Document Redmond_doc_bb26af059e

Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Mixed-Use Development Pedestrian-Oriented Streets Parks and Open Spaces Transit Service August 30, 2007 / Residential Area 5000 0 10000 I !I I' CityofRedmond WASHINGTON ---PAGE BREAK--- Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Prepared in compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act Chapter 43.21 of the Revised Code of Washington SEPA Rules Chapter 197.11 of the Washington Administrative Code and Redmond Community Development Guide Chapter 20F .20.40, Environmental Review Date oflssue of Draft SEIS: March 23, 2007 Deadline for Comments: 5:00 p.m., April 23, 2007 Date of Issue of Final SEIS: August 30, 2007 Robert G. Odle 1::.Df2.. City of Redmond SEPA Responsible Official ~tt&t,J~ iliam J. Campbell v City of Redmond SEPA Responsible Official ---PAGE BREAK--- August 30, 2007 Dear SEIS Recipient, · • · - - ~ . This letter is to inform you that the City of Redmond has issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on Redmond's Overtake Neighborhood Plan (ONP) Update and Implementation Project. The Overtake study area is bounded on the west by 14gth Avenue NE, on the north by NE 60th Street and State Route (SR) 520, and on the east by West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue-Redmond Road, which also forms the southern boundary with NE 20th Street. In March 2007, a Draft SEIS was issued which analyzed impacts associated with the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternative for potential future land use changes and public investments for Overtake through 2030. The two alternatives largely maintain the vision adopted in 1999 as part of the Overtake Neighborhood Plan, but differ in describing how the vision is achieved by 2030. These differences include the amount and character of residential and commercial development and the level of public action and investment taken, such as investment in transportation, parks and open space, and stormwater management improvements. The proposed Action Alternative includes the adoption of updates to the ONP, related portions of Redmond's Comprehensive Plan, the Redmond Community Development Guide (RCDG), and other implementation documents, such as the Redmond Transportation Master Plan. The Final SEIS includes an analysis of the environmental impacts and a compilation of public comments on the Draft SEIS, and responses to those comments. Redmond city staff prepared the Final SEIS responses, with assistance from the consulting firm of David Evans and Associates, Inc. These are contained in Chapter 4 of the Final SEIS. Paper copies of the Final SEIS may be purchased for $10 at the Permit Center at Redmond City Hall (2nd floor), 15670 NE 85th Street, Redmond, WA. Compact discs with the Final SEIS in electronic form are also available at no charge. Electronic copies may be downloaded from the web at http://www.redmond.gov/intheworks/Overtake/finalSEIS.asp. This update is an important step in continuing to shape Overtake's future. If you would like more information, please contact Lori Peckol at 425/556-2411 or [EMAIL REDACTED]. Sincerely, Robert G. Odle foe. City of Redmond SEPA Responsible Official William J. Campbell ~v City of Redmond SEP A Responsible Official City Hall • 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 97010 • Redmond, WA • 98073-9710 ---PAGE BREAK--- i Fact Sheet Project: Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Location: The Overlake Neighborhood is in the southwest corner of Redmond. The western boundary is 148th Avenue NE; the northern boundary is NE 60th Street and State Route 520; the eastern boundary is West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue-Redmond Road, the latter of which also serves as a southern boundary to NE 20th Street. Description of Proposal: The proposed action is the adoption of updates to the Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP), related portions of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan, the Redmond Community Development Guide (RCDG), and other implementation documents, such as the Redmond Transportation Master Plan. The proposed action also includes adoption of the Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy. The purpose of the update is to refine the adopted vision for Overlake, reflect changes in the area since adoption of the plan in 1999, and promote implementation of the plan. This document is a supplement to the Integrated Growth Management Act (GMA) Document and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared in 1999 for the Overlake Neighborhood Plan and Bellevue-Redmond Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) Update. It evaluates an Action and No Action Alternative through the planning horizon of 2030. The two alternatives largely maintain the vision adopted as part of the ONP, but differ in describing how the vision is achieved by 2030. These differences include the amount and character of development and the level of public action and investment taken, such as investment in transportation, parks and open space, and stormwater management improvements. Under the Action Alternative, the Overlake shopping area would transition to an urban residential/mixed use neighborhood and most of the remaining 1 and 2 story structures in the employment area would be redeveloped. This alternative provides for the addition of approximately 5,800 dwellings and up to 4.5 million square feet of new commercial space in the study area through 2030, over the amount of development existing or in the pipeline. This alternative envisions the extension of Sound Transit light rail transit from Downtown Seattle to the Overlake Transit Center in the study area, terminating in Downtown Redmond. The City of Redmond would take action on proposed amendments in phases, in recognition of anticipated work between the cities of Redmond and Bellevue to jointly update agreements for phasing of growth and investments in Overlake and the Bel-Red Corridor. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) also evaluates a No Action Alternative, which assumes that no significant changes would occur to the existing neighborhood plan, zoning, or planned improvements for Overlake. This alternative anticipates that approximately 2,300 dwellings and 1 million square feet of new commercial space in the study ---PAGE BREAK--- ii area would be added to the area through 2030, over the amount of development existing or in the pipeline, and that future development would be primarily suburban in form. In 1999, the City of Redmond adopted the Overlake SEPA Planned Action in order to efficiently use the investments of time and resources involved in preparing the 1999 FEIS and to make development review more timely and predictable. Redmond intends to use this SEIS to update the Overlake SEPA Planned Action and to provide for phasing of the commercial growth anticipated under the Action Alternative. As provided in WAC 197-11-600, additional environmental review may be needed to update the Planned Action, depending on the nature of the phases and subsequent proposals. Proponent: City of Redmond Lead Agency: The City of Redmond is Lead Agency for environmental review of the Overlake Neighborhood Plan. Responsible Officials: Robert G. Odle, Director, Redmond Planning and Community Development Department William J. Campbell, Director, Redmond Public Works Department Staff Contact: Lori Peckol, Policy Planning Manager, Redmond Planning and Community Development PO Box 97010, MS: 4SPL Redmond, WA 98073-9710 [PHONE REDACTED] Licenses, Permits and Approvals Required: Amendments to City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Guide, and functional plans, such as the Redmond Transportation Master Plan Contributors: City of Redmond Planning and Community Development Department City of Redmond Public Works Department City of Redmond Parks Department Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering Geomatrix KPG, Inc. David Evans and Associates Date of Issuance of Draft SEIS: March 23, 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- iii Date and Location of Open House on the Draft SEIS: March 29, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in the North Bellevue Community/Senior Center, 4063 148th Avenue NE, Bellevue, Washington. Date Comments Due on Draft SEIS: April 23, 2007. Date of Issuance of Final SEIS: August 30, 2007 Date of Final Action by the Lead Agency: The Redmond City Council adoption of Phase 1 Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Guide Amendments is expected by the end of 2007. Adoption of Phase 2 is anticipated in 2008. Subsequent Environmental Review: Redmond intends to phase the commercial growth anticipated under the Action Alternative. The phases would be defined in coordination with the City of Bellevue. Redmond also intends to use this SEIS to update the Overlake SEPA Planned Action in order to efficiently use investments of time and resources in preparing this document and to make development review more timely and predictable. As provided in WAC 197-11-600, additional environmental review may be needed to update the Planned Action, depending on the nature of the subsequent proposal. Location of Background Reports and Reference Materials: City of Redmond Planning and Community Development Department 15670 NE 85th Street Fourth Floor South City Hall Redmond, Washington Background information referenced in this document is also available online at www.redmond.gov/intheworks/overlake. Copies: Paper copies may be purchased for $10 at the Permit Center at Redmond City Hall (2nd floor), 15670 NE 85th Street, Redmond, WA. Compact discs with the Final SEIS in electronic form are also available at no charge. Electronic copies may also be downloaded at www.redmond.gov/intheworks/overlake. ---PAGE BREAK--- iv Table of Contents FACT SHEET i 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Introduction 1 1.2. Location of Study Area 2 1.3. Project Background and Purpose 5 1.4. The ONP, Bel-Red Corridor Project, and BROTS 6 1.5. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan 6 1.6. Description of the Alternatives 7 1.6.1. No Action Alternative 7 1.6.2. Action Alternative 8 1.7. Public Involvement Process 10 1.7.1. Overlake Neighborhood Plan 10 1.7.2. SEPA/GMA Public Process 12 1.8. Summary of Differences between Draft and Final SEIS 12 1.9. Environmental Summary 13 2. OVERLAKE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ALTERNATIVES 23 2.1. Existing Neighborhood Vision 23 2.2. 2030 Alternatives 23 2.2.1. No Action Alternative: Key Features 24 2.2.2. Action Alternative: Key Features 30 2.2.3. Alternatives Considered but Rejected 40 3. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 41 3.1. SEPA Requirements 41 3.2. ONP Relationship to the Growth Management Act 42 3.3. ONP Relationship to Countywide Planning Policies 42 3.4. ONP Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan 45 3.5. Land Use 45 3.5.1. Existing Conditions 45 3.5.2. Land Use Impacts 52 3.5.3. Mitigation for Impact on Land Use 65 3.5.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 65 3.6. Transportation 66 3.6.1. Methodology 66 3.6.2. Existing Conditions 68 3.6.3. Alternative Descriptions 87 3.6.4. Transportation Impacts 104 3.6.5. Mitigation Measures 120 3.6.6. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 121 ---PAGE BREAK--- v 3.7. Light and Glare 122 3.7.1. Potential Impacts 122 3.7.2. Mitigation 123 3.7.3. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 123 3.8. Air Quality 124 3.8.1. Method of Analysis 124 3.8.2. Existing Conditions 125 3.8.3. Potential Air Quality Impacts During Construction 126 3.8.4. Potential Air Quality Impacts from Operation 126 3.8.5. Mitigation 128 3.8.6. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 129 3.9. Noise 130 3.9.1. Construction Noise Impacts for Both Alternatives 131 3.9.2. Operational Noise Impacts for Both Alternatives 132 3.9.3. Mitigation for Noise Impacts for Both Alternatives 132 3.9.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts for Both Alternatives 133 3.10. Water Quality: Streams 133 3.10.1. Existing Conditions 133 3.10.2. Potential Construction and Operation Impacts 134 3.10.3. Mitigation 137 3.10.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 138 3.11. Water Quality: Lake Sammamish 138 3.11.1. Existing Conditions 138 3.11.2. Potential Impacts 139 3.11.3. Mitigation for Both Alternatives 139 3.11.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 140 3.12. Wetlands 140 3.12.1. Existing Conditions 140 3.12.2. Potential Impacts 141 3.12.3. Mitigation 142 3.12.4. Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 142 3.13. Public Facilities 142 3.13.1. Water Supply 142 3.13.2. Sewer Facilities 144 3.13.3. Parks, Recreation and Open Space 145 3.13.4. Electrical Facilities 151 3.13.5. Public Schools 155 4. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 157 5. DISTRIBUTION LIST 209 5.1. Federal Agencies 209 5.2. State Agencies 209 5.3. Regional Agencies 209 5.4. King County Agencies and Offices 209 ---PAGE BREAK--- vi 5.5. Neighboring Cities 210 5.6. Utilities and Services 210 5.7. General Interest Groups 210 5.8. Libraries 210 5.9. Newspapers 210 6. LIST OF ACRONYMS 211 ---PAGE BREAK--- vii List of Figures 1-1 Vicinity Map 3 1-2 ONP Study Area 4 2-1 No Action Alternative – Overlake Village 26 2-2 No Action Potential Commercial Growth by TAZ 27 2-3 No Action Potential Residential Growth by TAZ 28 2-4 No Action Alternative Transportation Projects 29 2-5 Action Alternative – Overlake Village 34 2-6 Action Potential Commercial Growth by TAZ 35 2-7 Action Potential Residential Growth by TAZ 36 2-8 Action Alternative Non-Motorized Transportation Projects 37 2-9 Action Alternative Transit Projects 38 2-10 Action Alternative Roadway Projects 39 3-1 Overlake Urban Center and Transportation Analysis Zones 44 3-2 Generalized Land Use Map (2005) 46 3-3 Existing and Projected Development by TAZ 62 3-4 Study Area and Street Classification 70 3-5 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service (2005) 73 3-6 Existing Local Transit Routes 75 3-7 Existing Regional Transit Routes 76 3-8 Existing Regional Express Transit Routes 77 3-9 Illustration of Sidewalk Standards 80 3-10 Summary of Sidewalk Inventory 81 3-11 Existing Bicycle Lanes and Trails 83 3-12 Existing Bicycle Level of Service 85 3-13 No Action Alternative Planned Transportation Improvements 90 3-14 Action Alternative Planned Roadway Improvements 91 3-15 Action Alternative Proposed Transit Improvements 95 3-16 Action Alternative Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 103 3-17 No Action Alternative 2030 PM Peak Hour Volumes at Intersection Approaches 106 3-18 Action Alternative 2030 PM Peak Hour Volumes at Intersection Approaches 107 3-19 TMP Screenlines #3 and #6 110 3-20 No Action Alternative 2030 PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service and Delay 115 3-21 Action Alternative 2030 PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service and Delay 116 3-22 Existing Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces in Overlake (2006) 147 3-23 Action Alternative Overlake Village Park Plan 150 ---PAGE BREAK--- viii List of Tables 1-1 Summary of Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update Alternatives 9 2-1 Overlake No Action Alternative Land Use Estimate for Year 2030 25 2-2 Overlake Action Alternative Land Use Estimate for Year 2030 31 2-3 Overlake Moderate 2030 Alternative Land Use Estimate 40 3-1 Land by Acreage (2005) 47 3-2 Definitions of Land Use Categories 48 3-3 Change in Population: 1980-2000 49 3-4 Existing Number of Residences in Overlake Neighborhood and Redmond (2005) 49 3-5 Overlake Neighborhood Commercial Growth – Existing and Pipeline Projects 50 3-6 Land Use for Existing Conditions, No Action and Action Alternatives – Overlake Village and Employment Area 51 3-7 Projected Total Number of Residences in Overlake Neighborhood and Redmond, 2030 52 3-8 Comparison of Consistency of No Action and Action Alternatives with CPP LU-45 53 3-9 Comprehensive Plan Policies Pertaining to Overlake 56 3-10 Comparison of the Proposed Overlake Neighborhood Plan with Requirements for Neighborhood Plans 60 3-11 Description of Average Intersection Level of Service 67 3-12 Level of Service Definitions 68 3-13 Existing (2005) PM Peak Average Intersection Level of Service and Concurrency Level of Service in the Overlake TMD 72 3-14 Bicycle Level of Service Definitions 86 3-15 Proposed Roadway Improvements 88 3-16 Action Alternative Proposed Transit Facility and Service Improvements 94 3-17 Action Alternative Proposed Transportation Demand Management Actions 97 3-18 Action Alternative Proposed Parking Management Actions 98 3-19 Action Alternative Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 101 3-20 Screenline Vehicle Volume to Capacity Ratios 108 3-21 2030 PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service and Delay 114 3-22 Existing, 2030 No Action and Action Alternative Levels of Service at Intersections Outside the Overlake Study Area 118 3-23 2030 Volume to Capacity Ratios and Concurrency Levels of Service 119 3-24 Calculated Maximum