, control the monitoring, evaluation, and amendment process. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Selected Sunset Area Alternatives provide the greatest degree of consistency with the City's land use element goals and policies of all alternatives by promoting the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. It also does more than other alternatives to develop the Center Village. Development in the subarea under this alternative has a similar consistency as the study area for other City goals and policies, providing a greater degree of consistency with those goals and policies than other alternatives. Redevelopment of the subarea under this alternative would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Although intensification of land uses in the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, would occur and density would increase, this change would be consistent with applicable plans, zoning, and land use character. Plan consistency can be addressed by Comprehensive Plan amendments using the City's legislative process. Therefore, there would be no significant adverse impacts. Attachment C 25 Mitigation Document Mitigation Measures Table 16. Land Use Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Under all alternatives, the City shall require planned action applicants to implement appropriate construction mitigation measures, including but not limited to dust control and construction traffic management. The City should make efforts to minimize property acquisition that affects buildings as part of its refinement of study area streetscape designs while balancing Complete Streets principles. As part of the Planned Action Ordinance adoption process, the City should amend its Comprehensive Plan's Transportation and Capital Facilities elements to ensure that planned public investments and their funding sources are accounted for and programmed. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction mitigation would be the same as described under the Planned Action Study Area. The City and RHA should coordinate on future Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study Area streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affects buildings is minimized. The City shall require construction plans to: • Locate the majority of the most intensive non-residential development along or near EVE Sunset Boulevard, where possible. • Implement proposed open space and landscape features to offset the proposed intensification of land uses on the site. • Provide new opportunities for public open space area. • As part of site design, emphasize transitions in density, with less intense densities where abutting lower -intensity zones. RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards Attachment C 26 Mitigation Document 9. Socioeconomics Significant Impacts Table 17. Socioeconomics Impacts Operations The higher number of dwelling Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction activities could The demolition of the Sunset temporarily increase congestion Terrace complex to allow for the and reduce parking, local access subarea redevelopment would for businesses and residents, and require the relocation of the access near the construction tenants, activities, which could negatively Moreover, the relocation of the affect businesses; however, tenants could affect some local businesses located close to businesses during construction, if construction activities could the tenants are relocated outside experience an increase in revenue of the immediate area; however, from spending by construction since the total number of workers. relocations represents a small under Alternative 3 include a portion of the overall population family village and a wider any impact would likely be small reconstruction of NE Sunset in scale. Operations The higher number of dwelling The Selected Sunset Area units and jobs would result in Alternatives would increase greater intensities in development dwelling units and jobs by 266 - and economic benefits. 479 net dwelling units and 79 - Improvements in the streetscape 117 jobs. The subarea would be along NE Sunset Boulevard and developed with new park, street, the other civic and infrastructure and civic improvements that improvements would make the would promote a healthy and study area more desirable to walkable neighborhood, investment, which could lead to additional opportunities for employment as more businesses are attracted to the study area. The facilities that would be added under Alternative 3 include a family village and a wider reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard. The family village would include housing, education, recreation, and supportive services that would be designed to promote a healthy and walkable neighborhood. Indirect Construction spending would increased spending is anticipated result in positive indirect effects with the mixture of affordable and on the economic elements of market -rate units, which would employment and income in the result in positive impacts on the study area and the regional businesses in the area as well as economy as businesses that local tax revenues. support the construction effort Attachment C 27 Mitigation document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea would likely see increased spending. The additional public and private investment and associated economic benefits would be greater due to the increased spending. Cumulative Cumulative effects would be positive with the addition of new development that would continue to enhance the area and continue to improve the neighborhood vitality. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts As the area changes and new housing is provided, no existing public units would be lost and improvements in the neighborhood would likely continue as new developments are constructed. No long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Selected Sunset Area alternatives would encourage new development in the both the Planned Action Study Area and the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea that would result in beneficial changes to the socioeconomic conditions. Under Selected Sunset Area Alternatives, relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would result in short-term impacts; however, these impacts would be mitigated. The creation of new jobs and spending in the subarea during construction of new developments would result in short- term benefits. Mitigation Measures Table 18. Socioeconomics Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Mitigation measures to minimize dust, noise, aesthetics, and transportation impacts during construction are identified in Sections 2, 6, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Mitigation Document These measures would address many of the construction -related impacts that could negatively affect the study area businesses. In addition, with the reconstruction of NE Sunset Boulevard, or with any new development, if access to businesses is affected, the following measures should be addressed by the City or WSDOT: Provide detour, open for business, and other signage, as appropriate. Provide business cleaning services on a case- by-case basis, as needed. e Establish promotions or marketing measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea In addition to mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area, the following mitigation measures apply: e Public housing tenants shall be provided relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act RHA should consider phased demolition and reconstruction to minimize the need to relocate all the residents at the same time, or the new affordable housing development could be constructed prior to demolition to provide opportunities to relocate tenants within the subarea. Attachment C 28 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea to help affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction. Maintain access, as much as possible, to each business and, if access needs to be limited, coordinate with the affected businesses. Mitigation measures to address indirect impacts on housing affordability are addressed in Section 10 of this Mitigation Document. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 10. Housing Significant Impacts Table 19. Housing Impacts Type of Impact Construction Operations Indirect Cumulative Planned Action Study Area Construction of commercial, residential, and civic uses in the study area would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect current residents. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives assume 40% of the study area acreage would infill or redevelop. This would result in the greatest number of dwellings replaced at 299. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would add up to approximately 2,339 to 2,507 new dwellings. In the study area there is a potential for additional market rate dwellings as well as affordable and public dwellings. Most new units would be multifamily. Increased housing could increase local resident spending at businesses in the study area, and could also create an increased demand for parks and recreation, public services, and utilities. Growth in the study area would Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Construction of residential and civic uses would create temporary noise, dust, and construction traffic, which would affect adjacent residents to the subject properties. In this subarea, 110 public housing and duplex dwellings would be eliminated. There would be a 1:1 replacement of public housing units on site and in the Planned Action Study Area. The number of units added would be 266-479 above existing dwellings, for a total of 376-589 units. About three quarters of the units would be affordable or public, and another approximate quarter would be market -rate dwelling units. The potential for residents to help support local businesses as well as to create a demand for services is similar to the Planned Action Study Area. The support of the new dwellings Attachment C 29 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea be consistent with the City's to assist the City in meeting Comprehensive Plan and would growth targets is similar to the contribute to meeting growth Planned Action Study Area. targets for the City's next Comprehensive Plan Update for the year 2 03 1. 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 treasures for RHA units would mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measures Table 20. Housing Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-4-030(C) Construction mitigation would be as described identifies construction hours intended to address for the Planned Action Study Area. noise in sensitive time periods. See Section 6, RHA has committed to replacement housing for Noise, of this Mitigation Document regarding other the Sunset Terrace public housing units at a 1:1 noise mitigation measures for construction ratio, consistent with the existing proportion of periods. units by number of bedrooms. Such replacement When federal funds are being used for a proposal, housing could occur on site and/or off site. displaced tenants shall be offered relocation During the time replacement housing is under assistance in compliance with the Uniform construction, Section 8 vouchers, or equivalent Relocation Assistance and Real Property measures, shall be used to relocate tenants. Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended. The City and RHA should apply for federal, state, and local funding programs described in Draft EIS Section 3.10, Housing, to promote new housing opportunities for low and very low-income housing. RHA should establish a local preference for rental assistance. For example, RHA could establish a priority list for Section 8 vouchers for displaced low-income tenants in the Planned Action Study Area (in addition to the relocation assistance to be provided by RHA to the Sunset Terrace residents). Attachment C 30 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea Unit replacement and relocation assistance for the family village would be the same as described for the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations - General 11. Environmental Justice Significant Impacts Table 21. Environmental Justice Impacts Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Construction Residents near construction activities would likely be affected by temporary noise, dust, and visual impacts due to construction; these impacts would be short-term in nature. The population of the study area is predominately non -minority and non -low-income and any negative impacts would likely occur on these populations to a greater degree than the minority and low- income populations. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The demolition of the Sunset Terrace complex and construction of the proposed conceptual plans would require the relocation of the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex likely through Section 8 vouchers. Because the tenants are low-income and predominately minority, this would constitute a greater impact on these populations than other populations. Operations Residential, commercial, and Selected Sunset Area Alternatives recreational development and would have a number of beneficial civic and infrastructure effects on minority and low - improvements under Selected income populations in the Sunset Area Alternatives would subarea, including the improve the overall redevelopment of the existing neighborhood, making it a more dwelling units, construction of cohesive and desirable place to additional units, transportation live for all populations in the improvements, and the addition community, including minority of other community facilities (i.e., and low-income populations. senior day health, library, parks). The family village would be These changes would result in beneficial for all populations in improvements to public health the Planned Action Study Area, and to the aesthetics of the area. but these benefits could accrue to These would all improve a greater degree for minority and community cohesion for subarea low-income populations due to residents. Attachment C 31 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Indirect Cumulative the close proximity, especially for those without access to a vehicle. The introduction of new retail and commercial space within the study area would increase employment opportunities. These opportunities would benefit all study area populations, but could benefit minority and low-income populations to a greater degree. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would increase the variety of residential unit types and affordability levels would reduce the concentration of low- income households in the subarea, and thereby reduce or eliminate some of the social consequences of such concentrations. Cumulative impacts would primarily be beneficial. As the area continues to redevelop with new investments, public and private, it would become more desirable for the residents and would continue to create new jobs. The new development and addition of more market -rate units could cause the study area to become less affordable to lower-income populations, which could result in these populations needing to relocate outside of the study area. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Housing types and affordability would be more varied. New retail and commercial space wand provide new employment opportunities could be seen as more beneficial to subarea residents who may be unemployed or not have a their own vehicle and would, therefore, benefit more from the proximity. Adverse impacts are not anticipated. New dwelling units would be affordable, public, and market -rate units. The beneficial cumulative impacts identified under the Planned Action Study Area would be similar. There are no long-term significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to environmental justice. The Selected Sunset Area alternatives would result in primarily beneficial impacts associated with new dwelling units, new civic facilities and parks, improvements in nonmotorized transportation, and new employment opportunities in the surrounding area. During construction and in the short-term residents would be subject to construction activities and the tenants of the Sunset Terrace complex would be required to relocate during demolition and construction. However, construction mitigation and relocation assistance mitigation measures (for the RHA units) would minimize impacts. Attachment C 32 Mitigation Document Mitigation Measures Table 22. Environmental Justice Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea There are no specific mitigation measures related Mitigation measures during construction include to environmental justice during construction or the need for replacement housing for the operation. During construction, mitigation residents of Sunset Terrace. It is likely that the measures related to noise, dust, traffic congestion, tenants would be relocated under a potential and visual quality shall be applicable to all Section 8 voucher strategy during construction. populations. These measures are described in See Section 9, Socioeconomics, of this Mitigation Sections 2, 6, 12, and 14, respectively, of this Document. Mitigation Document. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations — General 12. Aesthetics Significant Impacts Table 23. Aesthetic Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction The demolition of existing Same as Planned Action Study structures and construction of Area new buildings would expose nearby residents to visual impacts, including dust, the presence of construction equipment, stockpiles of construction materials, localized increases in vehicular traffic, and on-site construction activities. For each alternative, these activities would occur sporadically at various locations throughout the Planned Action Study Area, would be localized to the construction site, and would be temporary in nature. Operations Visual Character The extensive public investment The visual character of the under the Selected Sunset Area Potential Sunset Terrace Alternatives would result in Redevelopment Subarea would widespread changes to the visual change from its current state to a character of the Planned Action pedestrian -oriented community Stuqy Area affecting about 40% of with a mix of residential,ground- Attachment C 33 M tigation Document Height and Bulk Shade and Shadow The subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than under current conditions. The tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned Center Village. Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, shading effects would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see some of the most intense commercial and mixed- use development Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would range from one to four stories. The Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2 - story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. Dependent on final design, building may potentially shade sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times of the day. With the Preferred Alternative, the increased size of the central park, as well as the placement of 2 -story townhomes adjacent to the park, reduces the potential for adverse shading effects compared to Alternative 3. Indirect] Cumulative While redevelopment of the Redevelopment of the Sunset public facilities discussed under Terrace housing facility would be the various alternatives would be a localized action, but additional a coherent effort, private private development is development throughout the _ _ anticipated to occur in response Attachment C 34 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea parcel acres. Private development floor commercial, and community would take full advantage of the uses linked by public spaces and current development regulations, landscaped pedestrian pathways. resulting in a transition to a The Preferred Alternative concept mixed-use, pedestrian -oriented would focus less residential neighborhood. development in the subarea than The application of adopted design Alternative 3, making room for a standards as new construction larger neighborhood park. gradually replaces older buildings would result in an overall improvement of the visual environment in the Planned Action Study Area. Height and Bulk Shade and Shadow The subarea would experience moderate increases in height and bulk over existing conditions. Heights would range from two to four stories, and buildings would generally be located closer to the street than under current conditions. The tallest building heights under the Preferred Alternative would occur on property zoned Center Village. Because heights in the Planned Action Study Area would generally increase, shading effects would also become more pronounced, though only to a moderate degree. Increased building heights within the Planned Action Study Area could result in increased shading of pedestrian areas and public spaces, particularly along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is likely to see some of the most intense commercial and mixed- use development Building height and bulk within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea would range from one to four stories. The Preferred Alternative, however, would provide much more park space than Alternative 3, providing a sense of openness to the Sunset Terrace site. In addition, buildings on the site would be arranged to place 2 - story townhomes adjacent to the park and taller multifamily residential buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard. Taller buildings along NE Sunset Boulevard would cast longer shadows on the interior of the subarea to the north, potentially shading sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE. Dependent on final design, building may potentially shade sidewalks along Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE at various times of the day. With the Preferred Alternative, the increased size of the central park, as well as the placement of 2 -story townhomes adjacent to the park, reduces the potential for adverse shading effects compared to Alternative 3. Indirect] Cumulative While redevelopment of the Redevelopment of the Sunset public facilities discussed under Terrace housing facility would be the various alternatives would be a localized action, but additional a coherent effort, private private development is development throughout the _ _ anticipated to occur in response Attachment C 34 Mitigation Document Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea study area would occur to this public investment, and piecemeal. Individual private each private development project developments are likely to be of would contribute to the overall higher density, greater height, and transformation of the area's a different architectural style than aesthetic character. existing development, and have the potential to create temporary aesthetic conflicts where they are located adjacent to older structures. Over time, as more properties redevelop, the temporary conflicts would be less frequent and less noticeable. Unavoidable Adverse Imparts With the application of adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 24. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea In both the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, mitigation measures will be necessary to minimize impacts associated with increased height, bulk, and shading. Future development occurring under any of the alternatives shall conform to the Renton Municipal Code design standards, including but not limited to the following: • Urban design standards contained in RMC 4-3- 100, • Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-115, and • Lighting Standards contained in RMC 4-4-075. As described in RMC 4-3-10083, portions of the Planned Action Study Area do not currently lie within an established Urban Design District, most notably those properties north of NE 16th Street and west of Kirkland Avenue NE, where the family village proposed under the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would be located. To ensure that future redevelopment exhibits quality urban design, the City should consider either including this area in Design District D or creating a new design district for this purpose. Prior to the enactment of new design standards, the City may condition development north of NE 16th Street to meet See Planned Action Study Area. Attachment C 35 Wigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea appropriate standards of Design District D in RMC 4- 3-100, Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 4 Chapter 2 Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards RMC 4-3-140 Urban Design Regulations RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site 13. Historic/Cultural Significant Impacts Table 25. Historic/Cultural Impacts Type of Impact Construction Operations, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts Planned Action Study Area Typical project impacts that could disrupt or adversely affect cultural resources in the Planned Action Study Area include demolition, removal, or substantial alteration without consideration of historic and archaeological sites and/or features. Development could occur on or near parcels in the Planned Action Study Area that contain previously identified or unknown cultural resources. This development would likely involve ground disturbance and modifications to buildings and structures, which could result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Because of the potential to impact unknown cultural resources, a detailed review of potential impacts on cultural resources would be required on a project -specific basis. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea No significant cultural resources are known to exist in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Future development in the subarea would have no impact any known National Register of Historic Places CNRHP]-eligible archaeological or historic resources, and the likelihood of impacts on unknown cultural resources is considered low. Attachment C 36 Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The impacts on cultural resources caused by new development associated with any alterative could be significant and unavoidable, depending on the nature and proximity of the proposed development project. Implementation of mitigation measures set forth in Draft EIS Section 4.13.2 as amended in the Final EIS would identify potential impacts on cultural resources, at which point measures to reduce them to less than significant could be taken. Mitigation Measures Table 26. Historic/Cultural Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area • In the event that a proposed development site within the study area contains a building at least 50 -years of age that is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or Washington Heritage Register (WHR), the project shall be required to undergo review to determine if the property is considered eligible for listing. • It is recommended that the City adopt a historic preservation ordinance that considers the identification and treatment of historic resources listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR, or locally designated. Until such time an ordinance is adopted, the City must enter into consultation with DAHP regarding potential impacts on historic resources in the study area that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR. For future projects that involve significant excavation in the study area the City must enter into consultation with Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) to determine the likelihood of and recommendations for addressing potential archaeological resources. It may be necessary to complete archaeological testing prior to significant excavation in the study area, such as digging for footings or utilities. Archaeological 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 Attachment C 37 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Since no native "A" horizon was identified at the Edmonds -Glenwood site and throughout the Sunset Terrace public housing complex, no further archaeological investigations are recommended for these areas. Although a buried, native "A" horizon was identified on RHA's Piha site (east of Harrington Avenue NE], the potential for an archaeological discovery is very low. The project should proceed with no further archaeological investigations. If archaeological materials are discovered during ground disturbing excavations, the contractor shall halt excavations in the vicinity of the find and contact DAHP. If human skeletal remains are discovered, or if during excavation archaeological materials are uncovered, the proponent will immediately stop work and notify agencies as outlined in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided in Draft EIS Appendix J and as amended by Final EIS Chapter 4 (and provided as Attachment 1 of this Exhibit B). If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resource(s) would eliminate the need for measuring or mitigating impacts. Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea on the archaeological resource must be considered and, if needed, a study conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine whether the project would materially impact the archaeological resource. If the project would disturb an archaeological resource, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact. If avoidance of the archaeological resource is not possible, an appropriate research design must be developed and implemented with full data recovery of the archaeological resource prior to the development project. The avoidance of archaeological resources through selection of project alternatives and changes in design of project features in the specific area of the affected resources) 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. Nexus City of Renton Comprehensive Plan 14. Transportation Significant Impacts Table 27. Transportation Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Potential impacts that could result Same as Planned Action Study from construction activities Area include increased traffic volumes, increased delays, detour routes, and road closures. Lane closures in both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard could be required during construction roadway improvements associated with the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives. This reduction in capacity would likely increase travel times, and may force reroutes through local streets. Attachment C 38 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Traffic Operations At Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are predicted in both 2015 and 2030. At Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street LOS F conditions are expected in 2030. Transit At both Edmonds Avenue NE and at NE 10th Street, expanded bus zones in both directions of travel would provide larger waiting areas for transit users and would be conveniently located near residential or retail land uses. Bus zones and existing bus stops could include shelters with adequate lighting and street furniture. Nonmotorized Selected Sunset Area Alternatives include improved nonmotorized facilities such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and marked crosswalks. Design elements such as bike route signage, bike storage lockers, and bicycle detection at signalized intersections are included to promote bike ridership and safety. The Preferred Alternative includes a 5 -foot -wide eastbound bicycle lane, rather than bicycle lanes in both directions [as in Alternative 3]. Sidewalk connections from NE Sunset Boulevard to side streets would be improved, strengthening the connectivity between the residential areas and NE Sunset Boulevard. To improve safety for pedestrians crossing the roadways, the Preferred Alternative includes special paving at crosswalks and intersections. Sustainability The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives score a minimum of 33 with a maximum of up to 99 out of 118 points in the Greenroads metric; therefore, the alternatives meet the minimum Greenroads certification level and could achieve the highest level of Delay times in the subarea could worsen slightly due to the increase in trips generated, but intersections would likely operate better than the LOS D threshold. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Attachment C 39 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea certification. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives score most strongly in the "Access and Equity" section of the Greenroads evaluation, as improving access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users are important elements of this alternative. The Selected Sunset Area Alternatives typically include higher levels of improvements or higher quality of improvements such as wider sidewalks, wider planting areas, and special paving. Indirect and Cumulative Growth would increase in Same as Planned Action Study comparison to Comprehensive Area Plan land use estimates; however, the Selected Sunset Area Alternatives' operational analysis is based on a model that addresses growth cumulatively on the City's current and planned roadway system and any operational deficiencies can be mitigated to meet City of Renton thresholds. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The alternatives are expected to contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic volumes within the study area, which could degrade some roadway operations. The increase in traffic volumes due to activities in the study area is considered unavoidable, but the roadway operation and LOS can be mitigated to meet applicable LOS standards. Mitigation Measures Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Studv Area Subarea Operational Mitigation Planned Action applicants shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Planned Action applicants shall provide a traffic analysis estimating trips generated by their proposed development and demonstrate conformance with the Planned Action Ordinance trio No permanent mitigation measures are recommended within Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. The intersection operations under action alternatives are expected to be within the LOS D threshold. During construction, mitigation measures are those described for the Planned Action Study Area. Flaggers, advance warning signage to alert motorists of detours or closures, and Attachment C 40 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea ranges and thresholds in Section 3(d) (4) as well as demonstrate conformance with the City's concurrency requirements in RMC 4-6-070. When demonstrated by an applicant's analysis that operational LOS standards reviewed in the EIS are exceeded at the following locations, intersection improvements shall be made by planned action applicants as appropriate to meet LOS D and in conformance with the City's street standards in RMC 4-6-060: . Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street: an additional southbound left -turn pocket and westbound right -turn pocket would improve operations to LOS E, while added pedestrian- and bicycle -oriented paths or multi -use trails to encourage mode shifts would likely improve operations to LOS D. . At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection: the eastbound and westbound approaches could be restriped to increase the number of lanes and, therefore, the capacity of the intersection. With implementation, this intersection would improve to LOS D. Construction Mitgation Temporary mitigation during construction may be necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic delays. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to or during construction within the Planned Action Study Area. Prior to construction: 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. a Develop traffic control plans for all affected roadways. Outline procedures for maintenance of traffic, develop detour plans, and identify potential reroutes. o Place advance warning signage on roadways surrounding construction locations to minimize traffic disturbances. reduced speed zones would likely benefit traffic operations. Attachment C 41 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Planned Action Study Area Subarea • During construction: o Place advance warning signage on NE Sunset Boulevard and adjacent arterials to warn motorists of potential vehicles entering and exiting the roadway. Signage could include "Equipment on Road," "Truck Access," or "Slow Vehicles Crossing." o Use pilot cars as dictated by the Washington State Department of Transportation (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. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards 15. Parks and Recreation Significant Impacts Table 29. Parks and Recreation Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Construction could temporarily No parks and recreation facilities disrupt pedestrian access to exist in this subarea and no existing park properties. Active construction impacts are construction sites also represent anticipated. opportunities for creative play Attachment C 42 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Operations Indirect and attractive adventure for young people in the community. Although there is an increase in community park acreage there would continue to be a deficiency in neighborhood and community park acreage in the Planned Action Study Area. Deficiencies are less than for the Preferred Alternative than Alternative 3 which has a similar population but less proposed park facilities. Ballfield and sport court LOS standards are applied citywide; thus a lack of such facilities within the Planned Action Study Area or the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea does not indicate an LOS deficiency. 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 Indirect impacts are expected to mostly fall on the City s regional and communitywide parks and recreation facilities. For example, as the population increases in the Planned Action Study Area, there will be a growing deficiency of Neighborhood and Community Parks. Due to proximity, those demands would likely be displaced to nearby regional facilities such as Gene Coulon Park as well as in surrounding communities. 