Full Text
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE For more information about this project visit www.redmond.gov/landuseapps PROJECT INFORMATION IMPORTANT DATES PROJECT NAME: Bear Creek Design District 1 COMMENT PERIOD Depending upon the proposal, a comment period may not be required. An is placed next to the applicable comment period provision. There is no comment period for this DNS. Please see below for appeal provisions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2), and the lead agency will not make a decision on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments can be submitted to the Project Planner, via phone, fax (425)556-2400, email or in person at the Development Services Center located at 15670 NE 85th Street, Redmond, WA 98052. Comments must be submitted by 06/09/2017. APPEAL PERIOD You may appeal this determination to the City of Redmond Office of the City Clerk, Redmond City Hall, 15670 NE 85th Street, P.O. Box 97010, Redmond, WA 98073-9710, no later than 5:00 p.m. on 06/23/2017, by submitting a completed City of Redmond Appeal Application Form available on the City’s website at www.redmond.gov or at City Hall. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. DATE OF DNS ISSUANCE: May 26, 2017 For more information about the project or SEPA procedures, please contact the project planner. SEPA FILE NUMBER: SEPA-2017-00485 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zoning Code Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: SITE ADDRESS: 0 No Address REDMOND, WA 98052 APPLICANT: Sarah Stiteler LEAD AGENCY: City of Redmond The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the requirements of environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures have been adequately addressed through the City’s regulations and Comprehensive Plan together with applicable State and Federal laws. Additionally, the lead agency has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment as described under SEPA. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. SIGNATURE: Planning Director Robert G. Odle RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: CITY CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT PLANNER NAME: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: Sarah Stiteler RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: SIGNATURE: [EMAIL REDACTED] 15670 NE 85th Street Redmond, WA 98052 Address: Linda E. De Boldt Public Works Director [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the City of Redmond identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply" and indicate the reason why the question “does not apply”. It is not adequate to submit responses such as “N/A” or “does not apply”; without providing a reason why the specific section does not relate or cause an impact. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. If you need more space to write answers attach them and reference. The references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively due to the fact this is a non-project action. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. When you submit this checklist the City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. CITY OF REDMOND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Non-Project Action 5/16/17 Sarah Stiteler Planner Name Date of Review For Agency Use Only ---PAGE BREAK--- To be completed by applicant Evaluation for Agency Use only A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and Contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Give an accurate, brief description of the proposal’s scope and nature: i. Acreage of the site: ii Number of dwelling units/ buildings to be constructed: iii Square footage of dwelling units/ buildings being added: iv. Square footage of pavement being added: v. Use or Principal Activity: vi. Other information: Page 2 of 27 SJS SJS SJS SJS SJS SJS City of Redmond Development Services Center May 29, 2015, revised March 17, 2017 Joseph Strobele, Brick Road Holdings LLC 16000 Christensen Road, Suite 303 Tukwila, WA 98188 [PHONE REDACTED] Brick Road Holdings, LLC Bear Creek Design District 1 Code Amendment See attached for a full project description. Permit Multifamily Residential Development N/A N/A N/A 8.85 ---PAGE BREAK--- To be completed by applicant Evaluation for Agency Use only 7. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 8. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? Yes No If yes, explain 9. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 10. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes No If yes, explain. Page 3 of 27 SJS SJS - Technical Committee recommendation: Addition of 7 units to account for additional property in zone SJS A traffic study has been prepared and will be updated to reflect the reduction in density from the original application (248 apartment units) to the revised code amendment application (195 apartment units). An environmental site constraints memorandum and a floodplain analysis have also been prepared. Future development in accordance with the Code Amendment will be subject to a project action SEPA. SJS Anticipated Council action on amendment in Summer 2017. ---PAGE BREAK--- To be completed by applicant Evaluation for Agency Use only 11. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 12. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) 13. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Page 4 of 27 SJS Technical Committee recommendation reflects addition of 7 units to account for one additional property in the zone under separate ownership Entirety of area zoned Bear Creek Design District 1 (BCDD1) is within the City of Redmond. It is located on the eastern side of Avondale Road, between NE Union Hill Road on the south and NE 180th on the north. The Redmond Zoning Map showing BCDD1 is attached. The Bear Creek Design District 1 was created in 2007 with specific requirements based on an individual applicant, a provider of senior residential services, including a requirement for all residents to be 55+ years of age. The proposed zoning code amendment would allow non-age restricted multi-family housing. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to remove the requirement for the Conceptual Site Plan which was part of Ordinance 2370 and to allow non-age restricted multifamily residential development. The existing zone permits 0.8 FAR, which would allow the potential development of approximately 347 senior housing units. The proposed amendments will retain the 0.8 FAR to preserve design flexibility, but will reduce the permitted base density of the zone to 177 all-ages multifamily dwelling units (totaling 195 units with the affordable housing requirement). Building setbacks would also be modified. The amendment will also reduce the height limit for all ages multifamily uses from 4 stories to three stories. Zoning Code Amendment. SJS SJS ---PAGE BREAK--- To be completed by applicant Evaluation for Agency Use only Other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: Relationship of signer to project: Page 24 of 27 Authorized Agent for Brick Road H May 29, 2015, Revised March 17, 2017 Katie Kendall Digitally signed by Katie Kendall DN: cn=Katie Kendall, o=McCullough Hill Leary, PS, ou, email=[EMAIL REDACTED], c=US Date: 2015.05.29 11:43:15 -07'00' ---PAGE BREAK--- To be completed by applicant Evaluation for Agency Use only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise: Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: SJS SJS See attached. SJS See attached. SJS See attached. See attached. ---PAGE BREAK--- To be completed by applicant Evaluation for Agency Use only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands: Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? SJS See attached. SJS See attached. SJS See attached. See attached. SJS SJS See attached. ---PAGE BREAK--- To be completed by applicant Evaluation for Agency Use only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SJS See attached. SJS See attached. SJS See attached. SJS See attached. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Attached Environmental Checklist Nonproject Action Project Description (see A.6 of the SEPA Checklist, dated May 29, 2017 and revised March 17, 2017): The proposed amendments remove the requirement for the Conceptual Site Plan which was part of Ordinance 2370 and allow non‐age restricted multifamily residential development. The existing zone permits 0.8 FAR, which would allow the potential development of approximately 347 senior housing units. The proposed amendments will retain the 0.8 FAR to preserve design flexibility, but will reduce the permitted base density of the zone to 177 all‐ages multifamily dwelling units. Building setbacks would also be modified. The amendments will also reduce the height limit for all ages multifamily housing from four stories to three stories. The proposed code amendment is a non‐project action. The SEPA analysis will address the potential for impacts resulting from the proposed changes to the code. The potential impact of the code amendment allows a maximum of 195 multifamily dwelling units, inclusive of affordable housing provided pursuant to RZC 21.20. Accordingly, 195 all‐ages multifamily dwelling units will be analyzed in this SEPA checklist and in forthcoming additional environmental studies. No dwelling units will be constructed as a result of this non‐project action. Any future development pursuant to the code amendment will be subject to a project‐specific SEPA analysis. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise: The proposed code amendment is a non‐project action, and any future development pursuant to the code amendment will be subject to a project‐specific SEPA analysis. A project permitted under the revised zoning may increase the amount of impervious surfaces, increase traffic trips, and increase air emissions and noise related to increased trips. A traffic study, environmental site constraints analysis, and a floodplain analysis were prepared for the proposed code amendment. If warranted, additional studies may be required. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Measures to avoid or reduce increases may include utilization of public and private incentive programs to encourage alternative travel modes by future residents, such as transit, bicycling and walking; collecting and treating site stormwater runoff for both water quality and flow control prior to discharge; and requiring compliance with City of Redmond and Washington State Department of Ecology surface water regulations to ensure that onsite measures will be sufficient to mitigate impacts to water properties for water quality, flooding or habitat. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed code amendment is a non‐project action, and any future development pursuant to the code amendment will be subject to a project‐specific SEPA analysis. A future project permitted under the revised zoning may increase vehicle trips. Consequently, there Commented [SS1]: The Technical Committee recommendation reflects the addition of 7 units to account for one additional property in the zone under separate ownership. Commented [SS2]: Same comment as above. Commented [SS3]: OK Commented [SS4]: OK ---PAGE BREAK--- may be potential impacts from vehicle fuels and stormwater runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: The City of Redmond’s tree protection ordinance will address any on‐site significant trees. The onsite stormwater facilities will be designed to mitigate any negative impacts due to flow rate or water quality to habitat for fish or marine life. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed code amendment is a non‐project action, and any future development pursuant to the code amendment will be subject to a project‐specific SEPA analysis. Additional vehicles from permitting non‐age specific multifamily use will result in more use of fossil fuels. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Encourage the use of travel modes other than auto. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed code amendment is a non‐project action, and any future development pursuant to the code amendment will be subject to a project‐specific SEPA analysis. The proposal reduces the existing zoning capacity. However, it allows non‐age specific multifamily uses in addition to those 55+ years of age, which is likely to result in greater numbers of vehicle trips, and associated impacts may occur. The environmental site constraints memorandum and the floodplain analysis outline the sensitive areas on the site. While a future project by the applicant is anticipated to avoid construction within the floodplain, a potential future project may build within a portion of the floodplain in accordance with applicable law. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The amendment is consistent with the Bear Creek Design District and Bear Creek Neighborhood Plan and preserves approximately 115 acres of the Bear/Evans Creek Valley by allowing development only on the approximately 9 acre portion primarily outside the 100 year floodplain. Any potential future project would be required to comply with the City of Redmond sensitive area codes for the construction within the floodplain. It is not anticipated that a future project submitted by the applicant would include construction within the floodplain. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Commented [SS5]: Any review to also include City of Redmond Critical Areas Regulations. Commented [SS6]: Subsequent housing units will require energy for heating, cooling and other typical household functions. Commented [SS7]: Also “green” buildings that require less energy demand. Commented [SS8]: OK Commented [SS9]: The proposed zoning code amendment is in an area identified by the WA Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation WISAARD tool as having very high and high probability for cultural resources. The tool also identifies six properties within 1.000 feet of the area of study that were constructed more than 45 years in the past. Of these, none are identified as eligible or registered. Commented [SS10]: Prior to all ground disturbing activities including geotechnical work, any future development of the amendment area will consider these conditions in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws. In addition, the applicant will consult, also in an early manner, with the City of Redmond’s historic preservation officer, the WA Dept. of Archaeology & Historic Preservation and with affected Indian tribes regarding any development proposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- The proposed code amendment is a non‐project action, and any future development pursuant to the code amendment will be subject to a project‐specific SEPA analysis. The zone is partially within the Shoreline Residential and the Urban Conservancy Shoreline Environments. The proposed amendment would allow non‐age specific multifamily in addition to the current use of senior 55+ multifamily, consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Map. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are There are no land use impacts anticipated as a result of the Code Amendment so there are no mitigation measures proposed. The amendment proposes to reduce the density limits for all‐ages multifamily residential uses, which is compatible with nearby residential uses on the west side of Avondale Road. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed code amendment is a non‐project action, and any future development pursuant to the code amendment will be subject to a project‐specific SEPA analysis. The development permitting process will require a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for a development application that requires the analysis of the traffic impacts of a specific project. This detailed TIA would include, but may not be limited to, the following: Scoping and coordination with City of Redmond Additional evaluation of impacts to off‐site intersections Detailed evaluation of site access operations Confirmation of frontage improvements Confirmation of traffic mitigation (off‐site and/or access‐related improvements, and impact fees) However, the potential for increased trips resulting from allowing all‐ages multifamily uses at a maximum density of 195 units has been assessed in a traffic analysis and travel time study. Generally, an all‐ages multifamily use will generate more vehicle trips than the senior housing uses allowed under the existing zoning. Based on the formulas provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, non‐age specific multifamily uses built at the maximum density allowed by the proposed code amendment could produce 99 AM peak hour trips and 125 PM Peak hour trips. This represents an increase of approximately 30 AM peak hour and 40 PM peak hour trips from an adult senior multifamily use built at the maximum density allowed under existing zoning (347 Senior Housing Units). It is not anticipated that this increase will be significant. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The site is served well by transit. Measures to respond to increased transportation demand include encouraging travel by other modes than automobile. In addition, the proposed Code Amendment requires that any future development will complete intersection improvements at 180th and Avondale Road and utilize this improved Commented [SS11]: OK Commented [SS12]: Within the shoreline jurisdiction, residential development is only permitted in the Shoreline Residential designated shoreline environment. Commented [SS13]: The Technical Committee recommendation reflects the addition of 7 units to account for one additional property in the zone under separate ownership. Commented [SS14]: OK ---PAGE BREAK--- intersection as the project’s primary access, and will construct a bus pullout on Avondale road near the zone. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposed amendment does not conflict with laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.