Peak-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm) 127 3-25 Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources 131 3-26 Action Alternative Projected Electrical Load Increases by TAZ 153 3-27 Summer Loads for Sammamish-Kenilworth-Lakeside Transmission Line 153 3-28 Summer Loads for Sammamish-North Bellevue-Lakeside Transmission Line 154 3-29 Capacity and Enrollment of Public Schools Serving Overlake (2007) 155 3-30 Lake Washington School District Student Generation Rates (2007) 156 3-31 Estimated New Students Generated under Each Alternative in 2030 156 ---PAGE BREAK--- ix List of Appendices A Redmond Comprehensive Plan Draft Proposed Updates for Overlake B Redmond Community Development Guide Draft Proposed Updates for Overlake C Draft Proposed Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy D 2030 Land Use by Transportation Analysis Zone: No Action and Action E Transportation Methodology, Supplemental Information on Existing Conditions, and Transportation Projects under the No Action and Action Alternatives F Air Quality Technical Appendix ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 1. Introduction and Summary 1.1 Introduction The City of Redmond is considering amendments to the Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP). The purpose of these amendments is to refine the adopted vision for Overlake, reflect changes in the area since adoption of the plan in 1999, and promote implementation of the plan. This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) evaluates the impacts of adopting the proposed amendments (Action Alternative) as well as the impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. Both alternatives have a 2030 planning horizon. These alternatives are described briefly below; additional detail is provided in Chapter 2. The proposed action will involve updates to the ONP, related portions of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan, the Redmond Community Development Guide, and functional plans, including the Transportation Master Plan. The Action Alternative also includes proposed adoption of the Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy. In addition to City initiated amendments, the proposed Action Alternative includes two privately initiated amendments. The Group Health Cooperative has proposed policies and regulations specific to the Overlake Design District, a portion of the Overlake Neighborhood. OTO Development, Inc. has requested an increase to the allowed commercial floor area ratio for hotels in the proposed Overlake Village District (current Retail Commercial zone). This document supplements the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) published in 1999 for the existing ONP. That document and this update were developed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules that encourage jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to integrate the analysis required under SEPA with the planning conducted pursuant to GMA. The intent is to ensure that environmental analysis under SEPA occurs concurrently with and as an integral part of the planning and decision making under GMA. The SEPA rules for integrated documents state that while there is no standard format for an integrated GMA document, there are minimum content requirements. This document is structured in the following way with SEPA requirements underlined: Chapter 1: Introduction and Environmental Summary Chapter 2: Overlake Neighborhood Plan Alternatives Chapter 3: Analysis of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Chapter 4: Comments and Responses Appendices: Technical Supporting Record In 1999, the City of Redmond adopted the Overlake SEPA Planned Action in order to efficiently use the investments of time and resources involved in preparing the 1999 FEIS and to make development review more timely and predictable. Redmond intends to use this SEIS to update the Overlake SEPA Planned Action and to provide for phasing of the commercial growth anticipated under the Action Alternative. As provided in WAC 197-11-600, additional ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 environmental review may be needed to update the Planned Action, depending on the nature of the phases and subsequent proposals. 1.2 Location of Study Area Figure 1-1 shows the general location of the ONP study area while Figure 1-2 shows the specific study area. The southern portion of the study area, generally where Sears, Safeway, and Group Health are located, has been referred to with a variety of names since the 1999 update of the ONP, including: the shopping and mixed-use area, the Mixed-Use Core, and Overlake Village. Given existing conditions, the most appropriate term today may be “the shopping and mixed-use area;” however, this portion of the neighborhood is projected to evolve into an urban village under either alternative, although more so under the Action Alternative. Due to this projected future change, this area is shown as Overlake Village in Figure 1-2 and referred to as such in each of the alternatives. The ONP study area is located in the southwest corner of Redmond. The western boundary is 148th Avenue NE; the northern boundary is NE 60th Street and State Route 520 (SR 520); the eastern boundary is West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue-Redmond Road, the latter of which also serves as a southern boundary to NE 20th Street. The boundary for neighborhood planning areas is proposed to change as part of the Action Alternative. The area bounded by West Lake Sammamish Parkway to the north, Lake Sammamish to the east, the southern city limits (just south of an alignment with NE 20th Street), and 172nd Avenue NE and Bellevue-Redmond Road to the west is proposed as the Viewpoint Neighborhood. A separate neighborhood plan is underway for this subarea. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Figure 1-1: Vicinity Map Mixed Use I Retail Residential Parks/ Natural Environment ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Figure 1-2: ONP Study Area ~ Overlake Village D Employment Area Residential Area ~ . . n Other Jurisd1ct10 , • • • Neighborhood Boundary ' - • I ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 1.3 Project Background and Purpose The 1999 updates to the ONP established the long-term vision for the neighborhood. That vision calls for the Employment Area to continue to serve as a major corporate, advanced technology, and compatible manufacturing hub for Redmond and the central Puget Sound region. It will maintain its campus-like feel, with significant trees and tree stands, and buildings that are primarily mid-rise (up to 5 to 6 stories) in height. In the 1999 neighborhood plan, the shopping area in the southern part of Overlake, Overlake Village, is envisioned to evolve to include a greater mix and density of uses as part of mid-rise to 6- story) developments. The vision calls for this area to provide attractive places to live close to shopping, restaurants, employment, services, frequent transit service and other amenities. Existing and future development throughout the neighborhood is to be served through improved mobility choices, including convenient transit, pedestrian walkways and bikeways, and improved roadway connections. The objectives for the neighborhood plan update and implementation project are to: • Account for change: A number of changes are underway in Overlake since 1999, including relocation of Group Health’s inpatient services to Overlake Hospital in Bellevue and Sound Transit’s planning for extension of light rail transit (LRT) through Overlake. • Refine and clarify the vision: While the plan describes a broad vision for Overlake, refinements are needed to reflect recent and upcoming changes as well as to clarify goals for key elements such as parks, open space and transportation. • Extend the planning horizon to 2030: In order to plan effectively for extension of light rail transit and other facility improvements, the land use and transportation planning horizon need to be extended to 2030. • Identify actions to implement the vision and neighborhood plan: While development and investments since 1999 are carrying out much of the neighborhood plan vision, progress on the vision for Overlake Village has been much slower. In 2005, the Redmond City Council endorsed undertaking the Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project. The scope of the project included the following: • Working with property owners, people who work or live in the area, and other interested parties to review the vision, determine if refinements are needed, and to identify potential actions to achieve the vision. • Working with Sound Transit and other agencies to plan for an LRT alignment and station locations. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 • Updating the Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Guide, and functional plans, including the Transportation Master Plan. • Developing a master plan and implementation strategy to guide infill development, transportation improvements and other investments in Overlake. 1.4 The ONP, Bel-Red Corridor Project, and BROTS The cities of Redmond and Bellevue have a long history of coordinated planning in the Overlake and Bel-Red Corridor sub-areas. In 1999, the cities adopted the Bellevue-Redmond Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) agreement. This agreement established the current commercial development cap for both cities. The Overlake development cap provides for a maximum of 15.4 million square feet of commercial floor area through 2012, while the Bel-Red development cap provides for 12.2 million square feet in the same time period. Residential development is excluded from this Agreement. The cap was created to mitigate the transportation impacts of growth and to maintain established level of service (LOS) standards for the areas. The agreement calls out specific transportation projects needed to serve development in the area and specifies funding amounts and responsibilities. In 2005, the City of Bellevue began the Bel-Red Corridor Project. The purpose of this project is to evaluate alternative land uses and transportation improvements for the Bel-Red Corridor, an existing light industrial and commercial area which is in transition, and to consider updates to Bellevue’s Comprehensive Plan, sub-area plans, and Bellevue Land Use Code. In 2006, the Bel-Red Corridor Steering Committee chose three 2030 land use and transportation alternatives, together with a 2030 no action alternative, for evaluation in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The three action alternatives have many common features with regard to future development, but they differ in amount of land use and where concentrations of development might occur. All of the action alternatives also assume a full suite of transportation improvements. Each of the alternatives could accommodate a major recreational facility. The Bel-Red Corridor Project Draft EIS was released for review in January 2007. The cities of Redmond and Bellevue have updated each other on planning for these respective areas throughout the process. As a key implementation step for both projects, both cities have committed to undertaking the technical and policy work needed to update the existing BROTS agreement and provide for phasing of growth and transportation improvements. 1.5 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan The City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan specifically mandates the update of neighborhood plans, including the ONP: ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 NP-1: Prepare or update neighborhood plans every six years, and include a review of neighborhood plans to determine if they are adequate or require updating. Work with neighborhood representatives and the Planning Commission to prepare a recommendation on priority neighborhoods for consideration by the City Council. The reason for a separate subarea plan is rooted in the Redmond Comprehensive Plan’s Neighborhoods element and in recognition of the role neighborhood plans can play in helping to maintain and enhance Redmond’s quality of life. In particular, Overlake is noted in the Plan as one of Redmond’s two Urban Centers, a place for focused housing, office and retail growth; a broad array of complementary land uses; and transportation projects and programs that will increase mobility to, from, and within these urban centers. 1.6 Description of Alternatives The alternatives considered in this SEIS describe alternative ways to achieve the adopted vision by 2030 and differ in large by relating higher levels of public action and investment in improvements such as parks and transportation to higher levels of development, and vice versa. The alternatives build upon themes resulting from a public design workshop held in May 2006, as well as on the area’s existing including active retailers and businesses, and proximity to employment centers and residential neighborhoods. The alternatives include concepts related to land use character and amount; transportation; parks, open space, and recreation; and stormwater and the natural environment. 1.6.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is designed to present a baseline for impacts likely to occur if the ONP and BROTS are not updated. The No Action Alternative maintains the existing zoning adopted in the 1999 update of the ONP and includes only transportation projects contained in the City’s 6-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). These assumptions represent the expected conditions in the year 2030 unless further action is taken by the City. This alternative anticipates that in Overlake Village, a few sites would likely redevelop by 2030. While these redevelopments would create a larger mix of uses in this area, including residences, a large portion of the area would retain its single-story, auto-oriented, strip mall character. This alternative assumes City investment in streetscape improvements along 152nd Avenue NE, while concentrating those improvements along the northern stretch of this corridor in coordination with anticipated redevelopment. Parks and open spaces would be limited and most likely privately developed. Stormwater management would be handled on a site-by-site basis. In the Employment Area, under- or undeveloped sites could develop or redevelop up to their existing zoning capacity. In the No Action Alternative, a higher total for commercial floor area is used than the current Comprehensive Plan target for Overlake of 15.4 million square feet because that target is constrained by the BROTS agreement which, if no action were taken by the City, would expire in 2012. In the Residential Area, some infill on remaining vacant or underutilized lots would occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Transportation improvements in this alternative include a total of 14 projects. Included among these improvements are nine intersection widenings, a new overcrossing of SR 520 connecting NE 36th and NE 31st Streets, and limited pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements. This alternative anticipates that approximately 2,300 dwellings and 1 million square feet of new commercial space would be added to the study area, over the amount of development existing or in the pipeline. Estimated totals for 2030 are shown in Table 1-1. 1.6.2 Action Alternative The Action Alternative is based on the premise that higher levels of action and investment by the City of Redmond and other public entities could support and encourage higher levels of private action and investment, and vice versa. Under this alternative, a large number of investments are proposed to improve transportation mobility and access to and within the Overlake neighborhood. This includes Sound Transit extension of LRT and development of two stations in Overlake, one in the vicinity of NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and one near NE 40th Street. In Overlake Village, this alternative includes streetscape improvements along major corridors and creation of a system of parks and open spaces, including two regional stormwater management facilities. This alternative anticipates that in Overlake Village, most properties would redevelop by 2030. The area would evolve to become a true urban residential/mixed use neighborhood. A park and open space system would develop in this area, linked by pathways to destinations within and beyond Overlake. While the base building height allowed by zoning would be up to 5 stories, the Action Alternative proposes allowing increases in building height, an increase in residential or commercial floor area, and an expansion of nonresidential uses within Overlake Village on an incentive basis for developer provision of bonus features that implement neighborhood goals such as public amenities, housing, retention of small local businesses, and environmental sustainability. The Action Alternative proposes allowing the addition of up to 3 floors above the base height, for a total maximum of 8 floors, for provision of up to 3 of these bonus features. The Action Alternative also retains an existing zoning provision that allows developers to purchase transfer of development rights (TDR) to add up to one additional floor of building height and an increase in commercial floor area. The Action Alternative also proposes allowing building height up to a total of 9 floors within the Overlake Village District on an incentive basis for provision of significant community features, including dedication of 2 to 4 acres of land for a regional stormwater management facility. The Overlake Design District zoning, which applies only to the Group Health site, proposes to allow commercial buildings as tall as 10 stories and residential or hotel buildings as tall as 12 stories on an incentive basis for the provision of a number of significant amenities, including a major urban park a minimum of 2.5 acres in size. The Action Alternative also includes a proposed floor area ratio of 1.2 for hotel uses in the Overlake Village District. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 This alternative includes a total of approximately 90 transportation projects and actions, proposed to support the planned land use and complete gaps in pedestrian and bicycle facilities, improve local and regional transit service, complete roadway connections to improve local access, improve the efficiency of regional transportation facilities, and encourage use of transportation alternatives other than driving alone. This alternative anticipates that approximately 5,800 dwellings and up to 4.5 million square feet of new commercial space would be added to the study area, over the amount of development existing or in the pipeline. Estimated totals for 2030 are shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Summary of Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update Alternatives No Action Alternative Action Alternative Overlake Village • Likely redevelopment occurs; development is suburban in form • No real neighborhood core, few amenities to attract residents • Potentially some privately developed open spaces • Most sites redevelop • 152nd Avenue NE develops as a lively urban street that attracts pedestrians to multiple activities • Developments are integrated and create a true urban residential/ mixed use neighborhood • Park and open space system with larger City developed open space “anchors” Employment Area • Properties redevelop up to current zoning limits • Small amount of multi-family residential development (along NE 40th Street) • Larger increase in employment to maintain/enhance Overlake’s economic role • More multi-family residential development (along NE 40th and NE 51st Streets) Residential Area • Continued infill on remaining vacant or underutilized lots • Continued infill on remaining vacant or underutilized lots Transportation • Invest in critical projects identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan • Continue current Transportation Demand Management and parking management strategies • Invest in significant transportation improvements and programs, including pedestrian and bicycle, transit, roadway, and transportation demand management and parking management Light Rail Transit No stations 2 stations 2030 Totals Multi-Family of dwellings) 3,890 7,383 ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 No Action Alternative Action Alternative Single Family of dwellings) 1,365 1,365 Office, Retail & Industrial (sq. ft.) 16.4 million 19.97 million 1.7 Public Involvement Redmond has conducted several community involvement efforts in connection with the development of the ONP Update. These efforts are summarized here. 1.7.1 Overlake Neighborhood Plan 1.7.1.1 Meetings with Stakeholders Redmond staff met with a number of property owners or managers, commercial brokers, business owners or managers, and employees in Overlake between December 2005 and March 2006. A key purpose of these initial meetings was to seek stakeholders’ perspectives on the long-term objectives described in the adopted vision for the neighborhood, including extension of LRT. A summary of these meetings was sent to all participants, as well as other business and property owners or managers. Summary information was also presented to Planning Commission and City Council members in April 2006. Redmond staff also met with stakeholders periodically throughout the process, including during development and refinement of the alternatives. 1.7.1.2 Public Design Workshop (Charrette), Cable Television, Internet, News Releases On May 5 and 6, 2006 approximately 50 citizens, including people who live or work in the area, business and property owners, and other interested citizens, participated in an intensive design workshop focused on Overlake Village. Participants worked using maps, photographs and in discussion groups to describe what was working in the area, what should be improved, and potential next steps. The result of this workshop (charrette) is the Overlake Urban Center Concept Plan, which is based on a of the concepts developed at the two-day event. Notice for this event was mailed to approximately 4,000 citizens within the Overlake and Grass Lawn Neighborhoods. An announcement was posted on RCTV, the City’s cable television station, and on the City’s website. Notice was also mailed to local news media. As a result of these mailings, Eastside newspapers published news articles and announcements about the event. In August 2006, a newsletter summarizing the public design workshop and the Overlake Urban Center Concept Plan was mailed to an interested parties list of approximately 350 citizens, property owners, businesses, and others. This newsletter also contained information on next steps and upcoming public meetings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 1.7.1.3 Open House, Cable Television, Internet, News Releases, Public Comment Cards, Meetings with Stakeholder Groups On November 15, 2006 approximately 30 citizens, in addition to city and agency staff, the Mayor, City Council members and members of Redmond boards and commissions, attended an open house at which three alternatives for Overlake in 2030 were presented for public comment. A presentation was given covering the project background, introducing the three alternatives, and describing the purpose of the open house as well as the various ways to provide public comment. Before and after this presentation, participants were invited to explore a number of stations that described different aspects of the three alternatives, including land use; parks, open space and stormwater; and transportation. Notice for this event was mailed to approximately 4,000 citizens within the Overlake and Grass Lawn Neighborhoods. An additional newsletter summarizing the three alternatives was sent to the interested parties list of approximately 350 entities described above. An announcement was posted on RCTV and on the City’s website. Notice was also mailed to local news media. As a result of these mailings, Eastside newspapers published news articles and announcements about the open house. To supplement feedback received at the open house, staff held a number of one-on-one and focus group meetings in December 2006 and January 2007. In addition, information on the three alternatives was posted on the City’s website and online comment forms were provided for additional feedback. A summary of all public comment was presented to Planning Commission and City Council in January 2007. 1.7.1.4 Other Meetings During the ONP update process, Redmond staff sought comment from several Redmond boards and commissions, including Planning Commission, Park Board, and Trails Commission. Members of all boards and commissions were invited to participate in public meetings throughout the project. Staff also sought the participation of and met with the Greater Redmond Chamber of Commerce to seek input on the update. 1.7.1.5 News Articles and Public Notices As noted above, notices for all events were mailed to local news media. As a result of these mailings, Eastside newspapers published news articles and announcements about the planning process and information on events. Information about the ONP was published in various editions of the Redmond city magazine Focus on Redmond that were mailed to all residents and businesses in the City. 1.7.1.6 Public Hearings and the Final Decision on the Overlake Neighborhood Plan The Redmond Planning Commission and City Council will consider the ONP recommendations. The Planning Commission began review of phase 1 of the ONP proposal on May 23, 2007. The Commission opened a public hearing on May 30, 2007 and closed the hearing on June 20, 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 .The Redmond City Council is expected to begin review of phase 1 of the ONP in fall 2007 and to take action by the end of 2007. 1.7.2 SEPA/GMA Public Process In addition to the public involvement opportunities presented during the development of the ONP, the SEPA process provides an additional public comment opportunity: the Draft SEIS comment period. While the preparation of a SEIS does not require a scoping period (WAC 197-11-620), the City of Redmond gave several agencies the opportunity to comment on the scope of this document, including the City of Bellevue, Sound Transit, and King County Metro; a letter was mailed December 8, 2006 to each of these jurisdictions. Two letters on the scope of the SEIS were received, one each from the City of Bellevue and Sound Transit. The comment period for the Draft SEIS began on March 23 and closed on April 23, 2007. On March 29, 2006 approximately 25 citizens, in addition to city and agency staff, the Mayor, City Council members and members of Redmond boards and commissions, attended an open house at which information on the proposed action and results of the Draft SEIS related to land use, transportation, and parks, open space, and stormwater were presented for public comment. A presentation was given covering the project background, summarizing previous public comment and responses, and describing the purpose of the open house as well as the various ways to provide public comment. Notice for this event was mailed to approximately 4,000 citizens within the Overlake and Grass Lawn Neighborhoods. An additional newsletter summarizing the strategies for action was sent to the interested parties list of approximately 350 entities described above. An announcement was posted on RCTV and on the City’s website. Notice was also mailed to local news media. As a result of these mailings, Eastside newspapers published news articles and announcements about the open house. To supplement feedback received at the open house, staff held a number of one-on-one and focus group meetings in April 2007. In addition, information on the strategies for action was posted on the City’s website and online comment forms were provided for additional feedback. 1.8 Summary of Differences between Draft and Final SEIS In response to public comment on the Draft SEIS and at the Public Hearing held by the Redmond Planning Commission in May and June 2007 on the proposed ONP update, a number of changes were made to the Final SEIS, as outlined below. Comment letters and written responses by the City which reference changes made to this document in response to specific comments are reproduced in Section 4 of this document. In sum, the changes include: • Adding subsection 3.13.5, Public Schools to the Public Facilities and Services discussion in response to comments by the Lake Washington School District; ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 • A number of revisions to text throughout the document related to transit projects in response to suggestions made by Sound Transit; and, • The inclusion of an eastbound SR 520 slip ramp to 152nd Avenue NE in transportation modeling in response to discussions with the City of Bellevue. In addition to changes made based on public comment, the transportation analysis (Section 3.6.3 through 3.6.6) was also updated with additional transportation modeling to reflect two changes to the Action Alternative: • A site-specific proposal for a hotel in Overlake Village; and, • Additional development on the Group Health site, including a hotel and approximately 300,000 square feet more retail and office space than analyzed in the Draft SEIS. The updated modeling also included analysis of the traffic effects at three intersections in or near the Viewpoint Neighborhood in response to public comment given during the Public Hearing held by the Redmond Planning Commission on the ONP update and Group Health proposed amendment. 1.9 Environmental Summary The following matrix summarizes the significant impacts to the elements of the environment caused by the ONP for the No Action and Action Alternatives. Suggested mitigation and unavoidable significant adverse impacts are also shown. More detailed information is provided in Chapters 2 and 3. The Technical Supporting Record contains a list of the principal analytical documents and other materials that were used in developing the ONP update. ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Land Use: Adopted Plans No Action Alternative Inconsistent with Countywide Planning Policy LU-45 requiring implementation strategies for Urban Centers. Doesn’t fully carry out Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan policy NP-1 regarding review and updates to Neighborhood Plans and does not provide much support for other policies related to Overlake. None available. Same as under impacts. Action Alternative Consistent with Countywide Planning Policy LU-45 for Urban Centers. Consistent with Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan policy NP-1 for neighborhood plan updates, and other policies related to Overlake. None required. None. Land Use: Density No Action Alternative Have nearly reached development capacity (15.4 million square feet of commercial space). Neighborhood protection measures maintained. No remedy for restraints on development. May restrict future growth. Action Alternative Would increase allowed building height and floor area in the Overlake Village as an incentive for providing major public facilities and other amenities. Provides for phased increase in commercial FARs in Employment Area Would create additional capacity for development, adding an additional 4.5 million square feet of commercial space in commercial and mixed-use zones which would be the new basis for public facility planning. Neighborhood protection measures updated but substance maintained. Potential increase in commercial FARs in Employment Area would be phased. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Land Use: Cumulative Effects No Action Alternative Areas that would be expected to experience growth are Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 372, 373, 374, 376, 377, 381, 382, and 385. Restrictions on future growth may diminish regional economic role of area. Development standards and neighborhood protection measures maintained. None. None. Action Alternative Areas that would be expected to experience growth are TAZs 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 381, and 385. Greatest potential for impacts would be in TAZs 379 and 381 (areas of most projected new growth). Quality of life for residents, employees, and others near Overlake Village could improve with greater opportunities to live in the area and a greater mix of uses and amenities to meet needs. Development standards strengthened and substance of neighborhood protection measures maintained. None. Neighborhood protection measures maintained in the ONP likely to result in few unavoidable, adverse impacts, but could include an increase in ambient light and noise with fewer direct impacts. Transportation No Action Alternative Construction impacts would include increased noise, emissions to the air and inconvenience to uses adjacent to project sites. Transportation model indicates increased traffic volumes over Existing Conditions and that concurrency level of service does not meet existing standard. Update to concurrency system is underway to promote transportation alternatives. Potential still exists to have substandard levels of service in this transportation district. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Action Alternative Construction impacts would include increased noise, emissions to the air and inconvenience to uses adjacent to project sites. Transportation model indicates increased traffic volumes over Existing Conditions but lower volumes than No Action Alternative. Concurrency level of service is better than No Action Alternative but does not meet existing standard. Update to concurrency system is underway to promote transportation alternatives. Additional mitigation for roadways, transit service, and non-motorized modes described in Chapter 3.8. Potential still exists to have substandard levels of service in this transportation district. Transportation – Land Use Impacts No Action Alternative Short-term impacts from construction, including re- routing traffic, noise, and emissions. Fewer long-term impacts such as acquisition of right-of-way would be anticipated, compared to Action Alternative. During project design or review, mitigating measures may be identified. Potential inconvenience to residents and businesses could occur, depending on the individual project. Action Alternative Short-term impacts from construction, including re- routing traffic, noise and emissions. Some projects would require acquisition of right-of-way, and/or acquisition of existing structures. Same as under No Action. Same as under No Action. Light and Glare Both alternatives No significant differences are anticipated between alternatives. Comprehensive Plan policies require light impacts to be confined to the site in new developments. ONP policies contain neighborhood protection measures, such as wider setbacks and more intense buffer plantings to attenuate impacts from glare and light. None. Some increase in ambient light would occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Air Quality Both Alternatives Dust from excavation and grading during construction would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. Some phases of construction would cause odors detectable to some people away from the activity, particularly during paving operations using tar and asphalt. CO concentrations do not exceed standard under either alternative. Some decrease in concentrations due to use of cleaner fuels and less polluting engines. Water or other dust suppressants could be used on construction roadways or exposed soils. Truck wheels could be washed, and streets kept clean. Use of lower emission fuels, well maintained equipment, and less polluting engines could lessen air quality impacts. Not possible to determine at this point. Would be assessed using modeling based on design-quality information during project-level review required by air quality conformity rules. Noise Both Alternatives No significant differences between alternatives are anticipated. Temporary increases in sound levels along the construction routes due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of construction materials. Slight noise impacts (increases less than 5 dBA) at the majority of locations compared with existing sound levels. Existing sound levels in some parts of the study area are already beyond generally acceptable levels according to most criteria and the alternative future actions would have little effect on traffic noise levels near most of the arterials previously examined. Project-specific noise impact evaluations for major transportation facilities may be performed, and noise mitigation measures may be required, in accordance with noise regulations and policies in Redmond and Bellevue. Possible mitigation measures include noise barriers, speed reductions, truck routes, and building construction techniques and materials designed to reduce interior noise levels. Project-specific analysis would be required to determine permanent unavoidable adverse impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Water Quality: Streams No Action Alternative New development could increase the risk of discharges during construction. Transportation projects located near streams or drainages could result in impacts from construction (increased turbidity) or increased runoff. Increased traffic volume likely to increase total amounts of pollutants from vehicles in runoff. Unlikely that amount of runoff caused by new impervious building surfaces would be significant. Construction of some transportation projects would increase impervious surface and therefore create increased runoff (with associated pollutants) and chance of erosion. Comprehensive Plan policies require limiting impervious surfaces on sites and Redmond has adopted regulations consistent with Department of Ecology’s 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Fewer number of transportation projects than Action Alternative, so somewhat lower overall risk of impacts from these projects. Mitigation for runoff addressed under Redmond’s 2007 Clearing, Grading and Stormwater Management Technical Notebook for each project. Direct impacts during construction can be managed by the use of proper erosion control techniques. Project-specific mitigation will be developed for short-term and long-term potential impacts of erosion and increased runoff. With implementation of required on-site stormwater facilities, no significant adverse impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Action Alternative New development could increase the risk of discharges during construction. The greater amount of development under this alternative could increase the chances of sediment discharges during construction (therefore, relatively greater chances than under No Action). Transportation projects located near streams or drainages could result in greater impacts from construction (increased turbidity) or increased runoff. Development of regional stormwater management facilities and encouragement of use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques would likely reduce runoff and improve water quality. Regional facilities would provide immediate benefits upon construction to the Overlake South Basin as compared to site-by-site facilities which develop incrementally. Development of regional stormwater management facilities in Overlake South Basin. Flow control and water quality improvements in Overlake North Basin. Policy encouragement of use of LID techniques. Others same as described for No Action. With implementation of regional and required stormwater facilities, no significant adverse impacts. Water Quality: Lake Sammamish No Action Alternative No additional impervious surfaces from building construction are expected in TAZs 379 and 375, portions of which are in the West Lake Sammamish Basin. None required. None. Action Alternative Minor impacts from increased impervious surfaces in TAZs 379 and 375, portions of which are in the West Lake Sammamish Basin. New development and construction will be managed in accordance with Redmond’s 2007 Clearing, Grading and Stormwater Management Technical Notebook. Erosion control for land clearing and treatment to remove phosphorus from stormwater will be required. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Wetlands No Action Alternative No significant differences between alternatives are anticipated. ONP will be consistent with Redmond’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) updated in May 2005. No significant impacts to wetland resources are anticipated from any transportation projects or land use actions. None. None. Action Alternative Some transportation projects could have low to moderate potential for impacting wetlands directly and indirectly. In general, impacts are mitigated by compliance with existing regulations, including compensatory mitigation. Special project-specific design consideration and construction techniques may be required. Existing Redmond regulations prohibit modification of some wetlands and require avoidance of all wetland impacts if possible. Short-term impacts. Public Facilities: Water Supply Both Alternatives No significant differences between alternatives are anticipated. ONP will be consistent with Redmond’s Water System Plan to be updated in 2010. Additional water storage in the Overlake/Viewpoint Service Area will be needed. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan and ONP commit the City to provide needed public services for future development. Costs may be borne by the developer or parties that stand to benefit the most. Update Water System Plan. Monitor new development to ensure supply is adequate. None. Public Facilities: Sewer Both Alternatives ONP will be consistent with Redmond’s General Sewer Plan to be updated in 2007. Under any alternative, additional development in Overlake could impact or exacerbate improvements needed to the King County Lake Hills trunk and Northwest Lake Sammamish Interceptor. Coordinate with King County Department of Natural Resources on improvements to these facilities. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No Action Alternative System upgrades needed in the Overlake North Basin due to development in TAZ 381 and 385. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan and ONP commit the City to provide needed public services for future development. Costs may be borne by the developer or parties that stand to benefit the most. Ongoing monitoring and replace pipes as needed. None. Action Alternative Further study capacity of Bel-Red Basin given increased development in TAZ 375 and 379. System upgrades needed in the Overlake North Basin due to development in TAZ 381 and 385. Potential parallel facilities needed in Overlake South Basin. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan and ONP commit the City to provide needed public services for future development. Costs may be borne by the developer or parties that stand to benefit this most. Update General Sewer Plan with development projections. Ongoing monitoring and replace pipes as needed. None. Public Facilities: Electrical Both Alternatives No significant differences between alternatives are anticipated. ONP will be consistent with PSE plans. PSE will continue to seek opportunities to increase capacity in the general Overlake area. In accordance with Initiative 937 (2006), 15% of this energy will come from renewable sources. Coordinate with PSE on opportunities for increasing electrical capacity. None. Public Facilities: Parks & Open Space No Action Alternative Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan identifies two potential park areas. Policies support development of parks system in Overlake Village. None. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 SEPA Issue Area Impacts Mitigation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Action Alternative The ONP maintains the two designated parks and adds a system of parks, open spaces, and other public spaces to Overlake Village. Trail connections and pathways link park and open spaces throughout the neighborhood and to nearby facilities. None. None. Public Facilities: Schools No Action Alternative Additional capacity at Lake Washington School District facilities serving the Overlake Neighborhood will be needed to accommodate the additional demand generated from projected residential development. Maintain requirement for residential development to pay school impact fees to Lake Washington School District to offset costs associated with a growing student population. None. Action Alternative Additional capacity at Lake Washington School District facilities serving the Overlake Neighborhood will be needed to accommodate the additional demand generated from projected residential development. This alternative is expected to generate approximately 420 students more than the No Action, an increase of 31% over the No Action demand. Same as under No Action. None. ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 2. Overlake Neighborhood Plan Alternatives The proposed ONP update, together with other sections of the City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan, is designed to guide development in the Overlake Neighborhood through 2030. The ONP update consists of vision statements, policies, and development standards. The environmental impact analysis of the ONP update is in Chapter 3 and includes analysis of the proposed policies, development regulations, and proposed Overlake Master Plan and Implementation Strategy, which are contained in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. 2.1 Existing Neighborhood Vision The 1999 updates to the ONP established the long-term vision for the neighborhood. That vision calls for the Employment Area to continue to serve as a major corporate, advanced technology, and compatible manufacturing hub for Redmond and the central Puget Sound region. It will maintain its campus-like feel, with significant trees and tree stands, and buildings that are primarily mid-rise (up to 5 to 6 stories) in height. The existing plan envisions Overlake Village to evolve to include a greater mix and density of uses as part of mid-rise to 6- story) developments. The vision calls for this area to provide attractive places to live close to shopping, restaurants, employment, services, frequent transit service and other amenities. The residential areas, generally located in the northeastern portion of the neighborhood, will continue as attractive and well maintained neighborhoods, with little cut-through traffic. Neighborhood parks serve these areas. Existing and future development throughout the neighborhood is to be served through improved mobility choices, including convenient transit, walkways and bikeways, and improved roadway connections. 2.2 2030 Alternatives The alternatives considered in this SEIS describe alternative ways to achieve the adopted vision by 2030 and differ in large by relating higher levels of public action and investment in improvements such as parks, stormwater management facilities and transportation to higher levels of development, and vice versa. The alternatives build upon themes resulting from a public design workshop held in May 2006, as well as on the area’s existing including active retailers and businesses, and proximity to employment centers and residential neighborhoods. The alternatives include concepts related to land use character and amount; transportation; parks, open space, and recreation; and stormwater and the natural environment. The alternatives were developed by analyzing residential market and economic conditions for the area, regional economic forecasts, existing land use and ownership patterns, the availability of ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 vacant or underutilized land, development capacity under existing and alternative zoning scenarios, transportation conditions and potential improvements, and other considerations. Input on the alternatives was sought from the public, including people who own or manage property in the area, employees, residents, the Greater Redmond Chamber of Commerce, and members of Redmond’s boards and commissions. Three alternatives were initially developed for 2030: Existing Patterns, Moderate and Ambitious. Based on public comment and further analysis, City staff recommended and the Redmond Planning Commission and City Council supported analyzing two alternatives in the SEIS: No Action and Action. The Action Alternative is a modification of the Ambitious Alternative, based on public comment and evaluation. Council and Commission’s endorsement of the modified Ambitious Alternative as the Action Alternative was based on: 1) public feedback; 2) the results of transportation modeling and other evaluations completed to date; 3) interest in further pursuing concepts that are in this alternative; and, 4) an interest in carrying forward for further evaluation the most inclusive alternative. 