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. Under the Preferred Alternative, Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Sunset Terrace Subarea. Additionally, this park would be expanded from 0.5 acres to 2.65 acres and would have a vacation of Harrington Avenue NE similar to Alternative 3. This increases the acreage in neighborhood park land for this subarea and the Planned Action Study Area. Additionally, a library would be constructed in the subarea. Facility deficiencies in this subarea would also likely lead to spillover demand for active playfields for team sports in other parts of Renton as well as in surrounding communities. Cumulative Increased demands for park and Same as Planned Action Study recreation facilities and services Area generated by the forecast population growth under each of the alternatives would add to those created by general population growth throughout the Renton community. Attachment C 43 Mitigation Document Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under studied alternatives for the Planned Action Study Area and Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, there would be an increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. With the application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 30. Parks and Recreation Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area During construction, impacts adjacent to or in parks within the Planned Action Study Area, such as an increase in noise, dust, and access limitations, shall be mitigated as per a construction mitigation plan developed by Planned Action applicants and approved by the City. Planned Action applicants shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified by t he Renton Municipal Code. The following four mitigation measures would help improve the availability or access to parks and recreation facilities in the Planned Action Study Area. The City is initiating a parks, recreation, open space and natural resources plan for completion in 2011. That plan could identify alternative 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. The City and Renton School District could develop a joint -use agreement for public use of school grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non -school hours. Joint -use agreements between the City and Renton School District could also be used to, at least partially, address the LOS deficiencies in existing recreation facilities. 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 central park and 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 shall apply to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. Attachment C 44 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea The City could add parks and recreation facilities such as: a The City could convert current public properties no longer needed for their current uses to parks and recreation uses, such as the Highlands Library that is intending to move and expand off site. Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows properties in public use. o The City could purchase private property for parks and recreation use. An efficient means would be to consider properties in the vicinity of existing parks and recreation facilities or where additional population growth would be greatest. Draft EIS Figure 4AS-2 shows locations where future demand could be greater and where the City could focus acquisition efforts. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan 16. Public Services Significant Impacts Table 31. Public Services Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Police The Renton Police Department Same as Planned Action Study could experience an increase in Area calls for service related to construction site theft, vandalism, or trespassing relating to construction. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Education Construction impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services could include increased calls for service related to inspection of construction sites and potential construction -related injuries. Same as Planned Action Study Area The McKnight Middle School No impact expansion would occur similar to Attachment C 45 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Health Care Social Services Solid Waste Library Operations other alternatives. In addition, changes would occur at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center and the reconfigured Hillcrest Early Childhood Center would be part of a family village concept that would include recreation and housing. The expansion of McKnight Middle School is not expected to disrupt student attendance at the campus. There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to health care services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to social services during infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established. Construction at the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center as part of the family village redevelopment, would require relocation of the Friendly Kitchen weekly meal program that meets at that site. The Friendly Kitchen program would either be relocated permanently as a part of the redevelopment or may be accommodated as part of the range of social services provided at the family village. Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would result in construction - related waste generation. When the library is relocated, library services may be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but services would be available at other branches. Same as Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing development would displace the existing on- site community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However, the space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility, and with appropriate phasing of development, disruption to on- site social service programs can be minimized or avoided. Same as Planned Action Study Area Same as Planned Action Study Area Police Applying the Renton Police Applying the Renton Police Department staffing per Department standard to the population standard to the anticipated population increase anticipated population increase would account for 1.0 to1.8 of the Attachment C 46 Mitigation Document Type of Impact Fire and Emergency Medical Services Education Health Care Planned Action Study Area would result in a need for an estimated 8.6 to 9.3 additional police officers to address increase in service calls related to growth. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area would result in the need for an additionall.2 to1.3 firefighter full- time equivalents (FTEs) compared to existing conditions to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Population growth would result in an increase in approximately 526 to 567 students in the Renton School District compared to existing conditions. The district's planned opening of Honey Dew Elementary, as well as construction of additions to McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School, would accommodate this increase in student population. New students within the study area would include a higher than average number of students speaking English as a second language, increasing demands on the district's English Language Learners Program. Increase in study area population would increase the need for hospital beds in the Valley Medical Center (VMC) service area by approximately 4.1 to 4.4 beds, based on the current ratio of hospital beds to district service area population. Additional population growth may also result in increased demand at VMC's nearby primary care and urgent care clinics. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea approximately 8.6 to 9.3 additional police officers to address population growth study area. Applying the fire service's staffing ratio to growth in the study area to the population growth of in this subarea would result in the need for less than 0.14 to 0.2 of the 1.2 tol.3 firefighter FTEs needed in the overall Planned Action Study Area to maintain the City's existing staffing ratio. Population growth would result in approximately 60 to 107 additional students compared to existing conditions. It is anticipated that this additional increment of students would be accommodated by the district's planned capital improvements, including opening Honey Dew Elementary, expansion of McKnight Middle School, and redeveloping the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center which would provide additional student capacity in addition to early education programs that currently exist on the site. Based VMC's existing ratio of hospital beds to district population, the anticipated population increase would result in a small increase of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 hospital beds of the total assumed for the entire study area. Social Services Selected Sunset Area Alternatives The subarea's new affordable include major public investments, housing development for seniors which could expand upon or would include enriched senior enhance social services in the services on site, including elder study area. Among the key day -health for off-site patients in components outside of Potential a 12,500 -square -foot space on the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment northeastern vacant RHA parcel. Attachment C 47 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Solid Waste Library Services Indirect and Cumulative Subarea is development of a family village in the North Subarea. Solid waste generation is expected to increase by around 129,689 to 139,000 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A portion of this waste stream would be diverted to recyclables. Anticipated growth would create a demand for an additional 1,940 to 2,079 square feet of library space compared to existing conditions. All alternatives increase growth above existing conditions and would add to a citywide increase in demand for public services; however, the alternatives are accommodating an increment of growth already anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan at a citywide level, and planned growth to the year 2031 will be addressed in the City's 2014 Comprehensive Plan update.. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 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. Additional community space at the family village, would be located outside but nearby the subarea. Solid waste generation from the subarea would increase by about 14,750 to 9,300 pounds per week compared to existing conditions. A percentage of this waste would be diverted to recycling. Anticipated growth in the subarea would account for approximately 221-397 square feet of library facilities to meet the growth in demand. Same as Planned Action Study Area Demand for public services will continue to increase in conjunction with population growth. With advanced planning and implementation of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to police, fire/emergency medical, education, health care, social services, solid waste, or library services are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 32. Public Services Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Police Police During construction, security measures shall be Mitigation measures described for the Planned Attachment C 48 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area implemented by developers to reduce potential criminal activity, including on-site security surveillance, lighting, and fencing to prevent public access. Such measures shall be detailed in a construction mitigation plan prepared by Planned Action applicants and approved by the City. Planned Action applicants shall design street layouts, open space, and recreation areas to promote visibility for residents and police. Street and sidewalk lighting would discourage theft and vandalism, and enhance security. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Developers will construct all new buildings in compliance with the International Fire Code and Renton Development Regulations (RMC Title 4), including provision of emergency egress routes and installation of fire extinguishing and smoke detection systems. All new buildings will comply with accessibility standard for people with disabilities, per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Planned Action applicants shall pay a Fire Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, payable to the City as specified in the Renton Municipal Code. Education During renovation of the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center, the Renton School District shall provide temporary transportation or take other equivalent measures to ensure accessibility of the early education program to area children who attend the program. Since the school district typically plans for a shorter -term horizon than the 20 years envisioned for the Planned Action, the district will continue to monitor student generation rates into the future and adjust its facility planning accordingly. The district will continue to implement existing plans to expand permanent student capacity at area schools. In addition, the district may utilize portable classrooms or shift attendance boundaries to address student capacity issues that arise on a shorter term basis. The district will also continue monitoring growth in the number of English Language Learner students in the district, and plan additional capacity in that program to meet growing demands for that service, particularly in schools with high percentages of English Language Learners, such as Highlands Elementary. Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Education No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Health Care No mitigation measures are necessary or proposed. Social Services RHA's provision of community space that could be used for social services or community meeting space for community organizations would serve as mitigation. See the discussion under the Planned Action Study Area. RHA should maintain a community meeting space within or near the subarea during construction phase of Sunset Terrace redevelopment that allows for on-site social service programs to continue to meet within the subarea. Solid Waste Mitigation measures described for the Planned Action Study Area also apply to this Subarea. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing according to shifting trends in population growth. The school district imposes a school impact fee for Attachment C 49 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea new residential construction. This funding source can be used to help provide expanded school facilities needed to serve the growth anticipated under all alternatives (RMC 4-1-160). Health Care There are no mitigation measures needed or proposed for health care due to the negligible change in the number of beds. Social Services The City's planned improvements to the streetscape and transit facilities that make walking, bicycling, and taking transit more viable modes of transportation would improve accessibility of social services located outside the Planned Action Study Area to area residents. RHA, Renton School District, and the City should work together to relocate the Friendly Kitchen community feeding program when the Hillcrest Early Childhood Center campus, the current site of this program, is redeveloped as part of a family village. Relocation should occur at an accessible location nearby to maintain service to the existing community that relies upon the Friendly Kitchen services. If possible, Renton School District and RHA should incorporate space for the continuation of the Friendly Kitchen Program within the family village. RHA and the City should consider developing a community center facility as part of Sunset Terrace redevelopment or the family village development or at another location in the Planned Action Study Area. The center would provide an accessible on-site space for a comprehensive range of social services for residents in the Planned Action Study Area, focused on alleviating poverty, and addressing the needs of some of the more predominant demographic groups found within the Planned Action Study Area—seniors, individuals living with disabilities, those speaking English as a Second Language, and youth. Solid Waste The City shall require development applicants to consider recycling and reuse of building materials when redeveloping sites, and as part of their application explain what measures are included. The City may condition Planned Action applications to incorporate feasible recycling and reuse measures. Public Library The King County Library System should continue to monitor growth within its geographic clusters, and adjust plans for facility sizing and spacing Attachment C so Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea according to shifting trends in population growth. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title IV Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement RMC Title IV Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards 17. Utilities Significant Impacts Table 33. Utilities Impacts Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Construction Where new construction occurs, Same as Planned Action Study it is anticipated that existing Area telecommunication lines would be removed, replaced, or abandoned in place. Redevelopment would require coordination with service providers regarding the location of proposed structures, utilities, and site grading. To accommodate the required demand and capacity for water and sewer services for new development and redevelopment in the study area, existing water and sanitary sewer lines would be abandoned in place or removed and replaced with new and larger lines. New and larger water and sewer mains would be installed in existing and/or future dedicated public rights-of-way or within dedicated utility easements to the City, and would connect with the existing distribution network Existing utility lines would continue to service the site during construction, or temporary bypass service would be implemented until the distribution or collection system is complete and operational. Operations Attachment C 51 Mitigation Document Type of Impact Telecommunications Water Wastewater Planned Action Study Area Increased capacity requirements with increased levels of population and commercial activity in each of the alternatives could require new fiber within the Planned Action Study Area and coordination with telecommunication providers as development occurs should be performed so that appropriate facilities can be planned. The increase in the average daily demand (ADD) is projected to be 0.56 to 0.59 million gallons per day within the Planned Action Study Area. The growth projected would increase the storage requirements for the Highlands 435 and 565 pressure zones and further increase the existing storage deficit in the Highlands 435 pressure zone. In addition, the development that is projected for the Planned Action Study Area would increase the fire -flow requirements with more multifamily development and commercial development. The capacity of the existing water distribution system to meet these higher fire flows is inadequate if system improvements are not constructed. The increase in wastewater load for the Planned Action Study Area is 0.59 to 0.63 million gallons per day. This increase in wastewater load is not expected to affect the wastewater interceptors that provide conveyance of wastewater from the Planned Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Same as Planned Action Study Area The increase in ADD for this subarea is 0.05 to 0.09 million gallons per day. The increase in the peak daily demand {PDD) for this subarea is 0.09 to 0.16 million gallons per day. The primary significant impact of subarea development on the water distribution system would be related increased fire -flow requirements. These increased fire flow requirements are substantial and cannot be met by the existing distribution system serving the subarea. Water system pressure provided by the 435 pressure zone within the subarea is not adequate for multistory development and/or for development with fire sprinkler systems. New water mains extended from the higher - pressure 565 pressure zone system to service the subarea would need to be phased to accommodate growth. The increase in wastewater flow in this subarea is 0.05 to 0.10 million gallons per day. Similar to the Planned Action Study Area, no impacts on the interceptors that provide conveyance from the subarea are expected, but the increased sewer load could impact local sewers within the Attachment C 52 Mitigation Document Potential Sunset Terrace Type of Impact Planned Action Study Area Redevelopment Subarea Action Study Area but it could subarea. increase surcharging that is currently experienced and observed within the Planned Action Study Area. Indirect and Cumulative Demands on utilities would Same as Planned Action Study increase as a result of cumulative Area development. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as long as the replacement of water and sewer infrastructure is properly planned, designed, and constructed, and funding strategies are identified and approved by City Council. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts All studied alternatives are anticipated to increase demand for water, wastewater, and telecommunication services. Increased growth in the Planned Action Study Area has the potential to exacerbate existing water and wastewater system deficiencies. However, with application of mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures Table 34. Utilities Mitigation Measures Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Water Water To mitigate the current and projected water The mitigation measures that are required in the storage deficit in the pressure zones that serve Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea the study area, the City completed the are similar to those noted for the Planned Action construction of the 4.2 -million -gallon Hazen Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met Reservoir in the Highlands 565 pressure zone with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands in March 2009. The City also completed a water Reservoirs site, and fire -flow requirements would distribution storage feasibility study to develop require the new 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop conceptual options and planning level cost throughout this subarea and realignment of the estimates for expanding the storage capacity at Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. two existing City -owned sites: the Highlands As noted previously, the City has recently installed a Reservoirs site and the Mt Olivet Tank site new 12 -inch -diameter main for development (HDR, Inc. 2009). Financial strategies for the adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs planning, design, and construction of the in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be storage -capacity expansion have not been extended to serve the development A more detailed determined at this time. discussion of needed system improvements is To mitigate the fire -flow requirements for the provided in Attachment 2.Wastewater Collection proposed level of development and The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace redevelopment within the Planned Action Study Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for Area, larger diameter (12 -inch) piping is replacement based on age and condition in the required throughout the Planned Action Study City's Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Area to convey the higher fire -flow Based on the increased wastewater load within the Attachment C 53 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea requirements. The new water mains will be Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, looped for reliability and redundancy of service, the local sewers may need to be replaced with as required by City policies and water design upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater standards. The larger mains will be installed load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of within the dedicated right-of-way in a north -to- needed sewer system improvements is provided south and east -to -west grid -style water system. Attachment 2. Additional mains within the development sites will also be required to provide water to hydrants and water meters, and should be looped within the development site around buildings. To provide the water pressure requirements for multistory buildings and to support the pressure requirements for fire sprinkler systems, the new water mains will be connected to the higher -pressure Highlands 565 pressure zone. The options to address fire flow within the Planned Action Study Area are further described below. The Highlands 565 pressure zone typically has enough pressure to meet the pressure needs for fire -flow requirements for the proposed development and redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area, but is limited in providing the fire -flow rate due to the size of the existing water mains that are generally smaller than 12 inches in diameter. The Highlands 435 pressure zone operates at lower pressures and has smaller -diameter pipes in this area of the pressure zone and, therefore, cannot meet both the pressure requirements and the fire -flow capacity (flow) requirements. The options developed to remedy fire -flow and pressure inadequacies are shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 and summarized below. A 12 -inch -diameter pipeline loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1 was developed to extend the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the existing Highlands 435 pressure zone. This 12 -inch -diameter loop was also extended north of NE 12th Street in the existing Highlands 565 pressure zone to improve the conveyance capacity throughout the Planned Action Study Area. This 12 -inch - diameter loop improvement builds on the City's recent extension of the Highlands 565 pressure zone into the Highlands 435 pressure zone to support fire -flow requirements for the Harrington Square Development In addition to the 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop shown in Draft EIS Section 4.17, Figure 4.17-1, additional piping improvements for each development served from the 12 -inch -diameter Attachment C 54 Mitigation Document Planned Action Study Area Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea loop are expected to be required to provide sufficient fire flow and pressure throughout each development The sizing and layout of this additional piping will depend on the development layout, but will require that the development piping be looped around buildings and be sufficient in size to maintain the fire - flow requirements of the development Planned Action applicants shall implement improvements required for water service and fire flow consistent with City standards in RMC Title 4 Chapter 6 and RMC 4-5-070 International Fire Code and Fire Prevention Regulations. Planned Action applicants shall also demonstrate compliance with RMC 4-1- 180 Charges for Equitable Share of Public Works Facilities. Wastewater Collection The local wastewater collection system n the Planned Action Study Area is scheduled for replacement based on age and condition as noted in the City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan (City of Renton 2009b). The local sewers have reached the end of their useful life and have been identified as high priority replacements due to leaks and current surcharging. However, the increased wastewater load with the development in the Planned Action Study Area could require that the local sewers be replaced with larger diameter pipe to provide sufficient capacity to the wastewater interceptors that serve the Planned Action Study Area. The locations where lines would be improved are identified in Draft EIS Section 4.17. Pursuant to RMC 4-6-040.13, any facility improvements identified by the current adopted long-range wastewater management plan (comprehensive sewer system plan) that are not installed or in the process of being installed must be constructed by the property owner(s) or developer(s) desiring service. Planned Action applicants shall also demonstrate compliance with RMC 4-1-184 Charges for Equitable Share of Public Works Facilities. Nexus Renton Comprehensive Plan RMC Title 1V Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement Attachment C 55 Mitigation Document RMC Title IV Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards Advisory Notes The ITIS identified potentially applicable federal, state, and local laws and rules that apply to Planned Actions and that can serve to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. It is assumed that all applicable federal, state, and local regulations would be applied. The primary set of applicable local regulations is the Renton Municipal Code. A list of specific requirements included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. Attachment C 56 Mitigation Document Attachment 1: Draft EIS, Cultural Resources Appendix J, Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains or Cultural Resources during Redevelopment of the Edmonds - Glenwood Lot, Harrington Lot, and Sunset Terrace Public Housing Complex in Renton, Washington Any human skeletal remains that are discovered during this project will be treated with dignity and respect. A. If any City of Renton employee or any of the contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has made an unanticipated discovery of human skeletal remains or cultural resources, all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease. The area of work stoppage will be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the human skeletal remains, in accordance with Washington State Law. The City of Renton project manager will be contacted. B. The City of Renton project manager or the City of Renton representative will be responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery. At a minimum, the immediate area will be secured to a distance of thirty (30) feet from the discovery. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. C. If skeletal remains are discovered, the City of Renton will immediately call the King County Sheriffs office, the King County Coroner, and a cultural resource specialist or consultant qualified to identify human skeletal remains. The county coroner will determine if the remains are forensic or non -forensic (whether related to a criminal investigation). The remains should be protected in place until this has been determined. D. If the human skeletal remains are determined to be non -forensic, the King County Coroner will notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. DAHP will take jurisdiction over the remains. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Native American or Non -Native American. DAHP will handle all consultation with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as to the treatment of the remains. E. If cultural resources are uncovered, such as stone tools or flakes, fire -cracked rocks from a hearth feature, butchered animal bones, or historic -era objects (e.g., patent medicine bottles, milk tins, clay pipes, building foundations), the City of Renton will arrange for a qualified professional archaeologist to evaluate the find. Again, the cultural resources will be protected in place until the archaeologist has examined the find. F. If the cultural resources find is determined to be significant, the City of Renton cultural resource specialist/archaeologist or consulting archaeologist will immediately contact the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribes Attachment C 57 Mitigation Document to seek consultation regarding the eligibility of any further discovery for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. CONTACT INFORMATION Erika Conkling, 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 Sheriffs Office Headquarters 516 Third Avenue, Room W-150 Seattle, WA 98104-2312 Phone: (206) 296-4155 (non -emergency) Laura Murphy Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Phone: (253) 876-3272 Attachment C 58 Mitigation Document Attachment 2: Figure 3.17-1 Potential Subarea Utility Improvements and Phasing Attachment C 59 Mitigation Document Water The mitigation measures that are required in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are similar to those noted for the Planned Action Study Area. The water storage deficit would be met with an increase in storage at the existing Highlands Reservoirs site, and fire -flow requirements would require the new 12 -inch -diameter pipe loop throughout this subarea and realignment of the Highlands 435 and Highlands 565 pressure zones. As noted previously, the City has recently installed a new 12 -inch -diameter main for development adjacent to this subarea, and as development occurs in the subarea, the pipe network would need to be extended to serve the development. A more detailed discussion of needed system improvements is provided below. Overview Renton fire and building codes mandate minimum fire flows, durations, and pressure prior to occupancy of new structures. In the case of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea these mandated flows dictate substantial upgrades to the water distribution system. When the fire flow required for a new development exceeds 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm), the City also requires that the mains providing that fire flow be looped. Looped water mains provide more reliability and higher pressures under fire -flow conditions. City regulations also require installation of fire hydrants along all arterials such as NE Sunset Boulevard. Taken together these code requirements would lead to a series of new water mains connected to the 565 pressure zone and extended to the various redevelopment projects within the subarea. It is not possible to predict the precise timing and sequencing of these redevelopment projects. The following paragraphs illustrate one scenario of water main sequencing that could meet fire -flow requirements. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 1 Phase 1 of the Edmonds -Glenwood redevelopment project consists of townhomes along Glenwood Avenue NE. Fire -flow requirements for this project are expected to be in the range of 2,500 gpm. The existing water system in Glenwood Avenue NE cannot provide that amount of fire flow. A new 12 -inch -diameter water main would be required to be extended from Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street in the 565 pressure zone, south along Harrington Avenue NE, and continuing along Glenwood Avenue NE past and through the project site, about 800 feet of new pipe (Segment A on Figure 3.17-1). New library A new library is proposed in the northeast quadrant of NE Sunset Boulevard and Harrington Avenue NE. If the fire -flow requirements for the new library are about 2,500 gpm or less, then the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard could meet that requirement. Attachment C 60 Mitigation Document New Mixed -Use Building Adjacent to New Library A new mixed-use community service/retail/residential structure is proposed adjacent to the new library between NE Sunset Boulevard, NE 10th Street, and Sunset Lane NE. It is reasonable to expect that the combination of additional structure size and exposure (to the library) would mandate fire flows for this building in excess of 2,500 gpm. In that case, a looped system of mains from the 565 pressure zone would be required. This could be achieved by extending new mains from the existing 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard northwesterly on both Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street to Sunset Lane NE. The loop could then be connected by installing a new 12 -inch - diameter main in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to NE 10th Street. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could then be abandoned in place. This new loop would be about 700 feet in total length (Segment B on Figure 3.17-1). RHA's Piha Site Fire flows required for the PIHA site development have not been established. If the flow requirement is 2,500 gpm or less, then it could be met by extending a new 12 inch main in NE 10th Street past the site to Harrington Avenue NE. The extension could either be from NE Sunset Boulevard (if the project precedes the mixed use development adjacent to the library). Or it could be from Sunset Lane NE, if the project occurs after the mixed use development adjacent to the library. The length of pipe required from Sunset Boulevard would be about 500 feet; from Sunset Lane NE it would be about 350 feet. (Segment C on Figure 3.17-1) It is possible that required fire flows for the PIHA site would exceed 2,500 gpm. In that situation a looped main system would be necessary. There are multiple scenarios to meet the looping requirements. Those fire flow looping scenarios depend largely on the timing and sequencing of the PISA site project; i.e. does it precede or follow other redevelopment projects contemplated for the project area. Under one scenario, if the PIHA site development precedes construction of Phase II and III of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment looping could be achieved by extending another main (in addition to Segment C, discussed above) north on Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). If PIHA site development follows Phases H and III of Sunset Terrace, looping could be achieved by simply connecting the PIHA main extension in NE 10th Street (Segment C) with Segment E at the intersection of Harrington Avenue NE and NE 10th Street. Under another scenario, the PIHA site development could proceed before all other projects. In that case the cost of looping would not be shared with other projects as described in the preceding paragraphs and the PIHA site project would need to install either a "long-term" or a "temporary" 12 inch diameter "stand alone" water main loop. The "Iong-term" alignment would be to extend a 12 -inch main in Harrington Avenue NE connecting to the existing high-pressure water line in NE Sunset Blvd. This option would result in the installation of a new water main in the section of Harrington Avenue NE that is proposed to be vacated to help create the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Neighborhood Park. The new 12 -inch water main would be looped around the west and north side of the new PIHA site building and extended southerly in Sunset Lane NE to NE 10th Street, then southeasterly in NE 10th Street to connect back to the existing 12 -inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE. (Segment P1 on Figure 3.17-1) This new looped water main would be able to deliver about 5,000 gpm. Attachment C 61 Mitigation Document A temporary route (which is not the preferred option) to provide 5,000 gpm to the same site would be to extend two parallel 12 -inch water lines in NE 10th Street from the existing 12 -inch line in Sunset Boulevard NE, along with a looped water main around the west and north side of the building, and a 12 -inch line in Sunset Lane NE connecting back to the second new 12 -inch main in NE 10th Street. (Segment P2 on Figure 3.17-1) Sunset Terrace Redevelopment It is reasonable to assume that the fire flows required for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment would exceed 2,500 gpm, mandating installation of a looped system. In addition, Sunset Terrace abuts NE Sunset Boulevard, triggering the requirement to install hydrants every 400 feet along that arterial. It may be possible to phase the Sunset Terrace redevelopment in a manner that would allow early elements of the redevelopment to be constructed without looping the water mains (see Edmonds - Glenwood Phase 1, above). In any case, all mains serving the redevelopment would be extended from the 565 pressure zone. Initially, a new water main would be installed in Sunset Lane NE from Harrington Avenue NE to Glenwood Avenue NE (about 750 feet). This presumes that the new main in Harrington Avenue NE discussed in the Mixed -Use Building section, above, has been installed. The existing water main in Sunset Lane NE could be abandoned in place (Segment D on Figure 3.17-1). Looping the system could be achieved by extending the main from the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE along the newly aligned NE 10th Street to Harrington Avenue NE (about 250 feet) (Segment E on Figure 3.17-1). This presumes that the water main extension in NE 10th Street to serve RHA's Piha site has already be installed. There are two ways to install the required fire hydrants along NE Sunset Boulevard. One option would be to extend the 12 -inch -diameter main in NE Sunset Boulevard from Harrington Avenue NE along the Sunset Terrace frontage (about 800 feet). This would be the most expensive option. Another option would be to extend fire hydrant leads southwesterly through the Sunset Terrace project from Sunset Lane NE to NE Sunset Boulevard at the appropriate intervals (Segments F on Figure 3.17-1). This would be the least expensive option for two reasons. First, the pipes would not be installed in a street avoiding significant restoration costs. Second, the pipes could be smaller because they would be single purpose and not part of the City's transmission/distribution system. Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2 Fire -flow requirements for the Edmonds -Glenwood Phase 2 project are expected to be about 4,000 gpm, triggering the requirement to loop the water system. There are two options to meet this looping requirement: north or south. The north option would involve extending the 12 -inch -diameter main from Phase 1 westerly through the site to Edmonds Avenue NE. From there, the main would be extended north in Edmonds Avenue NE to NE 12th Street, then east in NE 12th Street to Harrington Avenue NE, a distance of more than 1,500 feet (Segment G on Figure 3.17-1). The south option would begin in the same manner by extending the Phase 1 main through the project site. Looping would be achieved by installing two new mains. One would extend from Sunset Lane NE north in Glenwood Avenue NE to the Phase 1 pipe. The other would extend Attachment C 62 Mitigation Document northwesterly in easements adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE from the northern -most fire hydrant lead installed for the Sunset Terrace project through the Phase 2 site. (A more expensive option would be to install this same section of pipe in the rights-of-way of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue NE.) These loops would also comprise more than 1,500 feet of new pipe (Segment H on Figure 3.17-1). Water Main Costs The cost of installation for new water mains is driven by a number of factors. Water mains installed in roads are more expensive than water mains installed within project or open space areas, because of the cost savings of avoiding conflicting utilities and restoring the road surface. New water main costs are also affected by whether they are stand-alone or part of a suite of infrastructure improvements. If the project is only installing a new water main, then all of the excavation, bedding, installation, and other costs are borne by that project. If the project involves installation of the other underground utilities such as sewers or storm sewers, the costs common to the project can be spread across each utility facility being installed. The cost of water mains is also affected by the project sponsor. If the project is being constructed by a private developer, new water mains are less expensive. If the project is sponsored by a government agency, numerous statutes make new water main projects more expensive. The City's recent experience with stand-alone water main projects in a major arterial indicate costs per foot of about $200 to $250. Applying these costs to the water main improvement described above would indicate costs in the range of $1 to 1.2 million. The improvements would be implemented with City and developer funding. Wastewater Collection Overview The sewers within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea are also identified for replacement based on age and condition in the City's Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. Based on the increased wastewater load within the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, the local sewers may need to be replaced with upsized pipe to manage the increased wastewater load from the subarea. A more detailed discussion of needed sewer system improvements is provided below. Detailed Discussion Mitigation issues related to wastewater fall into three broad categories: upsizing, rehabilitation, and relocation. Wastewater flows (forecast for the Planned Action Study Area, including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) indicate that some existing sewer pipes must be replaced with larger pipes. One of those pipes is in Harrington Avenue NE. This sewer pipe would be replaced by the City as part of the overall Sunset Terrace redevelopment to accommodate forecast flows. Attachment C 63 Mitigation Document Manholes along the Harrington alignment would be carefully designed and located to avoid interference with the planned park. The collection sewers in Sunset Lane NE are at or near the end of their design life. The condition of these sewers would be assessed to determine if they can be rehabilitated in place or if new pipes would need to be installed. The redevelopment concept proposes narrowing and shifting the alignment of Sunset Lane NE. If this action leaves the existing sewers too close to new structures, then the City would require that a new sewer main be installed within the new right-of-way of Sunset Lane NE. Attachment C 64 Mitigation Document I NE ID]h PI i WE IOth st f f NE 9th pi A!y .__.. �i Femdole Cir NE rvAWPhue A E e;amngi Pi .. _ -.::6 F IWC XLhreeh o P2 00 �� 31]0 400 .....c so -ens Fe et .wrexo - 4wn bwmwvhtaPoec Figure! 3.17-1 Firefiow Phasing—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Sunset Area Community Planned Action Final NEPA/SEPA EIS Attachment C 65 Mitigation Document Attachment D: DAHP Section 106 Consultation Correspondence Record of Decision May 2011 Denis Lativ Cit'lr Of Mayor � k � 7 Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pletsch, Administrator Virginia Cross, Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 3901.5 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 1.06 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 neve 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 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, vire 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/nr traditional cultural properties will be withheld from the public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions aboutthis undertaking, please feel free to contact me at (425)430-5578. Sincerely, f' Erika Conkling, AICD, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development cc; Laura Murphy, Archaeologist Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects Map Denis LawCl r _.r Mayor r mom Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Allyson Brooks, PhD . State Historic Preservation -Officer Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 South Capitol Way, Ste. 106 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Subject: Renton Sunset Area Community' -Section 106 Consultation Dear Dr. Brooks: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) are proposing a series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, located in the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard (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 federalfunding 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 B -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 PIE, and Sunset Lane NE; and additional property adjacent to Sunset Terrace along Harrington Avenue NE that RHA intends to purchase for housing and associated services. Conceptual plans propose redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and the adjacent properties with mixed -income, mixed- use residential and commercial space and public amenities. Existing public housing units on the property would be removed and replaced with new construction..The new construction would include a 1 -to -1 unit replacement for all 100 existing public housing units and integrated public amenities, such as a new recreation/community center, a new public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted medians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the new development and the streets improvements, Renton City Hal I • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 it 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 ICI+ 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 me at (425)430-6578. Sincerely,, Erika Conkling,.A1CP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Enclosure; Area of Potential Effects Map . nis hennay a Law City Uf 'r Department of Community and Economic Development September 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist 39015 172nd. 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 SunsetArea 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 corisultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (NHPA) and 36 CPR Part 800, and define the Area of Potential Effects CAPE)- The above referenced project activities taken together are considered a single undertaking involving federal funding from the U. S. -Department of.liousin; and Urban Development (HUD): IIUD 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 SS, 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, anew public library, a new park/open space, retail shopping and commercial space, and/or green infrastructure. Proposed improvements along Sunset Boulevard would include widening of the right of way to allow for intersection improvements and the construction of roundabouts, planted medians, bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks. New natural stormwater infrastructure would be integrated into the new development and the streets improvements. Renton City 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 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 proposedAPE, 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, DARP, and the Muckleshoot Tribe, Specific information on site location and/or traditional cultural properties will be withheld from the public documentation prepared for the undertaking'. Thank you for your time. Should you have any questions about this undertaking, please feel free to contact me at [425]430-6578. Please note we have also sent this same letter to Tribal Council Chairperson Virginia Cross. Sincerely, Erika Conkling, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Enclosure: Area of Potential Effects Map �._ City Limits },w `; �a ►l !!3 NE ,1 , fV21S Parcels NE 215T57 �� •�:,. e _4 Area of Potentia) [ffeds °� . € a 4, NE 2IST ST;-; ZOTHST� ���.,.� ,' NE 19TH'ST o soon Beet . �4;NE 18TH STS — ? ME 17TH PL] ❑ au d ; yE i ` o SSS ,►,s w . WvX.: .. ] < �U JNE 16TH ST >e A.w NE:135TiH w'� aha J gM i 3 z v Fs z �A i12 ,; '..NE1 THST ' '-;zip Q 9� ' 1 NE, 13TH'P �,• �� �� � � ' � ' ,SNE 13TH ST � � � {i r�r.., �� �"°-' ° 1 � �� A r ..+ ► x r Tm -ttE 12TH 5T �v a k d r_ _'"TS5; L",'wee` x' l" � Yui P KIR uu 1+F ' t « 4 O uZ,- •.�'� v a; i �c �ci �"'�=.i a �'`NE 11TIH'ST * €,--. w q �wk . �, L..:, ... is rlr ` �iVElOTHr w 3 - T y c F ■PFJ ! C - <Gr -� i ',+ '' tis. ]7_ .ants.'NELIOTHEPI mss`'r a� 73 r QNE KEITH iST a ` r E ' : Ow rk r e 40. ,c s a�61t e -®� 4,d�'Sz"1 �y AfE 1C€TH ST "+ NE 9TH PL w7 ■1 c++ w Z+s LCr d i s 4 �, Wilds" �c r 7- y. . i � c k ai 3_' y ��,■' F r 5 � . ❑ mar Z%NE79TH ST d •� �v11�1 ai S wN.. S 3 'R.,: Q6 9THSra'R p�NfJ - .n-,tY = .�' � ;� ' 3€� rtG a Z 5 r - •- ,.1� - -"`' iJN s 4' Z .:.,� < a�:3'.. E. r": w� i�,:QA ®F14s�i ..swr rj. �. F.�z'��^' .gym T+p wok>i w N •' .� �a� rt ly>y— r �c rat �w t r 7 k 7:E Q - p s ; Z # J!s '`irc - r d[ -- � LU <,W. 4, # Al "- f1.,1=C 3 t._ g� ti� ,�_, �i r.e,. e'a Z ! 41'ti [ �RNE,8TH ST. XBi jigj Ak- rFyg5(, r �, a� - N� H p WNE 7T;HtST _ ty �► �+ " a }° z s i s6 c5w �5 !orE " _ �. _ �' a R . x r . NE 7T,FI PiJill . Area of Potential Effects CF Sunset Area Planned Action/EIS City cf Renton Sunset EIS STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Sox 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • 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. 1 have reviewed the materials you provided to our office and we concur with your professional consultant's opinion that the Saint Vincent De Paul Superstore is eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. We also concur that the remaining 47 historic -era properties are not eligible. 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 Denis Law Mayor November 22, 2010 City of,, i Department of Community and -Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Ms. Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer ATTN: Mr. Russell Holter Department.of Archaeology & Historic Preservation. 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, WA 98507 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Sunset Area Community DAHP Log Number: 091010-31-14UD-CDSG Renton File Number: LUA10-052 Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. Holter: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing a.series of activities to revitalize an area known as the Sunset Area Community, {ocated.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 redLsvelopment of.the Sunset Terrace public housing complex at 970 Harrington NE and its vicinity, including improvements to NE Sunset Boulevard. We previously notified yo.0 of.this undertaking in correspondence dated September 1, 2010 and October 28, 2010, initiating consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),'as amended, and to request concurrence.on our - determinations of eligibility, respectively. You concurred with our findings on NRH.P eligibility on November 18, 2010: ICF International is assisting the City in meeting the requirements of Section. 106 of the NHPA and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The.study comprised an archaeological investigation and a historic resources'survey. A copy was provided to you on October 28, 20.10. It recommends that the proposed undertaking would not adversely affect the NRHP-eligible historic property located in.the undertakings Area of Potential. Effects. Based on this finding, eye have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have."no adverse effect"_ on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we hereby request your concurrence with our finding that the proposed project will have no adverse effect on historic properties. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way + Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gou Ms. Brooks and Mr. Holter November 22; 2()10 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact project manager Erika Cohkling at (425}'430-6578 should you have'any'questions. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite #06 a Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address. PD Box 48343 * Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 a Fax Number (360) 586-3067 a Website: www.dahp.wa.gov November 34 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 900. 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 Iisted 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 DAMP 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://w xw.dahp.�va.gov/documents/CR ReportPDF Requirement.pdf. Thank you for the oppm tanity to revu e x and co nrnzmt..f you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Russell Holter i Project Compliance Reviewer (360) 586-3533 russet 1. holter@dahp.wa.gov IDEPAUMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION i�otec', ME? Fcsf, Shape the Fuluie Denis Law Mayor February 18, 2011 7 �•-- City of , Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Ms. Allyson Brooks, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer ATfN: Mr. Russell Holter Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 Olympia, WA 98501 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. Holter: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g_, government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets. The new buildings will be funded by U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NH PA. ICF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and a historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA and hereby request your concurrence on the project AAE and our finding that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties. Notice of the undertaking and copies of this documentation have also been provided to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact meat (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Resew Committee Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works ;Depart-trt C Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report Denis Law City of, - Mayor I. ti� �✓� February 1$ 201 Department of Community and Economic Development D' , Alex Pietsch,Aciministrator Ms, Virginia Cross Chairperson of the Muckleshoot Tribal Council Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Cross: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include the Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 1P and NE 16th streets. The new buildings will be funded by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the N HPA. lCF International is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the national Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE and our finding that the undertaking would have no effect on historic properties. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. Such information will be withheld from any public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Thank you for your assistance with this review. Please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Renton CityHall • ]OS5 South Grady Way • Renton,Washingtan 98057 • rentonwa.gov Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review COMmittee Gregg Zimmerman, Ad istratar Public Works Departm t Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Fiigashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department � U Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report cc: Denis Law Mayor C1q' Of", il Department of Community and Economic Development February 18, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Attn: Laura Murphy, Archaeologist 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Subject: Section 106 Review—Renton Housing Authority Development Projects at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, 1150 Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets Dear Ms. Murphy: The City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority are proposing to use federal funds to construct multifamily dwellings and/or institutional buildings (e.g., government offices) at three locations in the city of Renton. These locations include The Renton Highlands Library property at 2902 Northeast 12th Street, Sunset Court Park at 1104 Harrington Avenue NE, and three vacant lots located along Kirkland Ave NE between NE 15th and NE 16th streets. The new buildings will be funded by U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) capital funds per Section 26 of the U.S, Housing Act of 1937 (U.S. Government Code (USC), Title 42, Section 1437x) in connection with projects assisted under Section 9. HUD is the lead federal agency responsible for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with specific statutory authority and HUD's regulations at Section 24 Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City of Renton is completing the necessary environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the NHPA. ICF international is assisting the City in meeting these requirements, and has conducted a cultural resources survey for the undertaking. The study is comprised of archaeological investigations and historic resources survey at each of the three project locations. A copy of the resulting survey report summarizing the findings is attached. The investigations identified no historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located in the established Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the undertaking. Based on these findings, we have concluded that the proposed undertaking would have "no effect" on historic properties in the APE. With this letter, we would like to initiate formal consultation with you under Section 106 of the NHPA, and invite you to comment on our determination of the undertaking's proposed APE and our finding that the undertaking would have no effect on historic properties. We understand and respect the sensitive nature of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties and will not disseminate any specific site or area location information to the general public. Such information will be withheld from any public documentation prepared for the undertaking. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for your assistance with this review, Please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-6578 should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Renton Environmental Review Committee cam/ Gregg Zimm rman, Administrator Public Works Departme Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Service Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department P�YUOU C, V—� Alex Pietsch, Administrator Community and Economic Development Department Enclosure: Cultural Resources Survey Report STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 46343 - Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 566-3065 • Fax Number (360) 566-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov February 24, 2011 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman Community & Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: Multifamilyl Institutional Bldgs. Project Log No.: 022411 -06 -HUD Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Thank you for contacting our department. We have reviewed the professional archaeological survey report for the proposed Multifamily/ Institutional Buildings Project at 2902 NE 12" Street, 1150 Harrington Ave. NE, and Kirkland Ave NE—NEI 5th and NE 16'h Streets, Renton, King County, Washington. We concur with the determination of No Historic Properties Affected. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribe's cultural committee or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this department and the tribe's cultural committee notified. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 36CFR800.4. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised, including information regarding historic properties that have not yet been identified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G_ Whitlam, Ph.D_ State Archaeologist (360)586-3080 email: rob.whitlam@dahp.wa.gov T InrOADTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Attachment E: Endangered Species Act Consultation, NMFS Record of Decision May 2011 4_00 sr 4 TT''--``• 4UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .,-* - p National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE .� Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point: Way N.E., Bldg. 1 Seattle, Washington 98115 NWS Tracking No.: May b, 2011 2010/05983 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Ryan Milkaric U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Seattle Federal Office building 909 First Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104-1000 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Project (HUC 1711001203, Lake Washington) Dear Ms. Conkling and Mr. Milkaric: This correspondence is in response to your request for consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additionally, this letter serves to meet the requirements for consultation under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Endangered Species Act The City of Renton submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action project on December 8, 2010. Additional information was provided on February 23, April 5, and April 29, 2011. The City will use funding from the U.S. Department of.1.1ousing and Urban Development (HUD) to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and replacement sites. For the purposes of ESA. the City is acting as the designated non-federal representative for informal consultation. k�� The City requested NMFS' concurrence with the following determinations: ])"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshcmytscha) salmon (PS Chinook), 2)"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for PS Chinook critical habitat, 3) "may affect not likely to adversely affect" for PS steelhead (O. mykiss). PS Chinook was listed as threatened under the ESA on March 24, 1999 (50 CFR 223 and 224), and critical habitat was designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). PS steelhead was listed as threatened on March 29, 2006 (71FR15666). The NMFS has not designated Critical habitat for PS steelhead. This consultation with the City is conducted under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR 402, The City's original project proposal included redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community (approximately 13 acres), as well as the related redevelopment actions in the larger Sunset Area Community neighborhood (approximately 255 acres), also called the Planned Action Study Area. Their proposal was to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community as part of a Planned Action that would encourage redevelopment in the Planned Action Study Area through land use growth allowances, public service and infrastructure improvements, and a streamlined environmental review process via adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance. Due to funding and permitting timelines, the City has Iimited their current project proposal to redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and the replacement housing sites near the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea (see Attachment A). Sunset Terrace is a 7.3 -acre property with 100 existing units contained in 27 two-story buildings. The housing units are over 50 years old and considered of substandard size and quality. The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) additionally owns properties in the subarea abutting Sunset Terrace where senior and affordable housing will be built, some of which will be replacement housing. Most replacement units would occur in the Sunset Terrace subarea, others would occur on City or RHA properties in the EIS study area, including Sunset Court Park, the existing King County library site, and existing parcels located near Hillcrest Terrace. The project action area includes the Sunset Terrace Housing site, the replacement sites within the Sunset Terrace redevelopment subarea and EIS study area, and downstream areas that are affected by construction activities and stormwater originating frorn these sites. No streams are present in the action area, but the area drains to Johns Creek. The creek is mostly a piped system that discharges into Lake Washington near the mouth of the Cedar River. The mouth of Johns Creek is influenced heavily by the seasonally controlled Lake Washington levels, and is not sensitive to increased peak and duration of stormwater discharges. The mouth of Johns Creek and about 1,500 feet upstream is a very important rearing area for juvenile PS Chinook salmon during their outmigation from the Cedar River in late February to mid-July (the most used tributary of 17 surveyed tributaries of Lake Washington). Adult Chinook are present in Lake Washington during their upstream fall migration to the Cedar River, but do not use Johns Creek. Adult and juvenile PS steelhead and coho (O. kisulch) salmon also rear and migrate through Lake Washington year round, but do not use Johns Creek. Construction activities are not expected to increase stormwater volumes or velocities to Johns Creek or Lake Washington, or decrease water quality. During construction, stormwater and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to control runoff rates, and prevent sediment -laden water from entering conveyance systems that discharge to Johns Creek, and eventually Lake Washington. As a result of the redevelopment, the operation of the project will generate additional stormwater from additional impervious surfaces. Since the project is still in the conceptual phase, Renton cannot specify the development that will actually occur. For the purposes on this analysis, parcels within the potential land swap/replacement housing sites are anticipated to be redeveloped by others at the maximum intensity allowed by code (maximum allowable impervious area). It is unlikely that the replacement housing sites will be constructed at the maximum capacity unless they are purchased by the City. If the City does not purchase the properties, they will likely remain in their present use or be converted to open space. The NMFS analysis considered the worst case scenario in terms of estimating increases in impervious surfaces and thus stormwater runoff. Lower rates of development are expected to have fewer effects to listed species. The redevelopment projects could include a range of total increase in impervious surfaces of 36 to 47 percent. The area of pollution generating impervious surfaces would change from a range an increase of 21 percent to a decrease of 16 percent, and the area of untreated pollution generating impervious surfaces would decrease from 90 to 100 percent. All pollution generating surfaces will be treated via Flow Control BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development practices) and/or Enhanced Water Quality treatment. All runoff will match 2011 pre - development peak flows. The project will also include a sub -regional facility, located at Sunset Terrace, to treat and control peak flows from up to 2.6 acres to provide advance mitigation from the net additional impervious area projected over the Planned Action Study Area. Species Determination Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Steelhead NMFS analyzed the potential effects of the project on PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead and determined that the effects will be discountable and insignificant. Short-term construction -related effects are discountable for juvenile PS Chinook salmon, as BMPs are expected to prevent sediments from entering the man-made conveyance system which discharges to Johns Creek. As well, construction BMPs will prevent any changes in stormwater volumes and velocities to John's Creek so salmon will not be exposed to increased stormwater volumes and velocities. Short-term effects to PS Chinook adults and PS steelhead (adults and juveniles) are expected to be discountable as any changes to stormwater volumes, velocities, and water quality are not expected to affect Lake Washington's water quality or quantity. 4 NMFS expects the long-term effects of the project to juvenile PS Chinook salmon to be insignificant as stonnwater volumes and velocities entering Johns Creek will be decreased by the new peak flow controls required as part of the housing projects. In addition, the mouth of the creek is not expected to be affected by changing peak flows, because of the influence of controlled lake levels. Stormwater quality will also be improved as the result of new stormwater treatment requirements. The combined use of Enhanced water quality treatment and LID methods for all the new pollution generating impervious surfaces is expected to avoid long-term exposure of juvenile PS Chinook salmon to metals and other pollutants in Johns Creek. Long- term effects to PS Chinook adults and PS steelhead (adults and juveniles) in Lake Washington are also expected to be insignificant due to the improvement in stormwater treatment and controls. Because all potential adverse effects to PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead are discountable or insignificant, NMFS concurs with the City's effect determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for PS Chinook and PS steelhead. Critical Habitat Determination NMFS designated critical habitat for the PS Chinook salmon on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). In the action area, Lake Washington is designated as critical habitat, but Johns Creek was excluded from critical habitat designation. Two of the six primary constituent elements of PS Chinook critical habitat: PCE -2 freshwater rearing sites, and PCE -3 freshwater migration corridors are in the action area of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment project. NMFS analyzed the potential effects of the project on PS Chinook PCEs and determined that the effects will be insignificant. The conservation values of PCEs 2 and 3 will not be adversely affected during construction. On site BMPs will prevent sediment from being discharged into conveyance systems that flow into Johns Creek, and eventually reach Lake Washington. Construction BMPs will also prevent any changes to stormwater quantities discharged to Lake Washington. In addition, the conservation values will not be adversely affected during project operation. Stormwater controls will be implemented for water quality and water quantity, reducing Johns Creek peak flows and minimizing discharge of pollutants. Therefore, adequate flows and water quality for adult and juvenile Chinook salmon rearing and migration will be maintained in Lake Washington. No project actions will obstruct migration corridors or increase predation. Thus, the long-term conservation value will be maintained for freshwater rearing and migration. Because adverse effects to critical habitat are expected to be insignificant, NMFS concurs with the City's determination that the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" critical habitat for PS Chinook. This concludes informal consultation according to the regulations implementing the ESA, 50 CFR 402.10. The City must re-initiate the ESA consultation if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species in a way not previously considered, the action is 5 modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that was not previously considered, or a new species is listed that may be affected by the identified action. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Federal agencies are required, under section 305(b)(2) of the MSA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 600 Subpart K), to consult with NMFS regarding actions that are authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The MSA section 3 defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." If an action would adversely affect EFH, NMFS is required to provide the Federal action agency with EFH conservation recommendations (section 305(b)(4)(A)). This consultation is based, in part, on information provided by the City and descriptions of EFH for Pacific coast groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and Pacific salmon contained in the Fishery Management Plans developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The actions are described in the BA and additional information provided. The action area includes habitat, which has been designated as EFH for various life stages of Chinook and eoho salmon. EFH Conservation Recommendufions: Because the conservation measures that the City included as part of the proposed action to address ESA/EFH concerns are adequate to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to the EFH of the species, conservation recommendations pursuant to MSA (section 305(b) (4) (A)) are not necessary. Since NMFS is not providing conservation recommendations at this time, no 30 -day response from the City is required (MSA section 305(b) (4) (B)). This concludes consultation under the MSA. if the proposed action is modified in a manner that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations, the City will need to reinitiate consultation in accordance with the implementing regulations for EFH at 50 CFR 600.920(1). If you have questions regarding either the ESA or EFH consultation, please contact DeeAnn Kirkpatrick of the Washington State Habitat Office at (206) 526-4452, or by electronic mail at deeann. kirkpatrick@noaa.gov. Sincerely, " William W. Stelle, Jr. Regional Administrator Attachment ICFTSunset Terrace R dpvel ipmem-Ajea and Lan6 Swep/Meplfemient Housing Saes Sunse: Area Community PiannedAcvon Draft NEPA/SEPA ELS bc: F/NWR — PDF (Nickerson) WSHO — PDF (Chron) WSHO - File Copy WSHO --- PDF (Kirkpatrick) WSHO — PDF (Sibley) Attachment F: Coastal Zone Certification Record of Decision May 2011 December 30, 2010 Ms. Erika Conkling City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Federal Consistency — Sunset Area Community Planned Action. Dear Ms. Conkling: The Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program received your request regarding the use of federal funds for the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community and associated neighborhood growth and revitalization. The housing community is bounded by Sunset Lane NE and Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west, in Renton, King County, Washington. The Sunset Terrace community redevelopment is a project component of the Sunset Area Community Planned Action. After review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action, Ecology agrees that funding this project is consistent with Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program. Please note that this Consistency Determination is for the release of funds only. Any construction activities will be subject to ALL enforceable polices of the Coastal Zone Management Program, such as the State Water Quality Requirements. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Jessica Moore at (360) 407-7421.. Sincerely, G- Brenden McFarland, Section Manager Environmental Review and Transportation Section Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program cc: Jessica Moore, Ecology Attachment G: EPA Letter on Final EIS Record of Decision May 2011 c to V Cd © '' •'✓ . r � i+ W V `,.'+.i � '� ice••--Si.� � � � � Y f V v, r+ .� D W U O O v� O O°�' r 43 ;-A+' Q �, z '� U s 1 ? ° eUi U • a; p a� 4-1U cam, U �. Cd oCn n o I r a �b �7; CU_ ¢ o bjU D Us ° `� as asa, a°�i 4-0 d cd Cd d s�03 � °rtes ° U "1 C ° C7 as r- ELn Ln cn 0 d o CK� Cd C4 Gq U yC 'Z7' t3 ° -�'- G i n • Ln . _ad 0 0 d W U G5 cd O Ln GJ r� a5cS ori U oLncuon °� '� Q W a ' a ren W a rq °+'' �•+ rOn b LA �1 y Wcz > ay u 4. m `�-, O 'F [CS � y cC �• O C8> q� rhe V p 00 45 cl LO Lh cacl W C 7 a �, o a, of o -� a ca c.� � 4y sn 14-4 113 U +cdv N 4-, �+, Ln+--' cd • S-, .� c� O Cd "' al ¢ Q y' y a s ..a >o y ar O Ucl Q > aZIL40 C> 0 ol 0 —u Wu J-, -c E 7) > V rs ni-'w ET N Q v� NWWR:rn-"�mf=.� �, °dW0� N M O U U U sU d1 G) U 4? cn Ul ; Er cd s, v, c CAU U O� f" F� O En al cn N o W p N o W N U p a tG cd U "" v.? s, v, cn U ^ C! cd 0 U Lfj U _ cd dl ia, i- O ¢ ay Gam? p U , ca CK� a aU U ov tu Cd o O � • � � ' � � Ecc 73 CZI O. a C �. 'rS cd G, O cdSCJ "O +� s U u) bo _ piprL ei -17 y s o ��� Q n Ed a? o a J i.+l i--1 Q q U Y ry Uy � Y�ai1 W Q: Q tC U W F-' U � H O, yr b M V) Cl � Ebb ' �`• � � C.. tu3 dip � U v '+ � cnQ'�¢�uaw� is cd _ ? � U > o ° 75 -ZLn ami .? oo Cd G . wr ■ ■ tI] rs� U A W M o > ? .� L. .0 CO N , J-- ¢, N 7z 0 o cd 3 > :: u•.. �. 3 U a o v V G o rro o �,•� 4° .. a�i.� ° cu rn . � � � , cd v •� o U a a� � � ••O .� O cl cw W Lt Q a Ln 'A (A A -0 CL ;> � Q � � '� �V)-��,�,vM � ��rya � � cd W a� cd U G Q O y �• U endcd bU� v y Ln 4- O o v U v e� o -" Q o .a a CU «� i W anIt i 0° LA cd �.- ° � � .� „a ,� �,; � . a �-- as Ln � • � � cn o W . ° Cd En ° � � 0 Ln U � � � vii � � �1. ' jy _�•� 'Z$ � � Dp �•j � p `o C4:4 V)^' ° x U tai. o O CZCd u sU Q a rn v U �" O a C" .� cA CIO VI Q cd Lno ° ci c, Q° o w v 7:1oCZ W �. � v , ` Q� � � �' ■ �' � '� rn ..: v v, v • � f. c� v O a� .� O X � �, y, a � p ?C c� a U as � cd cz° w��xx�w U4 v3. U. °U P64. w M r-• � 'Z � [d cam, �_ U � :� `� U � ,y cry W +•-' U _ O � O U � ° . � � � +-• �= cd � N E, O U era � U ul En cn U U cd 3 U°viyU N Q v, u Q U I y, O O O U cd U Cd r. cz Ln L U -¢moi wLn > V) U �' �+ », U O O Cd 7�1 .� U al ° ° �Z.�co y O Ucn U U O� 3 cdLnrn Cd V 4�-+ • }..,, ..fit Q) ?--i 611 ED O ami o' o a E" a°i c��a v p: o a o a a Lr, U U Q) vi NcnLn V) o o En �, } v_ a� Ln VJ U] [d O b17 .. ° 0 as 6 LZ44 a U v CU Edei v a CIO > cn o c In cn aC a5 cLn � U o Cn aa, v LO i -7� U3 7�Q I ^ 05 Lncli 'd Q a) z o cam, VI .0 O 0 . � � � � V, Q (U L'i - Q s. p t O 'd Q U 'Z o Q . c� sa " Q O �. O ° Ln w tin m v" U U Q) Q �"r a ZJ UDa a-ai O 0.1 1 -il ,-oY�,�.�Q° �u3 VI Cc O- O- j 4 U O' U cid U W v O O .... U D � U U Q cid W f4 O .+ L74 O Lr — _ O 71 _O " U U M G U U cd cn TA o V � An A LOW ATTACHMENT 1-2. COMPARISON LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES AND SUNSET AREA EIS SECTION 2.6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Livability Principle Sunset Area Goals and Objectives Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health. Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. • Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable. • Create a Great Street on NE Sunset Boulevard, as described in the 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. [Complete streets refers to designing streets f,or multiple modes] • The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes. • Through the Planned Action and early environmental review, accelerate the transformation of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed - income housing and mixed uses together with places for community gathering. This will also be accomplished in part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision, which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and Dispositions application in 2011.' • Enhance economic competitiveness. I • The neighborhood is an attractive 1 There are more specific affordability goals for Sunset Terrace itself in Section 2.6 of the EIS. 1 Livability Principle Sunset Area Goals and Objectives Improve economic competitiveness place to live and conduct through reliable and timely business. access to employment centers, • Through designation of a Planned educational opportunities, Action and infrastructure services and other basic needs by investments, support and workers, as well as expanded stimulate public and private business access to markets. development. • Support existing communities. • Through designation of a Planned Target federal funding toward Action and infrastructure existing communities—through investments, support and strategies like transit oriented, stimulate public and private mixed-use development, and land development. recycling—to increase community Ensure that redevelopment is revitalization and the efficiency planned to conform to the City's of public works investments and Comprehensive Plan. [Comp .Plan safeguard rural landscapes. designates... the.;. ,study:.:; area as mixed use Center Village land use c ncept.j • Through the Planned Action and early environmental review, accelerate the transformation of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed- income housing and mixed uses together with places for community gathering. This will also be accomplished in part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision, which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and Disposition application in 2011. • Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships, innovation and sustainable development for a healthy community. Recognize the importance and timing of integrating housing, transportation, infrastructure, expanded economic opportunity, Livability Principle Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment. Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy. Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods --rural, urban, or suburban. 3 Sunset Area Goals and objectives parks and recreation, and the environment. • Through designation of a Planned Action and infrastructure investments, support and stimulate public and private development. • Ensure that the Planned Action covers environmental review of Sunset Area roadway, drainage, parks and recreation, and other infrastructure improvements, and analyze impacts of anticipated private development in addition to Sunset Terrace. • 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. • The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the city and beyond. • 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 celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity. • Build on previous City, RHA, and Livability Principle Sunset Area Goals and Objectives Renton School District efforts and current projects. Leverage relationships and partner with existing community outreach activities and resources. • Encourage low -impact stormwater management methods and areawide solutions as part of a master drainage plan to support development. • Engage the community in a transparent process using available outreach opportunities and tools successfully used in prior planning efforts. • Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships, innovation and sustainable development for a healthy community. Recognize the importance and timing of integrating housing, transportation, infrastructure, expanded economic opportunity, parks and recreation, and the environment. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Yo REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 az ° Seattle, WA 981 01-31 40 4L 7,4 OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEMS. 'l RfUAL AND PUBLIC AFFAMS April 29, 2011 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Comments on the Sunset Area Community Planned Action (Planned Action) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (EPA Project Number: 10 -051 -HUD) Dear Ms. Conkling: The EPA has reviewed the Sunset Area Community Planned Action FEIS and we are submitting comments in accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmcntal Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Our January 31, 2011 DEIS comments focused on "Sustainability Features and the Environmentally Preferred Alternative" and "Monitoring". With regard to sustainability features and the environmentally preferred alternative, we suggested that the environmentally preferable alternative under NEPA1 — for this Planned Action - would likely be the alternative which incorporates the maximum extent of implementable features consistent with quality urban design, sustainable urban redevelopment, and livability principles.2 EPA recommended the FEIS include an alternative which addresses 37 specific design elements and mitigation measures (e.g. "require future developers to pursue a specific energy conservation approach/ standards)"). We are very pleased to note that the FEIS's new preferred alternative addresses all of the design elements and mitigation measures recommended by EPA and is, therefore, fully responsive to our DEIS comments on sustainability features and the environmentally preferred alternative. The-folio-wi—a mitigation measures from Planned Action Ordinance Exhibit1 Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS Mitigation Measures (FEIS, Appendix E) are especially responsive to our recommendations: • fugitive dust Best Management Practices (BMPs); • indoor air quality and construction diesel emissions controls considerations; • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures; • reductions of existing pollution -generating impervious surfaces and development of a drainage master plan; 1 hrtn://ceq.hss.doe.2oN/nep&re�,s/40/1-IO.HTM#6 2 htt�;r:/,'wNvw_ei)a.poy/sma l2rowtblpartnership/#livability_principles • consideration of Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes strategies and Seattle Energy Code compliance for non-residential buildings; • hazardous materials training for all grading and excavation crews; • provide new opportunities for public open space and emphasize transitions in density; • helping affected businesses maintain their customer base during construction; • establishing a local preference for rental assistance; • added pedestrian, bicycle or multi -use trails at Edmonds Ave NE and NE 12a' Street; • parks and recreation impact fees, joint -use agreement with the Renton School District, and, conversion of public and private property to Open space based on availability and DEIS Figure 4.15-2. To increase the likelihood of full implementation of the proposed mitigation treasures we recommended that the Planned Action Ordinance serve as a stand-alone document, incorporate specific targets and facilitate adaptive management. Exhibit B's 17 subject areas, overall framework 4, as well as the mitigation measures themselves (see above), are responsive to our `stand-alone document' and `incorporate specific targets' recommendations. Our FEIS review generated questions regarding the EIS's and Planned Action Ordinance's ability to guide the measurement of sustainability, a key aspect of facilitating adaptive management. We submitted our questions via email to the City of Renton on April 11, 2011 and appreciate the city consultant's April 13, 2011 written response. We believe the proposals - contained in Attachment 1-1 of the April 13, 2011 response - to add sub -parts C5, D6, and., E7 to Section 4 of the Planned Action Ordinance would help guide the measurement of sustainability in the Sunset Area and would facilitate meaningful adaptive management. Incorporation of these proposed, or similar, sub -parts would be fully responsive to our overall scoping; DEIS and FEIS recommendations that the EIS and Planned Action Ordinance strive to measure performance of livability efforts and facilitate adaptive management. Altogether, we believe the City of Renton has developed a Planned Action that should achieve the FEIS's predicted long -terra benefits - neighborhood revitalization, increased opportunities for healthy active lifestyles and local employment, net stormwater treatment improvements, increased aesthetic appeal, and, reductions in regional energy use and GHG emissions. We support full implementation of this Planned Action and look forward learning from. the City of Renton's efforts to redevelop the Sunset Area into a healthy, livable, affordable, ----------viable and green -community. - s earth, air quality, water resources, plants and animals, energy, noise, environmental health, land Use socioeconomics, housing, environmental justice, aesthetics, historicicultural, transportation, parks and recreation, public services, and, utilities. d summary of significant environmental impacts, summary of unavoidable adverse impacts, mitigation measures, and, list of City policies/ regulations on which mitigation measures are based 5 "...evaluate overall sustainability of the Sunset Area Planmed Action..consistent with.. -review of Goals and Objectives.and L.EED-ND qualitative evaluation, or an equivalent approach" G "...conduct a Grcenroads evaluation or its equivalent at the time the NE Sunset Boulevard design is at 30% design level and 60% design level" 7 review consistency with FEIS predictions for. (1) Vehicle Miles Travelled, (2) resulting greenhouse gas emissions and, (3) changes in effective impervious area 2 Thank. you for this opportunity to comment and if you have any questions you may contact me at (206) 553-1601,.or you may contact Erik Peterson of my staff at (206) 553-6382 or by electronic mail at peterson.erik@epa.gov. Sincerely, Christine B_ Reichgott, Unit Manager Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit 3 Attachment H: Clarifications and Corrections Record of Decision May 2011 Clarifications and Corrections to Draft and Final EIS and Biological Assessment This appendix includes Draft EIS, Final EIS, and Biological Assessment clarifications or corrections based on City or consultant review of the information. The clarifications or corrections are organized in the same order as the EIS or Biological Assessment sections and by page numbers. The clarifications or corrections do not change the relative impacts of the EIS alternatives or the overall analysis conclusions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-1 May 2011 Rob, Appendix H LL Loi a m L 9 O _ C O .Q � p C y SU, '> �6y,,1 p � � � CO � �QLJ p � y C F � 'C m aCr.+ •Q .� � ; y sc 4 CU y 'G G rd GD 'i O tti y v fi C N iti o O C G CL cn O G 4 "w L Q,1 7 a✓O 2 C.M O: Ln GCi 7 4i C ,� ris L' E y Gui CL N .Z- m G Q.i Gk ..-+ N Y G.7 F.. �.. r -i C R G,Q V} Y m G.1 4 tU SR F. '4 SO °' v d a rd Q7 O , y .y v a c.. c4id OA [Ld y G.1 Q1 W G7 G1 w V cC b y G C .0 'Ll O �' G O m CO 7 cc p 7 y Gk a� w o. a o r to w as M,L�, a m E L •a b a Z v D ,a% "v, tG, E 7 n 7 d Q.� u N t' 7 dFij d iQ C W 7 u O 41 i rn 'O CC. +' ^� Li R "C D< QJ R. d ^. C R E 4-i 0 O a) 5••• Vj u N 4• Lf) G O N C II. '~ ii N , ' O7 0. v �. q.. ¢ Q> L L r1 G t7. C.0 •- m L) IV ffl - CCL tLo w V3 to G Q 'n7� cc 4.. qj 0 ca tU w ti aoF 0 v F b G Q) � L i� �oj to _Q � w .E p y L C fC �..� L, F -i V '� 'O C L' U ty Q .'1 ? k U C6 M v L v i d w rn C C m .OL. v w .N a C +"� O? X65 .Y C1. Vi Ki fA Gni C O 6Gi1a. y ce 7 C6 OA L L N L m L 'O rd t5 V Cd C Y C m tc a rd p G C as CL) G di 6 OV M L L cu e y L r Gj +3 C C C ou � C a N 0 bO ti N � t'--' ti •G in a L°vii sa. m ro o f ro a n Q C a a mC Z °) C N C=" 4 rC a 7 Lm m"� E :Q- u °° aLi Z'U aiaa .a :i pane^=a "acia4wz5 aJb^aca. n c"n O u +� m P a sQ' cv �� P P bOD d cGd taw m E u R GVO .P v tuo r-, O N �o ^O as w '-''-' w N M r +w-� GO a m "CS Q v, to o V as 7 b G `''" —M re 0gym+ v y Js O y cu i y rt3 E" r6 'u Y O N cu G 7L G .a+ w �" 'C v 43 .O O K W •E �- O at'J O@ y td G U Y Q N F +-' G.i y ti U K N_ N aCs M v W G E VtE L tv O 7 O 4 v E C G N C O QCJ 7CL 41) h V C. O LL w to Y 07 tU u (D td L tti O0> u C w Y Q cu Q C L > L. [Vrn C4C v O G O t+n O 4 r? v Co C O E v, w C .E y •O .G .0 ,O X O L. , CD v y E O to vV L L aa co a C do s . a i c r acn u n. o��m°°:�v° ��� �°n�. UM.w Im fomtrw ac, CD Q+ lz GOw 'C w ?, s... G w •C O t0 CO co Q t6 aas a td u Ln ",aF-+ w v 3+ 4 N a K E ro U C Q7 > L 41 V) Qi C Q? D L U d 7 C +.+ cti O V 4� i -i V Y 'O Q cb L y C. C. L G U Q) S'. 4 a m C L L m L 'b z ycap a as C LE,�wvatui;�¢vrdturla��„aC.nwC F P n v °_' n u U at °.' o Ln to c°}q oL. rLd a cl� .5 to r aju 9 'a7 G Q C w G p N v L O C w N roP' y V GO L iG, V tti y M y U to ate+ fn E to Z O [C O 'O O rd QJ V) y"" O C Y GJ ^ y uL. L � O p to O 0 ,O N y N O cd N Q C i7 U 4' of O Xcu t4 .E b u � y .X U QJ ❑ .O wr t9 C G N 'a M ¢ a'7 L v ti. P a G, d G ti -u o aCi o w E o n o Q� m a WW a� a n x o o w c w cn G E E m u C Gb._ 3 a cn. vs to L c r: m ,� L F 3. m ni CL » y L 0 7 0 9 O x V Q ¢ Q d cc � M w li C V 6. a L ° Vl m 0 N m0 Z LJ am tLo O m q m o w n Ld 0 CO L o y y >, `O °J a y" u y O r o m v m a m y g, v `°° a aj o d 6 ^G b o '.v C .� a > [� C "C7 ro c^ Cro o cC +' •O L V m C O L 'C5 V U a a L CG u i L 'G �' C ... v ci ra M m ° •x o y wN y o a a a y a o a w K Cl O o > av, R FGG V) w L and w G a., m a U :l a+ Gi i6 fl L [%j m E" C ca G qi>53 Z i K C R. Ln CG V3 a V 4 O y J co.0 bD •y V [p m •� ° �. a Ym —M d L V1 G W a �.+ p, .�. La N a [C ° m bo E b�°a mI aF >, a `-' `L° a C v u w WCO q b cn 7 o� 'G ry'C 'J m s, v M,uf? u8 O v P'O C aLa�a.Frsn a� m m�°� P, >1 v v 3.S ra 3 y v � as m m C c 4D O 7 N C acrs�cn m mcu �" i � E. yD CU p a � m rd w b4 .� >' '� X O G a ;� ro a n u °�' o f -a cn y a Li ai 0cnr�xi v t�aow v v ° as L � m O iC E- m C y > ca. a cn � cn � G a P u � a c LA CLJC L a ¢ 44'i ,�.., 04 orti• Z C ?, :R m • 10 a � r= 2 p x Q Oa. a �a c o O Ln OC Draft EIS Chapters 3.3 and 4.3, Water Resources Amend Table 3.3-1, Existing Land Cover Summary as follows: Table 3.3-1. Existing Land Cover Summary Total Total Impervious Total Total Total Effective Area Area Pervious PGIS1 Untreated Imperviou (acres) (acres) Area (acres) (acres) PGIS1(acres) s Planned Action Study 255.40 161.17 94.23 933-19 088.10 161.17 Area 2.86 Potential Sunset 13.06 4.73 8.33 1.83 1.83 4.73 Terrace Redevelopment Subarea Total 268.46 165.90 102.56 95.149 9989.93 165.90 4.69 1 Pollution -generating impervious area Amend Table 4.3-2, Change in Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative, and the paragraph below on the Planned Action Study Area as follows: Table 4.