2.2.1 No Action Alternative: Key Features The No Action Alternative maintains the existing zoning adopted in the 1999 update of the ONP and includes only transportation projects contained in the City’s 6-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). These assumptions represent the expected conditions in the year 2030 unless further action is taken by the City. This alternative anticipates that in Overlake Village, a few sites would likely redevelop by 2030. While these redevelopments would create a larger mix of uses in this area, including residences, a large portion of the area would retain its single-story, auto-oriented, strip mall character. This alternative assumes City investment in streetscape improvements along 152nd Avenue NE, while concentrating those improvements along the northern stretch of this corridor in coordination with anticipated redevelopment. The street section of 152nd Avenue NE would be reduced from its current configuration to one lane of traffic in each direction, on-street parking, and a 12’ sidewalk, including a 4’ planting strip or furniture zone. Parks and open spaces would be limited and most likely privately developed. Stormwater management would be handled on a site-by- site basis. Figure 2-1 illustrates the land use concepts associated with this alternative. In the Employment Area, under- or undeveloped sites could develop or redevelop up to their existing zoning capacity. A higher total for commercial floor area is used than the current Comprehensive Plan target for Overlake of 15.4 million square feet because that target is constrained by the BROTS agreement which, if no action were taken by the City, would expire in 2012. Figure 2-2 illustrates potential commercial growth by 2030 under this alternative in each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) in Overlake. The largest amount of commercial growth under No Action would occur in TAZ 381, while other TAZs within the Employment Area and Overlake Village would grow moderately. The largest amount of residential growth under No Action would occur in TAZs 373 and 374 in Overlake Village, while the number of residential dwellings in other TAZs within the Residential Area and the Employment Area would increase at a low to moderate amount. In the Residential Area, development of remaining vacant and underutilized lots would likely occur and in the ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Employment Area, some multi-family residences are envisioned to be added. Figure 2-3 illustrates potential residential growth by 2030 under this alternative in each TAZ in Overlake. Table 2-1 shows the No Action Alternative land use projection that was used in transportation modeling. Table 2-1: Overlake No Action Alternative Land Use Estimate for Year 2030 Multi- Family (dwellings) Single Family (dwellings) Total Residential (dwellings) Office (sq. ft.) Retail (sq. ft.) Industrial (sq. ft.) Total Non- Residential (sq. ft.) 3,890 1,365 5,255 14,182,000 1,099,612 1,130,898 16,412,510 Figure 2-4 shows the location of transportation projects included in the No Action Alternative. A total of fourteen projects are included: • Nine intersection widenings; • One new access point on Bellevue-Redmond Road; • One new signal at 150th Avenue NE and NE 51st Street; • A new overcrossing of SR 520 connecting NE 36th and NE 31st Streets; • Pedestrian crossing improvements on NE 40th Street between the SR 520 on- and off- ramps; and, • Signal and pavement markings where the SR 520 bike trail crosses NE 51st and NE 40th Streets. The No Action Alternative is designed to present a baseline for impacts likely to occur if the ONP and BROTS are not updated. I I I I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Figure 2-1: No Action Alternative – Overlake Village f way Ill age at Overl•ko Sratlon Overlake Village~ C Jile Overlake Village No Action Legend Commercial infill r, Parcel-by-parcel mixed use redevelopment l or Infill Mixed use emphasizing residential • • New local street • • • • Slreetscape improvements • • Street Improvements and devetopment that create a pleasant walking and hvely urban environment # General vicinity of p,otenllal privately developed open space or plaza coordinated with redevetopment - General vicinity ol trail connections to open spaces ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Figure 2-2: No Action Potential Commercial Growth by Transportation Analysis Zone \ Potential Commercial Growth by 2030 Do D 1- 250,000 SF N - 250,001 - 750,000 SF - 750,001 - 1,000,000 SF ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Figure 2-3: No Action Potential Residential Growth by Transportation Analysis Zone ' \ Potential Residential Growth by 2030 C]o C]1-250Units N - 251 - 750 Units - 751 - 1 ,ODO Units ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Figure 2-4: No Action Alternative Transportation Projects - 0 0 0 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Signal/Pavement Markings Pedestrian Crossing Improvement New Bridge Intersection Widening New Signal New Access N study Area ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 2.2.2 Action Alternative: Key Features The Action Alternative is based on the premise that higher levels of action and investment by the City of Redmond and other public entities could support and encourage higher levels of private action and investment, and vice versa. Under this alternative, a large number of investments are proposed to improve transportation mobility and access to and within the Overlake neighborhood. This includes Sound Transit extension of LRT and development of two stations in Overlake, one in the vicinity of NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE and one near NE 40th Street—this project is currently in the early stages of design and environmental review by Sound Transit. In Overlake Village, this alternative includes streetscape improvements along major corridors and creation of a system of parks and open spaces, including two regional stormwater management facilities. This alternative anticipates that in Overlake Village, most properties would redevelop by 2030. Mixed use developments with a residential focus would be located primarily to the north of NE 24th Street, with some similar development in the southeast corner of the intersection of NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE. Redevelopment in the southwest quadrant of the area would have more of a regional retail focus with some residential opportunities. The area would evolve to become a true urban residential/mixed use neighborhood. Figure 2-5 illustrates land use concepts associated with this alternative. A true park and open space system would develop in Overlake Village, with trails linking up to seven different sites. The anchor of this system would be a larger public park developed in the vicinity of the Group Health property which would provide significant opportunities for community gathering. Three smaller parks would provide opportunities for residents, employees, and visitors to recreate. A retail plaza in the vicinity of the Sears property would provide an active public space near shopping. Also in the vicinity of the Sears site, a regional stormwater management facility integrated into open space would provide a green space for the community. The final site within this system would be a more traditional regional stormwater management pond in the vicinity of SR 520, north of Safeway. While the base building height allowed by zoning would be up to 5 stories, the Action Alternative includes the concept of allowing increases in building height and a small increase in residential or commercial floor area within the Overlake Village on an incentive basis for developer provision of bonus features that implement neighborhood goals such as public amenities, housing, retention of small local businesses, and environmental sustainability. The Action Alternative proposes allowing the addition of up to 3 floors above the base height, for a total maximum of 8 floors, for provision of up to 3 of these bonus features. The Action Alternative also retains an existing zoning provision that allows developers to purchase transfer of development rights (TDR) to add up to one additional floor of building height and an increase in commercial floor area. The Action Alternative also proposes for consideration allowing building height up to a total of 9 floors within the Overlake Village, an increase in the residential floor area ratio (from 2.5 to and an increase in the commercial floor area ratio (from .36 to .55) for provision of significant community features, including dedication of 2 to 4 acres of land for a regional stormwater management facility. The Overlake Design District zoning, which applies only to the Group ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 Health site, would allow commercial buildings as tall as 9 stories and residential or hotel buildings as tall as 12 stories in return for the provision of a number of significant amenities, including a major urban park roughly 2.5 acres in size. In the Employment Area, more sites would redevelop than under the No Action Alternative as increases in zoning are phased in over time. Total commercial development throughout the neighborhood could reach nearly 20 million square feet. Figure 2-6 illustrates potential commercial growth by 2030 under this alternative in each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) in Overlake. The largest amount of commercial growth under the Action Alternative would be anticipated in TAZs 379 and 381, while the amount of commercial growth in other TAZs within the Employment Area and Overlake Village would be less but still significant. This alternative envisions a potential increase to the allowed commercial floor area ratio in the Employment Area. The Action Alternative envisions that this increase would be phased, linking such increases to improvements to regional transportation facilities or services that facilitate the movement of people and goods through the area, progress on achieving the Overlake mode-split goal, or increased opportunities for employees to live in the neighborhood. The most significant amount of residential growth under the Action Alternative would be anticipated in TAZs 373 and 374 in Overlake Village. The amount of residential growth in other TAZs within Overlake Village and the Employment Area would be more moderate. In the Residential Area, development of remaining vacant and underutilized lots would likely occur. Figure 2-7 illustrates potential residential growth by 2030 under this alternative in each TAZ in Overlake. Table 2-2 shows the Action Alternative land use projection that was used in developing the transportation network. Table 2-2: Overlake Action Alternative Land Use Estimate for Year 2030 Multi- Family (dwellings) Single Family (dwellings) Total Residential (dwellings) Office (sq. ft.) Retail (sq. ft.) Industrial (sq. ft.) Total Non- Residential (sq. ft.) 7,383 1,365 8,748 18,774,652 1,201,479 0 19,976,131 The transportation projects included in the Action Alternative include all of the transportation projects in the No Action Alternative or replacements of those projects, as well as other projects developed to address transportation needs in the neighborhood. The list of recommended projects was based on deficiencies indicated by transportation analysis, as well as public outreach. The list includes a significant number of improvements for non-motorized travel as well as projects to improve transit service and the roadway network. Figures 2-8 through 2-10 show the non-motorized, transit, and roadway projects included with this alternative. Significant investments would be made to the pedestrian and bicycle environments throughout the Overlake Neighborhood. These investments, shown in Figure 2-8, include: I I I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 • Completing sidewalks and bicycle lanes where missing; • Developing urban pathways along 156th and 148th Avenues NE and NE 40th Street as an efficient and cost-effective way to meet pedestrian and bicycle standards; • Installing pedestrian crossings with signals or in-pavement lights where necessary; • Grade separating the SR 520 bike trail at the intersections of NE 51st and NE 40th Streets and 148th Avenue NE; and, • Constructing pedestrian overpasses as necessary on 148th Avenue NE and SR 520. A significant number of transit projects are identified in the Action Alternative to improve transportation options for neighborhood residents, employees and visitors. These projects, shown in Figure 2-9, include: • Sound Transit LRT service with stations located in the vicinity of NE 24th Street and near the existing Overlake Transit Center at NE 40th Street, with alignments through Overlake Village along 152nd Avenue NE from either NE 20th or 24th Streets or behind Safeway and then using the SR 520 right-of-way from Overlake Village to the Employment Area and beyond; • Two King County Metro bus rapid transit (BRT) services, one from Downtown Redmond to Overlake, Crossroads, and Downtown Bellevue and another from Overlake Transit Center to Eastgate; • Improved Sound Transit, King County Metro, or Community Transit (Snohomish County) peak period bus service to Park, Issaquah/Sammamish, and North Seattle; • Transit signal priority at nine intersections; and, • Queue bypass lanes at four intersections. Roadway projects in the Action Alternative are focused on managing the existing network so that it functions more efficiently, and expanding the street grid in the Overlake Village area. These projects, shown in Figure 2-10, include: • Twelve intersection improvements, including widenings; • Two new signals, one each at NE 30th Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road, and NE 51st Street and 150th Avenue NE; • Roadway widenings along portions of West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue- Redmond Road; ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 • Access management along NE 24th Street and 148th Avenue NE; • Three projects to coordinate with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and other stakeholders to improve SR 520 from the I-405 interchange to SR 202; • A new overcrossing of SR 520 connecting NE 36th and NE 31st Streets; • An extension of 150th Avenue NE north to provide access to the Microsoft Red-West campus; • A slip ramp from eastbound SR 520 to 152nd Avenue NE; and, • Three new street connections in Overlake Village, including NE 28th Street, NE 23rd Street, and an extension of the existing 151st Avenue NE. As transportation options improve in Overlake, additional transportation demand and parking management actions will be implemented. The possible actions included in the Action Alternative are: • Create a residential parking permit program in residential areas bordering the Employment Area, as needed; • Further refine parking standards by use; • Refine credits for mixed use developments that offer shared parking; • Maintain the maximum parking standard for office uses at 3.0 per 1,000 square feet; • Reduce parking requirements for developments near transit facilities; • Eliminate minimum parking standards; • Create paid on-street parking with 2-hour time limits; • Create incentives to reduce or eliminate free employee parking; and, • Encourage methods that recognize the cost of providing parking, including separating office and parking space costs in leases. ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 Figure 2-5: Action Alternative - Overlake Village Overtake Village Actions Legend Mixed UM (commercial & resldenlial) maintaining regional retail Mixed use maintaining commercial Mixed use emphasizing residential ~ Comcmlone SiJeS New local street General streetscape improvements Street improvements and development that eteato a fNely, walkable retail street Urban pathway lnlersecaon improvernenls Allemale alignments for potenbal regional light rail Alternate Jocations for potonllal light rail stations • D Alternate alignments for bus rapid transit • • Allomalo Jocalions for bus rl!l)ld iransil stops * Gen8f81 vicinity of a major par1< coordinated with redevelopment * General vicinity of plazas or small parks coordinated with redevelopment Q General vicinity of regional siormwaier facility - lilear water quality leature ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 Figure 2-6: Action Potential Commercial Growth by Transportation Analysis Zone \ ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 Figure 2-7: Action Potential Residential Growth by Transportation Analysis Zone ' \ Potential Residential Growth by 2030 C]o C]1-250Units N n - 251 - 750 Units I - 751 - 1 ,ODO+ Units ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 Figure 2-8: Action Alternative Non-Motorized Transportation Projects NE 551' LEGEND - Pedestrian Improvement • Pedestrian Crossing with Signal 0 - Pedestrian Crossing with In-pavement light Pedestrian Overpass - Bikelane • • Bike Lane and Bike Signage - Multi-use Trail Grade 0 Separated Bike Trail I N A Signal/Pave- ment Markings ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 Figure 2-9: Action Alternative Transit Projects • • • • • • • • • • • • • .J 'Z w To/From North Seattle To/From • • • • • • • • • • To/From Issaquah/ Sammamish P&R LEGEND - Light Rail Transit Light Rail Station c(fl Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Peak Period Commuter Bus - Multi-Modal Corridor • Transit Signal Priority and Queue Bypass 0 Transit Signal Priority N h ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 Figure 2-10: Action Alternative Roadway Projects SR 520 Widening Bet1veen 1-405 and SR 202 Interchange Capacity Increase NE '10 t- w z w ~ ~ NE 2C ~ LEGEND - Roadway Widening ~ Access Management Re-Channeliza tiOn - New Bridge NewStree1 0 Intersection Widening 0 New Signal New Ramp N A ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 2.2.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected A third alternative, Moderate 2030 was considered but not carried forward for further evaluation in the SEIS. Like the Action (Ambitious) Alternative described above, the Moderate 2030 Alternative related higher levels of public action and investment to higher levels of private action and investment, although to a lesser degree than the Ambitious 2030 Alternative. Fewer streetscape improvements and investments in a park and open space system would be made, and fewer sites within Overlake Village would redevelop. Table 2-3 shows the land use projection for this alternative. Table 2-3: Overlake Moderate 2030 Alternative Land Use Estimate Multi- Family (dwellings) Single Family (dwellings) Total Residential (dwellings) Office (sq. ft.) Retail (sq. ft.) Industrial (sq. ft.) Total Non- Residential (sq. ft.) 5,119 1,365 6,484 16,819,784 1,278,647 0 18,098,431 The Moderate 2030 Alternative was supported in whole by only 14 percent of respondents at and following the November Open House. An additional 21 percent of respondents supported a combination of the Moderate 2030 and Ambitious 2030 Alternatives. A total of 62 percent of respondents supported the Ambitious 2030 Alternative. Revisions were made to the Ambitious 2030 Alternative based on public comment and evaluations which resulted in the Action Alternative discussed in this document. I I I I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 3. Analysis of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives 3.1 SEPA Requirements The SEPA Rules on integrated SEPA/GMA documents require a concise analysis of alternatives comparing the environmental consequences of the principal courses of action under consideration (WAC 197-11-235(6)). The analysis should allow decision makers and the public to determine if the proposed GMA action should be revised before adoption to avoid or reduce environmental impacts. The proposed ONP update is a GMA action under WAC 197-11- 220(4). The elements of the environment identified by Redmond for analysis are land use, transportation, light and glare, air quality, noise, water quality (streams and Lake Sammamish), wetlands, and public facilities (water, sewer, parks, electrical, and schools). The environmental impact analysis evaluates the No Action and Action Alternatives. SEPA provides that where an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a neighborhood plan has adequately addressed the significant environmental effects of a development project, that EIS may be used as the SEPA analysis for the development project. In 1999, the City of Redmond adopted the Overlake SEPA Planned Action in order to efficiently use the investments of time and resources involved in preparing the 1999 FEIS and to make development review more timely and predictable. Redmond intends to use this SEIS to update the Overlake SEPA Planned Action and to provide for phasing of the commercial growth anticipated under the Action Alternative. As provided in WAC 197-11-600, additional environmental review may be needed to update the Planned Action, depending on the nature of the phases and subsequent proposals. To qualify as a part of the Overlake SEPA Planned Action, the development project will have to comply with the ONP and all applicable development regulations. Redmond will review each development project to verify if the ONP SEIS adequately analyzed the significant environmental impacts of the proposed development project. A development must provide all required offsite and onsite public facilities necessary to accommodate the development project, including transportation improvements. All development projects must treat their stormwater runoff to meet the standards in the 2007 Clearing, Grading, and Stormwater Treatment Technical Notebook, including those related to phosphorous in runoff affecting Lake Sammamish. Redmond will continue to monitor implementation of the ONP. The Overlake SEPA Planned Action can be suspended, modified, or repealed if its continued implementation would result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Redmond will evaluate the Overlake SEPA Planned Action at least once every six years to determine if it should be modified along with the City’s six-year evaluation of the ONP. ---PAGE BREAK--- 42 3.2 ONP Relationship to the Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act of 1990 (GMA) created significant planning responsibilities for urban jurisdictions experiencing rapid growth rates. GMA requires that these jurisdictions adopt comprehensive plans that are consistent with state and county planning goals. The goals encourage development in urban areas, efficient multi-modal transportation systems, affordable housing, retention of open space, availability of public facilities and services to support development, and economic development. The ONP, as a subarea plan, is a subset or an extension of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan. Like the Comprehensive Plan, the ONP must also be consistent with state and county goals and policies. This requirement has been amplified by state guidelines and decisions on comprehensive plan appeals. The requirement includes the following aspects: • The neighborhood plan must be consistent with the comprehensive plan map; • The physical aspects of the plan must be able to coexist on the available land; • Features of the overall comprehensive plan and neighborhood plan must not be incompatible with each other; • Policies must work together in a coordinated fashion to achieve a common goal; and, • The plan must be able to provide adequate public facilities when the impacts of development occur. 3.3 ONP Relationship to Countywide Planning Policies As part of the comprehensive planning process in the early 1990s, King County and its incorporated cities developed a growth management plan known as the Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). These policies were designed to help the 39 cities and towns and King County to address growth management in a coordinated manner. Specific objectives of the CPP include: • Implementing Urban Growth Areas; • Promoting contiguous and orderly development; • Siting of public capital facilities; • Establishing transportation facilities and strategies; • Creating affordable housing plans and criteria; and, • Ensuring favorable employment and economic conditions in the County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 The CPP also established criteria for the designation of specific areas for urban centers (CPP LU-40 through LU-45), including: • Centers can be up to one and a half square miles of land. Planned land uses must accommodate a minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of a transit center, a minimum average of 50 employees per gross acre, and a minimum average of 15 households per gross acre. • Adequate drinking water supply available to serve projected growth. • Transit station areas and rights-of-way identified so that all portions of the Center are within walking distance (one-half mile) of a station. The system of Centers will form the land use foundation for a regional high-capacity transit system. • Jurisdictions establish mechanisms to limit the use of single-occupancy vehicles for commuting purposes and encourage bicycle travel and pedestrian movement. • Plans establish strategies to promote urban growth within the Centers. That portion of Overlake designated as an Urban Center is shown in Figure 3-1. CPP LU-45 outlines goals of urban centers, including: • Support pedestrian mobility, bicycle use and transit use; • Achieve a target housing density and mix of uses; • Provide a wide range of capital improvement projects, such as street improvements, schools, parks and open space, public art and community facilities; • Emphasize superior urban design; • Emphasize historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places; • Include other local characteristics necessary to achieve a vital Urban Center; and, • Include facilities to meet human service needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 Figure 3-1: Overlake Urban Center and Transportation Analysis Zones ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 3.4 ONP Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan In the Neighborhoods Element of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan, policies recommend updating neighborhood plans every six years with citizen, staff, and Planning Commission participation. Policy NP-3 establishes issues and opportunities that should be addressed, including implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, a vision for the neighborhood, neighborhood communication, land use, encouraging housing choice, neighborhood transportation, natural features and sensitive areas, parks and open space, neighborhood character, and utilities. Further, Policy NP-5 requires that development regulations necessary to implement the plan be prepared concurrently. 3.5 Land Use Existing Conditions and Impacts 3.5.1 Existing Conditions The existing land use data for the Overlake Neighborhood are shown in three ways. Figure 3-2 displays a generalized map of existing land uses for Overlake. Table 3-1 shows the acres of land devoted to various land uses. Data on residential uses and commercial, office and manufacturing uses are then considered. The following narrative generally describes the distribution of land uses in the Overlake Neighborhood. For a more detailed description of existing conditions (in 2005), please refer to the Redmond Overlake Mixed-Use Core and Surrounding Study Area Report on Existing Conditions and Opportunities and Challenges to Redevelopment (April, 2006), as well as the Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Existing Conditions Supplement (February, 2007), both of which are available from the Redmond Planning and Community Development Department. ---PAGE BREAK--- 46 Figure 3-2: Generalized Land Use Map (2005) LEGEND Business Park - Hotel Parking A - Industrial - Parks lnstitut· - Retail 1onal - Multi-Family Single Family - Off - Uti11·ty ice - Vacant ---PAGE BREAK--- 47 3.5.1.1 Description of Existing Land Uses Overlake is dominated by three main land uses. The northeast portion of the neighborhood is made up primarily by single family residential developments. This area also contains a majority of the neighborhood’s park land and vacant parcels, many of which contain critical areas or steep slopes. Multi-family residential uses are clustered in two locations: at the northeast intersection of 156th Avenue NE and NE 40th Streets, and south of NE 40th Street along the west side of Bel-Red Road. Business parks and office uses dominate the portion of the neighborhood referred to as the Employment Area: this includes the land west of State Route (SR) 520, and the middle third of the land east of the freeway. The Employment Area also contains a few large vacant parcels, some institutional uses, a transit center, and a minimal amount of parks and private open space. The third primary land use in the Overlake Neighborhood is retail, which is concentrated in Overlake Village in the southern portion of the neighborhood. While retail is the dominant use in this area, others include business park uses and offices, a park and ride, a small amount of multi-family development, and the Group Health Eastside Hospital, an institutional use. 3.5.1.2 Acreage in Various Uses Table 3-1 quantifies the various land uses in Overlake. These data are from Redmond’s land use database and are generally current to December 2005. The industrial category does not include manufacturing and distribution uses located in office parks. These uses are listed under the office or business park categories. Streets and highway rights-of-way are not reported. Business parks make up the largest single land use by acreage in Overlake. Single family and multi-family residential parcels make up the second and third largest land uses, respectively. Table 3-1: Land Use by Acreage (2005) Land Use Parcels Acres Business Park 64 480 Single Family 1159 302 Multifamily 11 112 Vacant 27 72 Retail 35 60 Office 26 51 Parks 21 48 Parking 7 30 Institutional 5 28 Utility 13 5 Industrial 1 5 Hotel 1 2 Source: Redmond BIGRED Database The land use classifications used in Table 3-1 reflect the categories included on Figure 3-2, the Generalized Land Use Map. Table 3-2 further describes these classifications. ---PAGE BREAK--- 48 Table 3-2: Definitions of Land Use Categories Category Uses Included Single Family Residences Detached, one-family homes. Multi-Family Residences A structure with three or more housing units in it. Retail Buildings and land used primarily for retail trade; such as stores and restaurants, personal services, and similar uses. Hotel Buildings and land associated with hotel uses. Office Buildings and land used primarily for offices and services. Generally applied to one or two buildings on a single lot. Business Park Buildings and land that include more than two buildings within the same grounds and used for offices, research and development, light manufacturing, warehousing, or distribution. Industrial Buildings and land used for manufacturing within a building. Institutional Buildings and land used for public purposes, such as hospitals, or public or private institutions, such as social clubs. Parking Land used primarily for public or private parking purposes, including transit centers and park and rides. Utility, Utility no structure Buildings and land used for public purposes, such as utility substations, and similar uses. Parks Publicly owned land used for recreation, open to the public, and where the activities primarily take place outdoors. Private Open Space Privately owned land used for recreational uses or included in large greenbelts. These spaces are included in the Parks category. Vacant Land not permanently used for another purpose. 3.5.1.3 Residential Land Uses in the Overlake Neighborhood As noted above, residential land uses (single- and multi-family) make up the second and third largest land uses in the Overlake Neighborhood; by acreage, approximately three times as much land is used for single-family uses as for multi-family. A small amount of multi-family residential exists in Overlake Village. The boundaries of the Overlake Neighborhood have been revised with each ONP update. In 1999, a portion of the old neighborhood north of NE 60th Street and east of SR 520 was removed and the previous Viewpoint Neighborhood was integrated into the new Overlake boundary. This ONP update proposes to once again establish Viewpoint, generally located east of West Lake Sammamish Parkway and Bellevue-Redmond Road, as a separate neighborhood planning area. A separate neighborhood planning process is underway for this neighborhood. Due to the changes to the Overlake boundary, little comparative census data is available for the proposed new boundaries for Overlake. Table 3-3 compares census data for the original Overlake and Viewpoint Neighborhoods. As is shown, the old Overlake Neighborhood grew substantially during the 1980s but at a slower rate in the 1990s. Its percentage growth in both decades significantly outpaces that of the Viewpoint Neighborhood and is higher than that of King County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 Table 3-3: Change in Population: 1980-2000 Change ’80 to ‘90 Change ’90 to ‘00 1980 1990 2000 Number Percent Number Percent Overlake 3,712 7,194 8,548 3,482 93.80% 1,354 18.82% Viewpoint 5,113 5,858 6,049 745 14.57% 191 3.26% Redmond Total 23,318 35,800 45,256 12,482 53.53% 9,456 26.41% King County Total 1,269,749 1,507,319 1,737,034 237,570 18.71% 229,715 13.22% Source: 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses Within the pre-1999 Overlake Neighborhood boundaries, residential units that are owner- occupied (52%) outnumber those that are renter-occupied primarily due to the large number of multi-family units in Overlake Village and near the Employment Area. Table 3- 4 shows the estimated number of existing residences in the new Overlake Neighborhood and Redmond in 2005. Overlake contains about 13 percent of the City’s housing units and has been identified as a primary location for housing growth in the future. Table 3-4: Existing Number of Residences in Overlake Neighborhood and Redmond (2005) Unit Type Number of Units Overlake Total Percent of Overlake Total Overlake as a Percent of City Number of Units City Total Percent of City Total Single-Family Residences 1,121 38% 11% 10,474 45% Multi-Family Residences 1,863 62% 14% 12,986 55% Total 2,984 100% 13% 23,460 100% Source: Redmond Land Use Database, 2005 3.5.1.4 Commercial, Office, Wholesale, and Manufacturing Uses in the Overlake Neighborhood Commercial land uses include office, retail and industrial businesses, of which office or business park uses are most prominent. Very little land is devoted to industrial uses, although historically light industrial businesses dominated this neighborhood. Retail uses exist primarily in Overlake Village, although a small amount can be found in the Employment Area. Development in the retail commercial, office, and manufacturing areas has been characterized by a peak in 1975 to 1979, relatively stable development levels between 1980 and 1995, and another peak in office development and permitting since then. Peaks and valleys are typical in real estate, due to the cyclical nature of the economy and changes in interest rates. The cyclical nature of the economy affects the demand for new space because businesses often expand as the economy expands. Interest rates affect development because lower interest rates reduce the rents needed to make property development profitable. I I I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- 50 The stability of the 1980s and early 1990s was largely due to the influence first of the Koll Co. and then later by large corporations acting as owner-builders. Developers, such as Koll, usually try to time their construction based on interest rates and vacancy rates. Owner-builders, such as Nintendo and Microsoft, may take these factors into account, but build largely in response to their business needs. This results in a very different type of land market, a land market that responds to the needs of the owner-builders rather than development trends. Table 3-5 shows the amount of commercial space constructed or in the development pipeline as of December 2005. Of this, 1,979,148 square feet are allocated to Microsoft according to the terms of the Microsoft Development Agreement. This does not include a Microsoft “holdback” of another 216,340 square feet. Table 3-5: Overlake Neighborhood Commercial Growth – Existing and Pipeline Projects Existing Plus Constructed, Pipeline Projects (in square feet) Commercial Floor Area (Office, Retail, Manufacturing and Warehousing) June 1995 7,032,082 December 2005 15,456,080 Difference for 10 year period 8,423,998 Source: Redmond Planning Department 3.5.1.5 Historical Sites Three historic residences exist in Overlake, as identified by a historic site survey commissioned by the City of Redmond and completed in September, 2005. Site #15 identified in this survey is the Morelli Chicken Farm Residence, located at 5830 148th Avenue NE. Currently located on the Microsoft Red-West Campus, an associated home was moved to just north of NE 60th Street, outside of the Overlake Neighborhood, in the late 1990s. The existing house is associated with the Morelli Chicken Farm. It is an example of craftsman style development and could be eligible for the Local Register of Historic Landmarks and the National Register of Historic Places. Sites #72 (15408 NE 51st Street) and #78 (5017 NE 50th Street) are located in the Residential Area of the neighborhood. Site #72 is an example of a ranch-style home, while Site #78 is a colonial revival. 