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary -No Action Alternative Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGIS1 Area Untreated PGIS1 Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)' PIanned Action Study Area -6.52 (-7.0%1- 5,76 (6.5%) ti o7 (_7 ❑oi) -12.03 (-13.7 12.49 r_14.1%4 3.75 (2.3%) Potential Sunset Terrace 1.76 (96.2%) 0.5(27.3%) 0(0%) 1.54 (32.6%) Redevelopment Subarea 1 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 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 Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-4 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS area, pollution -generating impervious area, or stormwater BMPs within NE Sunset Boulevard or other local streets' rights-of-way. The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (not including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 7:06.5 acres (7.40%) from existing conditions due to non -roadway -related projects. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 3.75 acres (2.3%) from existing conditions. Under the No Action Alternative, additional flow control would be required on site, per the code, to match the peak runoff from existing conditions. Where feasible, this impact could be reduced through full infiltration within the site. However, where full infiltration or dispersion is not feasible, no further mitigation would be required by the existing code. Amend Table 4.3-4, Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 2, as follows: Table 4.3-4. Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 2 Potential Sunset Terrace 1.88 (102.7%) 0.13(7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) 0.56 (11.8%) Redevelopment Subarea 1 Pollution -generating impervious area Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. Page 4.3-5, second full paragraph, amend as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40.-5-1 acres (46%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 1.0 acre (0.6%) from existing conditions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-5 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGIS1 Area Untreated PGIS1 Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Planned Action Study -13-85(- -40.09(- Area 6.96(7.9%) 14.9%J44-34- 46.24} 45-5%J-40.54+ 49.84) 0,95(0.6%) Potential Sunset Terrace 1.88 (102.7%) 0.13(7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) 0.56 (11.8%) Redevelopment Subarea 1 Pollution -generating impervious area Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. Page 4.3-5, second full paragraph, amend as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40.-5-1 acres (46%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately 1.0 acre (0.6%) from existing conditions. Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-5 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EI$ Amend Table 4.3-6, Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 3, as follows: Table 4.3-6. Change in Land Cover Summary—Alternative 3 Potential Sunset Terrace 2.31 0.6(32.8%) -1.83 (-100%) -0.51 (-10.7%) Redevelopment Subarea (126.2%) 1 Pollution -generating impervious area Z Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. 3 All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. Page 4.3-7, second full paragraph, first sentence amend as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40. 1 acres (46%) from existing conditions. Final EIS Chapter 3.3, Water Resources Amend Table 3.3-1, Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative, as follows: Table 3.3-1. Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative Total Area (acres) Total Impervious Area (acres) Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGISI Area Untreated PGISI Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)2 Planned Action Study -16-46(- 09 (45 46.26 Area 8.75(9.9%) 17.71 f-1 _40 nn54r 4 SAWj 1.26(0.8%) Potential Sunset Terrace 2.31 0.6(32.8%) -1.83 (-100%) -0.51 (-10.7%) Redevelopment Subarea (126.2%) 1 Pollution -generating impervious area Z Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. 3 All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. Page 4.3-7, second full paragraph, first sentence amend as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 40. 1 acres (46%) from existing conditions. Final EIS Chapter 3.3, Water Resources Amend Table 3.3-1, Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative, as follows: Table 3.3-1. Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative Sunset Area Community Planned Action 6 May 2411 ROD, Appendix H Total Area (acres) Total Impervious Area (acres) Total Pervious Area (acres) Total PGIS1 (acres) Total Untreated PGIS1 (acres) Effective Imperviou s(acres) Planned Action Study 255AG8 Area 2 174.40 81.0942 76.44 46.26 165.41 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea 12.64 6.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66 1 PCIS = pollution -generating impervious area. Sunset Area Community Planned Action 6 May 2411 ROD, Appendix H City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Amend Table 3.3-2, Change in land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative, as follows: Table 3.3-2. Change in Land Cover Summary—Preferred Alternative 1 PGIS = pollution -generating impervious area. z Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. 3 All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Draft EIS Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. 4 The net change in effective impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin, excluding mitigation through regional detention facilities, is equal to 2.63 acres. The 2.6 3 acres within Johns Creek Basin would be mitigated by the regional detention facilities described in the text below. Within the May Creek Basin, the net change is equal to 0.54 acre. Amend page 3-13, second full paragraph, as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 41.8 acres (48%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately X24.24 acres (42_6%) from existing conditions (or a combined net effective impervious area increase of 3.24 acres or 1.9% if considering all portions of the Planned Action Study Area including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment. Subarea) . Chapter 3.4, Plants and Animals Amend Section 3.4.1.2, Aquatic Habitat and Fish, pages 3-18 and 3-19, paragraph below bulleted list, as follows: Besides the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, the Preferred Alternative also incorporates a variety of innovative techniques, collectively called green stormwater infrastructure, to minimize pollutant loading and flow volume in stormwater discharged from the Planned Action Study Area. Green stormwater infrastructure will be implemented on individual lots per the flow control BMPs standard, which includes techniques such as full or limited infiltration, dispersion, rain gardens, permeable pavements, rainwater harvesting, vegetated roofs, reduced impervious surfaces, and native growth protection. The standard requires projects to fully disperse or infiltrate roof runoff where feasible and, otherwise, to implement flow control BMPs to target either 10% or 20% of the site area, depending on the size and density of the site. Public infrastructure projects (green connections, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Sunset Terrace) included in the Planned Action would meet an enhanced minimum performance standard, which is double the minimum for the private development listed above. The effect of these measures is that, although impervious surface in the Planned Action Study Area would increase by 1588.2% under the Preferred Alternative, the Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-7 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Net Change in Effective Impervious PGISt Area Untreated PGISI Impervious Area Project Area Area (acres) (acres) (acres) facres)z Study Planned Action Stud 13.23 -16.41 -41.84 (-47.5%) 4.24 (2.6%)4 Area (8.2O 4-&%) ( 17.7-1-tea/o) Potential Sunset Terrace 1.37 -0.13 (-7.1%) -1.83 (-100%) -1.07 (-22.6%)4 Redevelopment Subarea (29.0749%) 1 PGIS = pollution -generating impervious area. z Impervious area not directly connected to a stream or drainage system. 3 All areas are expressed relative to existing conditions. See Draft EIS Section 3.3 (Table 3.3-1) for a summary of existing conditions. 4 The net change in effective impervious area within the Johns Creek Basin, excluding mitigation through regional detention facilities, is equal to 2.63 acres. The 2.6 3 acres within Johns Creek Basin would be mitigated by the regional detention facilities described in the text below. Within the May Creek Basin, the net change is equal to 0.54 acre. Amend page 3-13, second full paragraph, as follows: The resulting net change in pollution -generating impervious area within the Planned Action Study Area (exclusive of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) is estimated to be a reduction of approximately 41.8 acres (48%) from existing conditions. The net change in effective impervious area would be an increase of approximately X24.24 acres (42_6%) from existing conditions (or a combined net effective impervious area increase of 3.24 acres or 1.9% if considering all portions of the Planned Action Study Area including the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment. Subarea) . Chapter 3.4, Plants and Animals Amend Section 3.4.1.2, Aquatic Habitat and Fish, pages 3-18 and 3-19, paragraph below bulleted list, as follows: Besides the requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, the Preferred Alternative also incorporates a variety of innovative techniques, collectively called green stormwater infrastructure, to minimize pollutant loading and flow volume in stormwater discharged from the Planned Action Study Area. Green stormwater infrastructure will be implemented on individual lots per the flow control BMPs standard, which includes techniques such as full or limited infiltration, dispersion, rain gardens, permeable pavements, rainwater harvesting, vegetated roofs, reduced impervious surfaces, and native growth protection. The standard requires projects to fully disperse or infiltrate roof runoff where feasible and, otherwise, to implement flow control BMPs to target either 10% or 20% of the site area, depending on the size and density of the site. Public infrastructure projects (green connections, NE Sunset Boulevard, and Sunset Terrace) included in the Planned Action would meet an enhanced minimum performance standard, which is double the minimum for the private development listed above. The effect of these measures is that, although impervious surface in the Planned Action Study Area would increase by 1588.2% under the Preferred Alternative, the Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-7 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS net increase in effective impervious area would be only 2.6%, and there would be substantial reductions in pollutant -generating impervious surface 017.7% decline) and untreated pollutant -generating impervious surface (47.5% decline) (Table 3.3-2). The Preferred Alternative would maintain stormwater flow volumes and reduce stormwater pollutant loads relative to existing conditions and, thus, would have a less -than -significant impact on aquatic habitat and fish. Chapter 5, Section 5.3, Responses to Comments Amend page 5-13, last row of table, Response to Comment 13-10: 13-10 Quantitative Mitigation Measures, Adaptive Management: The comment is noted. Please see response to comment -1813-1. Biological Assessment Amend Table 2 of the Biological Assessment prepared in December 2010 as follows: Table 2. Existing Land Cover Summary Project Area Total Area (acres) Total Impervious Area (acres) Total PGIS1 Area (acres) Untreated PGIS1 (acres) Planned Action Study Area 255.40 161.17 93.3192.86 88.&610 (excluding Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea) Potential Sunset Terrace 13.06 4.73 1.83 1.83 Redevelopment Subarea 1 Pollution -generating impervious surface Amend Table 3 of the Biological Assessment prepared in December 2010 as follows: Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-8 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H City of Renton Chapter 4. Clarifications and Corrections to Draft EIS Table 3. Summary of Impervious Surface and Stormwater Treatment. Note: PCIS = Pollutant -generating impervious surface. Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-9 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Geographic Area Johns May -Honey Planned Creek Creek ROWS Action Sunset Combined Parcels Parcels Study Area Terrace Total Area 184.75 13.91 56.74 255.40 13.06 268.46 (acres) Total Existing 105.62 6.95 48.61 161.17 4.73 165.90 Impervious Proposed 116.67 8.46 44.80 169.92 7.04 176.96 Area (acres) Percent Existing 57% 50% 86% 63% 36% 61.8% Impervious Proposed 63% 61% 79% 67% 54% 65.9% Total PGIS Existing 51.43 2.16 39.727 9192.86 1.83 9494.69 (acres) Proposed 36.58 2.15 37.67 76.40 2.43 78.83 Percent PGIS Existing 28% 16% -7-069% X36% 14% 35% Proposed 20% 15% 66% 30% 19% 29% Total Untreated Existing 46.87 1.97 39.77Z27 88.5-610 1.83 90.39 PGIS (acres) Proposed 21.43 1.52 25.06 48.01 0 48.01 Percent Existing 25% 14% :;L 69% 35% 14% 34% Untreated PCIS Proposed 12% 11% 44% 19% 0% 18% Flow Control Existing 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 BMPs (acres) Proposed 4.44 0.25 2.79 7.49 2.82 10.30 Effective Existing 105.62 6.95 48.61 161.17 4.73 165.90 Impervious Proposed 112.22 8.20 42.01 162.44 4.22 166.66 (acres) Percent Existing 57.2% 49.9% 85.7% 63.1% 36.2% 61.8% Effective Proposed 60.7% 59.0% 74.0% 63.6% 32.3% 62.1% Impervious Note: PCIS = Pollutant -generating impervious surface. Sunset Area Community Planned Action H-9 May 2011 ROD, Appendix H Irl C N � L •0 cc E N 3 •— N r—W E E 0 C.) L W a >f� rr U) W cn 0 _U) Q} C? C- CD 0 U7 a--+ Q� Q) 0 U E >, O N -0 C!3 o o O 12 mQ [C a7 w[G Nc -0 Q> L 7O-Cc0° Q- O U ao or- Cc 0- -05° o Z3> 0-0 M o G O a 3°m m 4 L m cW E L'c=3o 4O' 0 C0 f0 O y a +� CL � w O cn C C N-0- 'C U Q ro L% 'D T g (6 cL o E N C to to 2 v} m «' � o m a a) c °- 6 axi ° E amip iin � -Mo Qu)) ��°'E0 r- oo°Z X6'20 U L a) E m % v (] o r aY N T= a`"i = CL v (4 CL m `n ) o o (4 m M 0 _— m,� E 3 ca E o C) N h M �/ cv o as ... p•1 4 O .� q) O_° N M Q O1 M D Q C Q L N V O Q E N Ui a) a p a) V O C .0 b •c cn — - T sp Q O. �- = d r. f�6 E C: Z; c: � ° In 0 E Z -0 COC -c o m E � m = � �+ ns M a) coi 0— o ° p U c N a7 N L ;: C U 'M 3 Ui U en C (0 - co co ami s o 6�i > .- 'E w ° ca '�_ m >' � O as b m m ° o m ° d F°� cS L QQow °c Q0°'_ �� i� � c -0 (D °EY w a� ° o o - ro a, ° �, rc� Co m 4) 'U .0 0 CO C -W O f6 = Q 'U m co Cn C G u .E �. Ec° m en w E w �, cnEro'_ v Q v°?, 3 Q m vM s ro N O E E U m a> �a0 CL In cn o U) E E o •U a N [L O L4 O)o O N o OLCL U 7 N Q Q- -0 C Q L E O n .?i L= p 7 j L Z N C -6)FL +� m Q. U : Cn co •U U O cn i (n co cn : Q 2 f6 E CO F 3 o U) n F -0 � ca 2 2 V - f9 T [0 m N z:� 'm Y U � U1 w OO 3 a) F U cu= o .O O E-1 y w CL Q1 Hz w U) N E 6 H a C77 O to 0 Q1 m a` E c L a) ,� v c ai Y V '- U u) m a N 0 n Q 0) C '� LAI U a Q7 r � O N O G V) a) a) y N O Q w O 7' C U � .� •a: C ..�,. U U N Q (6 c 3 m N m Q> a) Q) i a a) b C O Q fi C ro rn 0Q) Oo 3 o a 7 0° Ln v fi 4 ro o F az ro a 'c � E 0 C Cl) O U O L C f9 m 'N w G U) �a o m y 3 C0 am .O O G aV3 m E c E (>U 0 c O 7 r � � 4 4–a 4 a CQ N ^, NQ) _O 0 to it -ZD rdQ q cr Q ro Oy���6mp -0 co0p o0m� � C, M�� to o Co _ a) O 7 O a>) d. o Q m y.� •C c E 3 Q) p� aC) E E > Q O Uwe v �� U (� E CE] m a N y L E U w a E� cola � ro}C U f U > V! Q. U 3 a w C N N C, Lo In CL L .mss o�rn �o ti Ln Ln q� cl:U) c ° co I�Ln E Lo LO Cj C6 � U +�0O m V - f9 T [0 m N 4 w OO 3 a) F U cu= O� t C E 2 R .O O Q1 (7 O N E 6 m C77 O to 0 Q1 m a` E c L a) ,� v c ai Y V '- U u) m a N 0 n Q 0) C '� C a Q7 r � O N O G V) a) a) y N O Q w O 7' C U � .� •a: C ..�,. U U N Q (6 c 3 m N m Q> a) Q) i a a) b C O Q fi C ro rn 0Q) Oo 3 o a 7 a m� o(0 o a G E E to m Q E ,� fi 4 ro o F az ro a 'c � E 0 C Cl) O U O L C f9 m 'N w G U) �a o m y 3 C0 am .O O W DC7 CTS U mIz m c E In— 0 c O 6,3� 4–a 4 a CQ to ^, NQ) _O to it -ZD rdQ q cr Q ro Oy���6mp -0 co0p o0m� � C, M�� to _ a) O 7 O a>) d. o Q m y.� •C c U3 U7 fl1 F- � a) O Y Q m 3 Q) p� aC) E E O Uwe (� E CE] m a N y L E U w a E� cola M � ro}C U V! Q. U 3 a w C N N U ate-+ Q 0 -2 M>} •m O ?, Q) Q o ` a x co a�� L) ��a � c� o¢Q y m p-0 U n 7 � �[� (z u3 �m°a O °a C w � — E r� � r�0�I� U lJ ]�- OO ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IT ca to 70 O Z m a m m m M 3�0 a 0 Ln E a b m CL a c v E ° c c m- U t 7 -� -NO Q 3.� >� ?� j OQ m[ w�� �� �b Q.Q m QS sC � E o �'m Ul© E° m a E o a M p > -E U) L 0) L O (D a t) C CO L E -C UO m Q1 rz = Ocu U c o o n c c O U ate) Q o ` E 0- IS c c L ,� M m C w E a g m Q E- = w � U m u S q CO y N m ca a-• U w aa) ns ° z :E xl<E a al 2 ID w cn 0caca o m c C) O m ° m m o p¢ M -m > m �' E E o as i- s ,o w n m 2 .> a CL y m o Q E v> o c m o C y@ Uj m .5 a- U Q a ro J C U L -0 x(D a3 a 9) -2 N RS c @ U) O fR C Q7 -Z C 1 16 3 a5 E L O U U O C m al C-tt a C O a m y O a) N O E N C E QS �6 QS w. a) O= O m w a O E U a 0 -- 'C E N Q, :3 U 'CO M Qa > D7 .... C r. Co Z O wFm �m m % E m u,3 -0w o a :tS C Cn C V) N CD CD v C7 C➢ x Q CD CDC 6 CD n 0 CD on -n m U) C CD3 C/] m D CD Q. 0 0 3 `C n m CD 0 77 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ cf) ChD C �3 Z�i17 Z(D 5� SS S S W (D S Z3 0 m S 0 S � m O CD CD CD m (D Q- cQ (D 0 cn Z5wQ m (D 7 m co 0- CD m ❑- tD CD cQ cQ CQ- O O cQ' T O Q. co v Z (D�ZTo �����' a- a_ E O O U Q (hD o ro a aCD `C S S= S Q. S Q" O CD Q D- CS 0- O Q Cll O� �_ - .--r �, (D C Q Q LA Q CD CT w fll (D w CDQ ff -0 US @ CD Q} C(D h CD h (D ❑S Cl) g m' CD Uri m ur i3� m CD (D CD v `C m �, o (1)o 0 m N fl n m C a -Q -0 U) = 3 - Q7 v @ m_rt m (D M _ CL Q 3 O 0 CD O -' O (D Ln v M C)S7 p m x� M m�xcna �7c�c�cnyy a m a� zzcnzw �zm,�-� 0 (pmz E K c]�( m. m 9 of m m m 7 Ul CSt CMi RI m m M 7 C 0 S(�m (d gi Z m p8 ayQ� SR9 = C)z 2 QNONONT .N»�m QmFr a�� a�C w Q->3 G1 40 y D < y A m F'?�S t myn D" m D D o b D c crn0nSc% m m cn r r O n CnGo Uib C m 4 c mQ5 s y m m O 3 n m m `� N i `D b a a m r w O a a-0 m� D Z m () N Z m t� mz O N CCS z n 1 Z a� zmzz� �zzzy �_, Q� a� �.3 z �r A o �r O 77 m w m ti z m z mr rn C 0 m m {7mmm v w �-v 3 . -3 o mo `n M c �c3 O 0 -3 a T cn ]J 191 rD n 0 r L� `� n C n m m i N (D c_ c c m 3 9 h -7� �m m CO)0 0 ia CL Al m zCL m w z N Vl (p n G) LL l 1 O O 00 A 00 0 00 Oo 0000 0000 000+040 Oo 00000 h 00 0 00 0o Coco 0000 0 000000000 -csUE 00 0 00 00 00000 Do 00, co 0 00 00 0000 0000 occoo occ0cc0 0 C N �G7 A.A_ N_NpA AA W 4QQf77+£A��p �y �p�ppp 0pp6 -A' O 0o Np N1 OD pO�O pU�fD W A W -L+ O d�gpO pO -Ci6O QO r3 88 S 88 SS 8888 88880 ❑❑p SS A) -a A) 0 N O ❑ Q 00 { 9 Ch 9 � 0 �J Z5 YS p Yi r r F 4 O P K = Q r O O; O O O K= K K 0 0 0i c� a mag a�� ° o ° 7a r �. m m m m m m m m m m m m m N CD o❑ ❑ 0 E oom �I �1 0 CD 0Ui L QQ Q go QQ S) oo 0000 00000 mnip ooxm to 0 0 m al. 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 m m mie11 o p o q m Mm .:11 m D D R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o ] 7 p 7 3 7 3 7 p 7 7 7 7 7 a m 7 3 7 4 7 7 g C { {{ C C C t{ C C C C C C G D m m m @ m m m m m m m m m m m@ { b IT 33 o 3 0 0 33 S o 3 0 0 0 0 3333 0 0 0 0 3333 0 0 33 CC m m 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 m m 0 e r� 3 Kirkland Ave NE LO' 0000• j G' R oN 00000�--o L", r-- 0 C �� (n r= C ECD R l Q C a<) �. 0 m CD r -r ci> x.� °cr 0 C3 :3 v m o n' n 3MCD n "(�R CL iii Z' q(D = iF 7 CD Cn Cm m - Baa. o - Ei CD pp 7- y S Co COD Qin cr CD a � CL CD m Q ro � m C1 C CD (!7 C