3.5.1.6 Existing and Projected Development The projected land uses for the No Action and Action Alternatives were aggregated to Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ), as shown on Figure 3-1. This enables growth in each TAZ to be converted to trips and analyzed in the transportation model. Table 3-6 shows the estimated existing conditions, No Action and Action Alternative aggregated estimates by TAZ for the Overlake Village and Employment Area, with details broken out only on the Action Alternative. Land use by TAZ in Redmond for the 2030 No Action and Action Alternatives are in Appendix D. The No Action Alternative would add approximately 1,670 multi-family dwellings over existing conditions for these areas, and the Action Alternative would add approximately 5,495 dwellings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 Table 3-6: Land Use for Existing Conditions, No Action and Action Alternatives – Overlake Village and Employment Area No Action Action Alternative TAZ & Primary Comprehensive Plan Designation 2005 Total Residences (dwellings) 2005 Total Non- Residential (square feet of floor area) Non- Residential Pipeline Projects 2005 Total Plus Non- Residential Pipeline Projects (Existing Conditions) Multi- Family Total Non- Residential Multi- Family Total Non- Residential Office Retail 371: Mixed- Use 389,035 0 389,035 0 389,035 296 423,836 63,575 360,261 372: Mixed- Use 365,698 11,000 376,698 38 376,698 629 501,002 159,402 341,600 373: Mixed- Use 477,561 0 477,561 793 630,771 1,767 587,986 429,124 158,862 374: Mixed- Use + Design District 472 1,160,789 0 1,160,789 1,312 1,311,875 2,296 1,736,726 1,484,080 252,646 375: Business & Technology 522,911 0 522,911 522,911 0 844,233 844,233 0 376: Business & Technology 1,141,941 0 1,141,941 1,266,020 0 1,451,994 1,451,994 0 377: Business & Technology 1,471,038 633,327 2,104,365 2,117,834 0 2,216,542 2,191,542 25,000 378: Business & Technology 571,595 0 571,595 571,595 316 571,595 571,595 0 379: Business & Technology 3,034,308 1,345,821 4,380,129 4,380,129 0 5,658,757 5,658,757 0 381: Business & Technology 1,559,509 0 1,559,509 330 1,917,132 330 2,653,161 2,615,831 37,330 382: Business & Technology 1,101,123 444,890 1,546,013 1,580,335 0 1,523,446 1,523,446 0 385: Business & Technology 697,065 515,000 1,212,065 1,345,711 332 1,806,853 1,781,073 25,780 TOTAL 472 12,506,042 2,950,038 15,456,080 2,143 16,412,046 5,966 19,976,131 18,774,652 1,201,479 ---PAGE BREAK--- 52 Redmond’s Planning Department estimates that Overlake had (by 2005) 12,506,042 square feet of space in commercial, office, and manufacturing uses. With projects in the “pipeline” (including signed and pending development agreements) that were proposed to be built, that figure increases to 15,456,080 square feet. The No Action Alternative would add approximately 1 million square feet of non-residential space over these existing conditions, and the Action Alternative would add approximately 3.5 million square feet of non-residential space over the No Action Alternative. Table 3-7 shows the total number of residences anticipated in the No Action and Action Alternatives for the neighborhood and City by 2030. Under the No Action Alternative, Overlake’s share of the City’s total housing units is anticipated to increase to 15% by 2030, compared to 13 percent in 2005. Under the Action Alternative, Overlake’s share of the City’s total housing units is anticipated to increase to 23%. Overlake’s increased significance as a location for housing growth under the Action Alternative is consistent with the higher levels of action and investment proposed under this alternative. Table 3-7: Projected Total Number of Residences in Overlake Neighborhood and Redmond, 2030 No Action Alternative Action Alternative Unit Type Overlake City of Redmond1 Overlake as a Percent of City Total Overlake City of Redmond1 Overlake as a Percent of City Total Single- Family 1,365 14,341 10% 1,365 14,341 10% Multi-Family 3,890 20,859 19% 7,383 24,352 30% Total 5,255 35,199 15% 8,748 38,693 23% 3.5.2 Land Use Impacts There are two types of potential impacts from the No Action and Action Alternatives. The first, discussed immediately below, is the potential for each alternative to be inconsistent with adopted plans, policies, and regulations. The second is discussed in Section 3.5.2.2 and involves impacts of the alternatives on land use intensification, and the impacts on surrounding uses which stem from the intensification. 3.5.2.1 Consistency with Adopted Plans, Policies and Regulations 3.5.2.1.1 No Action Alternative Impacts under this alternative depend on whether maintaining the existing ONP would be inconsistent with the Growth Management Act, the Countywide Planning Policies, and the Redmond Comprehensive Plan. 1 Includes potential annexation areas ---PAGE BREAK--- 53 Growth Management Act The No Action Alternative would be compatible and consistent with GMA, since no changes to the current Redmond Comprehensive Plan are proposed and the Comprehensive Plan was previously evaluated for consistency with GMA during its adoption process. Countywide Planning Policies In 2006, Redmond amended its Comprehensive Plan to designate Overlake as an Urban Center. King County action to amend the CPP occurred in April 2007. The No Action Alternative would not alter that designation. However, it would not fully carry out the mandate of CPP LU-45 which requires strategies for achieving the goals of the designation. Table 3-8 compares the consistency of the No Action and Action Alternatives with key elements of CPP LU-45. Under the No Action Alternative, the lack of progress on needed park, stormwater, and transportation improvements would hinder the evolution of Overlake as a true urban residential/mixed use center consistent with CPP LU-45. Table 3-8: Comparison of Consistency of No Action and Action Alternatives with CPP LU-45 CPP LU-45 Required Strategies No Action Alternative Action Alternative Support pedestrian mobility, bicycle use and transit use • Minimal pedestrian and bicycle improvements made • Arterial Bus Rapid Transit route from Downtown Redmond to Overlake, Crossroads, and Downtown Bellevue implemented as part of King County Metro Transit Now • Assumes no light rail line as part of East Link project from Downtown Seattle to Downtown Redmond (although the East Link project is not predicated on actions by Redmond, and is subject to the approval of a financing plan by the voters in November 2007) • Significant pedestrian and bicycle improvements made throughout neighborhood, including multi-use pathways on key corridors • Addition of local street grid in Overlake Village further enhances pedestrian and bicyclist travel options • 2 Arterial Bus Rapid Transit routes implemented: 1 from Downtown Redmond to Overlake, Crossroads and Downtown Bellevue as part of King County Metro Transit Now; 1 from Overlake to Eastgate • Light rail line as part of East Link project operational with 2 stations in Overlake: 1 in Overlake Village, 1 in the Employment Area Achieve a target housing density and mix of use • Approximately 1,700 additional multifamily units projected in Overlake Village • Few sites in Overlake Village projected to redevelop resulting in only slight increase in mix and density of uses in the Urban Center • Approximately 4,500 additional multifamily units projected in Overlake Village • Majority of sites in Overlake Village projected to redevelop as mixed-use developments, significantly increasing the mix of uses in the Urban ---PAGE BREAK--- 54 CPP LU-45 Required Strategies No Action Alternative Action Alternative • Small amount of multi-family development (350 dwellings) projected in Employment Area • Moderate support for transit Center • Proposed plan includes specific strategies to achieve housing goals for supply and variety • Greater amount of multi- family development (1,000 dwellings) projected in Employment Area, improving the mix of uses in the area • Significant support for extension of light rail transit Provide a wide range of capital improvement projects, including street improvements, schools, parks and open space, public art and community facilities • 14 transportation projects identified, including intersection improvements, a street widening, and minor pedestrian and bicycle improvements • City would continue to collect school impact fees for the Lake Washington School District • Parks and open space identified as a need in existing policies, yet no specific plan on how to meet the need • Community facilities identified as a need in existing policies, yet no specific plan on how to meet the need • Over 90 transportation projects identified, including street improvements, new streets, pedestrian and bicycle improvements and transit improvements • City would continue to collect school impact fees for the Lake Washington School District • Specific parks, open space, and recreation plan identified for Overlake Village including a large public gathering place, several smaller plazas or open spaces, two regional stormwater management facilities, and a pathway and trail system linking facilities within Overlake with each other and with those outside the neighborhood • Community gathering place provided for in Overlake Village park plan, other policies identify the potential need for additional facilities Emphasize superior urban design • Existing plan policies encourage superior design to enhance the character of Overlake • Proposed plan policies encourage superior design to enhance the character of Overlake • Proposed design regulations provide more specific guidance on urban design • Proposed design regulations enhance existing City-wide ---PAGE BREAK--- 55 CPP LU-45 Required Strategies No Action Alternative Action Alternative design regulations for specific design issues relevant to redevelopment in Overlake Emphasize historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places • Existing City-wide policies and regulations apply to historic preservation in Overlake • Existing City-wide policies and regulations apply to historic preservation in Overlake Include other local characteristics necessary to achieve a vital Urban Center • Existing plan policies encourage maintaining Overlake as a regional employment center • Existing plan policies encourage mixed-use development in Overlake Village • Proposed plan policies encourage maintaining Overlake’s important regional economic role while emphasizing the importance of improving opportunities to live in the area • Proposed plan policies clarify and encourage mixed-use development throughout the neighborhood, and specifically in Overlake Village • Proposed plan policies encourage development and public improvements to portray an image unique to Overlake focused on diversity and high-tech uses Include facilities to meet human needs • Existing plan policies support updates to public facility plans to meet needs of Overlake residents and employees • Existing plan policies encourage public-private partnerships to meet human service needs • Proposed plan policies support updates to public facility plans to meet needs of Overlake residents and employees • Proposed plan policies encourage public-private partnerships to meet public facility and service needs, as well as human service needs Comprehensive Plan Table 3-9 compares the consistency of the No Action and Action Alternatives with key elements of Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan. The No Action Alternative would not provide as much support for many of the related Comprehensive Plan policies. For example, while the ONP has had been reviewed as part of the No Action Alternative, it would not be updated to reflect changes in conditions such as planning for light rail transit and relocation of the Group Health inpatient services. Another potential impact of the No Action Alternative would be the limitation on future commercial development. This limitation on future growth is inconsistent with policies in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan related to Urban Centers, particularly policy LU- ---PAGE BREAK--- 56 43 which aims to encourage and accommodate through plans and implementation strategies focused office, retail and housing growth and a broad array of complementary land uses within designated Urban Centers. Table 3-9: Comprehensive Plan Policies Pertaining to Overlake Policy Number Policy Summary No Action Alternative Action Alternative NP-1 Review and update as needed each neighborhood plan every six years. ƒ ONP reviewed but not updated to reflect changes in conditions ƒ ONP updated to reflect changes in conditions FW-24 LU-43 Support the Overlake Urban Center as a focus for high technology and other employment located within a vibrant urban setting, as well as a place for opportunities to live, shop and recreate close to workplaces. Designate Overlake as an Urban Center for focused office, retail and housing growth, and a supportive transportation system. Recognize and support the Overlake Urban Center in all relevant planning forums. ƒ Modest support for Overlake as an Urban Center ƒ Would provide moderate support for future extension of light rail transit ƒ Significant support for Overlake as an Urban Center due to increased variety and density of uses and proposed improvements in public facilities ƒ Would provide significant support for future extension of light rail transit FW-25 Ensure that development and investments in the Overlake Urban Center address transportation issues of concern to Redmond and Bellevue and help to retain and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ƒ 14 transportation projects ƒ Includes over 90 transportation projects LU-44 Give priority to Redmond’s urban centers for transit service and improvements, as well as other transportation projects that will increase mobility to, from and within these urban centers. ƒ Existing citywide policies support this for Overlake ƒ Proposed neighborhood policies provide additional support and direction for active planning for transit and other transportation improvements HO-17 Ensure an appropriate supply and mix of housing and affordability levels within employment centers such as Overlake for neighborhood employees. ƒ Total of 2,271 additional dwelling units projected ƒ Total of 5,764 additional dwelling units projected ƒ Proposes requirement and bonus program for affordable housing EV-2 Preserve and expand the current economic base and employment ƒ Anticipates up to 1 million square feet of ƒ Provides for phasing of additional 4.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- 57 Policy Number Policy Summary No Action Alternative Action Alternative levels in Redmond. additional commercial space ƒ Likely to be well below “market anticipated” levels of commercial growth for existing and new business. million square feet of additional commercial space ƒ While less growth than historical trends, likely to provide some accommodation of “market anticipated” levels of growth EV-4 Support the retention and attraction of high technology, retail and residential uses in Overlake. ƒ Slight increase in mix of uses ƒ Significant increase in mix of uses TR-29 and TR-30 Participate actively in the planning and development of a regional HCT system with service to Overlake, Downtown Redmond and SE Redmond ƒ Existing citywide policies support this for Overlake ƒ Proposed neighborhood policies provide additional support and direction for active planning for HCT system PR-4 Acquire land and develop parks in the Overlake Urban Center. ƒ Parks and open space identified as a need, yet no specific plan ƒ Specific parks, open space, and recreation plan identified for the Overlake Village FW-5 Enhance the quality of the natural environment ƒ Limited redevelopment provides limited level of support for improving stormwater management ƒ Higher level of anticipated redevelopment provides significant support for improving stormwater management, contributing to improved water quality, and fostering sustainable development approaches UT-39 Evaluate the feasibility of regional detention and treatment facilities and support their use where the concept proves feasible ƒ Stormwater management would occur on a site-by-site basis ƒ Include policy and plan support for location of regional stormwater facilities in Overlake 3.5.2.1.2 Action Alternative Impacts under this alternative depend on whether the adoption of the ONP Update would be inconsistent with the Growth Management Act, the Countywide Planning Policies, and the Redmond Comprehensive Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 58 Growth Management Act The ONP update meets the criteria for compliance with GMA discussed in Section 3.2. The plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map and provides for policies to help implement the designations. The Overlake Business and Advanced Technology zone created in the 1999 update to the plan is retained, as is the intent of the Retail Commercial zone, which is proposed to be renamed to Overlake Village. The physical aspects of the plan and development regulations are able to coexist on the available land. The residential floor area ratios (FARs) proposed in the Overlake Village and Overlake Business and Advanced Technology zones will provide for the 5,496 additional multi-family housing units assumed to be constructed in the Overlake Village and Employment Area. This housing is planned to be constructed during the redevelopment of this area. Policies and regulations are included to encourage construction of this housing in the upper floors of commercial buildings or in stand-alone structures. The projections prepared as part of the update show that 19.9 million square feet of commercial uses can be constructed in Overlake. The policies, regulations and master plan and implementation strategy are consistent with and work together in a coordinated fashion to achieve the existing Overlake Neighborhood vision. The mixed-use area is provided for by policies, regulations and strategies that encourage residential, retail and office development in Overlake Village. Policies also provide for a park and open space system, as well as regional stormwater management facilities in this area. Policies and regulations provide for attractive streetscapes and adequate public facilities. The Action Alternative proposes allowing increased building height in the Overlake Village on an incentive basis for developer provision of bonus features that implement neighborhood goals. Total building height could be from 8 to 12 stories, depending on the property. The proposed regulations provide design standards to maintain light, avoid a canyon effect on 152nd Avenue NE, contribute to a comfortable pedestrian environment, and promote variety in building height. In addition, required landscaping and design standards would maintain the desired appearance of the area as identified in the vision statement. The high technology office, research and development, and manufacturing area is provided for by policies that encourage these uses, as well as residential development. Policies and regulations provide for adequate public facilities and protections for nearby residential neighborhoods. Policies and regulations maintain the existing residential areas and protect them from adverse impacts from those zones. These provisions include a prohibition on expanding employment zones into residential areas and regulations on height, glare, design, and driveway location. The ONP policies and the overall Comprehensive Plan are also consistent. Many ONP policies clarify general citywide policies or fill gaps not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. The parks policies are examples of the latter in that they identify specific objectives for the neighborhood. ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 The Redmond Comprehensive Plan contains policies that require the provision of adequate public facilities concurrent with development. The ONP also includes a policy requiring the creation of facility plans to provide for adequate public facilities in the neighborhood. Procedurally, local governments must provide for early and continuous public participation in the development of neighborhood plans and regulations (RCW 36.70A.140). Public participation has included a neighborhood workshop, two open houses, meetings with stakeholders and focus groups, and online surveys. Newsletters describing the results of the neighborhood workshop and the information presented at the open houses were sent to a mailing list that includes interested parties, property owners, businesses, past participants and others, as well as posted on the City’s website; a newsletter describing the release of this document and the Action Alternative was mailed to the same parties just before publication of the Draft SEIS. A postcard invitation to all events was mailed to all addresses within both the Overlake and Grass Lawn Neighborhoods. The public was also invited to attend Planning Commission and City Council meetings where updates on the ONP were given. More detail on the public involvement process is provided in Section 1.8. Countywide Planning Policies The Action Alternative would fully carry out the mandate of CPP LU-45 which requires strategies for achieving the goals of the Overlake Urban Center designation. As described in Table 3-8, proposed actions related to needed park, stormwater, and transportation improvements would support the evolution of Overlake as a true urban residential/mixed use center consistent with CPP LU-45. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Policy NP-3 requires neighborhood plans to address specific issues. Table 3-10 illustrates how the proposed ONP meets the requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 60 Table 3-10: Comparison of the Proposed ONP with Requirements for Neighborhood Plans Redmond Comprehensive Plan, Policy NP-3: Required Components of Neighborhood Plans Proposed Overlake Neighborhood Plan Updates Implementation of the Citywide Comprehensive Plan Section B of the ONP discusses how Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the ONP. Long range vision for the neighborhood Vision statements can be found in Section 2.1 of this document and Section B of the ONP Neighborhood communication Policies can be found in Section C of the ONP. Neighborhood boundaries The Introduction of the ONP describes the boundaries of the neighborhood. These boundaries are proposed for update as part of this action; please refer to Residential Land Uses in the Overlake Neighborhood, Section 3.5.1.3, for more information. Preservation of the natural environment Background narrative and policies can be found in Section C of the ONP. Promotion of parks, recreation, open space and cultural arts Background narrative and policies can be found in Sections C and D of the ONP. Identification of community facilities and services Background narrative and policies can be found in Section C of the ONP. Encouragement of diverse housing opportunities Background narrative and policies can be found in Section C of the ONP. Support of appropriately sited commercial uses Background narrative and policies can be found in Sections C and D of the ONP. Establishment of neighborhood character and design issues Background narrative and policies can be found in Sections C and D of the ONP. Conservation and improvement of historic, archaeological, or cultural sites Addressed through City-wide policies and regulations Support of neighborhood transportation needs Background narrative and policies can be found in Sections C and D of the ONP. Issues and opportunities raised by neighborhood residents, businesses, property owners and other interested groups and individuals Background narrative and policies can be found in Section C of the ONP. Multiple neighborhood events and comment opportunities provided a forum for individuals and groups to raise and resolve specific issues. Please refer to Public Involvement, Section 1.8, for more information. Development of a list of priority projects Background narrative and policies can be found in Section C of the ONP. In addition, the Action Alternative is consistent with, and would satisfy the mandates in other policies in the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to Overlake, specifically those listed in Table 3-9 above. This alternative would also provide for phased relief of existing conditions wherein the limit under BROTS of 15.4 million square feet of commercial development in Overlake has largely been reached. The proposed updates to the ONP form a new basis for infrastructure planning and implementation for the next two decades and beyond to support phased growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- 61 3.5.2.2 Development Intensities This section discusses the net additional development that is projected under the No Action and Action Alternatives within each transportation analysis zone (TAZ) in Overlake. The 2005 development totals include projects already in the pipeline based on applications received, or development agreements signed or pending. The potential impacts from both alternatives can be assessed by looking at the proposed development target and its potential effect on existing land uses. Figure 3-3 graphically displays the changes in commercial square feet by TAZ. ---PAGE BREAK--- 62 Figure 3-3 Existing and Projected Development by TAZ 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 381 382 385 TAZ Commercial Square Feet Existing Conditions No Action Action • ---PAGE BREAK--- 63 3.5.2.2.1 No Action Alternative There would be a projected increase of 2,271 new housing units in the entire neighborhood between 2005 and 2030, including 1,671 multi-family units in Overlake Village and 330 multi- family units in the Employment Area. Most of the multi-family development is anticipated in TAZ 373 and 374 in the Overlake Village, and in the Employment Area, in TAZ 381. For non-residential development, the distribution of intensity is similar between existing conditions and the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in an estimated increase in commercial development of approximately 315,296 square feet within Overlake Village. This growth is projected to occur with the development of mixed use projects containing residential, retail and other commercial uses such as services or office. This new development would occur mostly in TAZ 373 and 374 (north of NE 24th Street) with a little additional development in TAZ 372 (southeast of NE 24th Street and 152nd Avenue NE). There would be an increase of approximately 663,139 square feet in office uses and convenience retail and services in the Employment Area, in TAZs 376, 377, 381, 382, and 385. This encompasses the areas west of SR 520 from NE 29th Place to NE 60th Street and east of SR 520 between NE 40th and 51st Streets. The most growth would be in TAZ 381, west of SR 520 between NE 40th and 51st Streets. In no case would any TAZ develop to a lesser intensity than existing conditions. 3.5.2.2.2 Action Alternative Under the Action Alternative, there would be a projected increase of 5,764 new housing units in the entire neighborhood between 2007 and 2030, including 4,516 multi-family units in Overlake Village and 1,000 multi-family units in the Employment Area. Most of the residential development in the Overlake Village is anticipated in TAZs 372, 373, 374. In the Employment Area, most residential development was analyzed in TAZs 378, 381 and 385. This alternative includes the potential for approximately 4.5 million square feet of new commercial development beyond existing conditions (including pipeline projects) and any impacts on uses from the new development. Therefore, one major difference between the Action and No Action Alternatives is that the Action Alternative provides for increasing commercial development capacity in phases. This alternative intensifies and redistributes some of the additional growth in Overlake Village and intensifies all additional growth occurring in the Employment Area. In only two areas would no new commercial development beyond existing conditions occur: TAZ 378 where the Overlake Transit Center is located and TAZ 382 where the former Safeco campus is located. Again, Figure 3-3 illustrates the distribution of new development under this alternative. In the Overlake Village, most of the assumed net increase in commercial development is anticipated in TAZ 374. In the Employment Area, most of the growth would be anticipated in TAZs 379 and 381, where approximately 2 million additional commercial square feet above the No Action Alternative is projected. An additional 1 million commercial square feet above the No Action Alternative is projected for TAZs 375, 376, 377, 382, and 385. ---PAGE BREAK--- 64 While this is a significant increase in commercial capacity, it is still significantly less than the capacity that existed in the neighborhood prior to the 1999 zoning change. At that time, over 30 million square feet of commercial space could have been developed above the then-Preferred Alternative, which set the current commercial development target of 15.4 million square feet. A second impact under this alternative would be the potential construction of buildings taller than six stories in Overlake Village as an incentive for the provision of public facilities such as parks, open space, or regional stormwater management facilities. Therefore, one major difference between this alternative and the No Action Alternative is that the provision of certain public facilities could be encouraged by offering the incentive of an increase in building height of up to 8, 9 or 12 stories (depending on the property), as well as an increase in residential and commercial floor area and expanded list of allowed nonresidential land uses. Based on the proposed plan and optimal locations for new public facilities, it is anticipated that this incentive would be applied primarily within TAZs 371, 373, and 374. This incentive would in part transfer density from land devoted to public purposes to developments on associated private land. 3.5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses of Both Alternatives Additional development under each alternative will add to noise, traffic volumes and congestion. The development may affect aesthetics. These impacts are typically of greatest concern when they affect residential neighborhoods, but can also have a deleterious effect on commercial businesses. Cumulatively, such impacts can affect people’s perception of the livability of a neighborhood, or of the potential success of locating a business in a congested area. Residential neighborhoods that might be affected include those in the Residential Area of the Overlake Neighborhood, those just west of 148th Avenue NE in Bellevue, and those north of NE 60th Street in Redmond. Each of these areas is adjacent to the Overlake study area. Mixed use and commercial developments throughout the neighborhood could also be affected. There are measures available to reduce or prevent negative impacts where incompatible uses meet. These consist of comprehensive plan policies and development standards such as landscaping and buffer requirements, maximum height and bulk, site design considerations, and others. Both the No Action and Action Alternatives maintain the neighborhood protection measures developed in the 1999 ONP Update. Under the Action Alternative, revisions to text are proposed, but the intent of these measures remains the same. Both alternatives would contribute to implementation of the existing zoning through the transition of the existing land use pattern in Overlake Village. Over time, it is anticipated that the existing 1-story retail strips would be redeveloped to multi-story buildings with a greater variety of uses. This transition is anticipated to occur more quickly under the Action Alternative. To help mitigate the potential relocation of existing businesses from the area as a result of redevelopment, the Action Alternative proposes policy and regulatory support to encourage retention of some of the existing small, local businesses to remain in Overlake Village. ---PAGE BREAK--- 65 With respect to potential aesthetic impacts, the most sensitive residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Employment Area will continue to be protected by restrictions on height, setbacks, buffering and landscaping requirements that should promote effective transitions from less to more intense uses. For the Overlake Village area, adjacent uses are commercial or office with the exception of the multi-family area just north of SR 520. Here, provisions for landscaping, setbacks and restrictions on height are proposed to continue. Of the three historic sites described in Section 3.5.1.5 above, one would be affected in both the No Action and Action Alternatives. Site #15, the Morelli Chicken Farm Residence is projected to redevelop under either alternative. The existing residence could be moved off site or incorporated into future development, but without maintaining its single family use. Sites #72 and #78 would likely remain undisturbed in either alternative. 3.5.3 Mitigation for Impacts on Land Use 3.5.3.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative does not fully support the Redmond Comprehensive Plan, since it would not result in updates to the ONP to reflect changes in the area and does not fully carry out the policies for the Overlake Urban Center. No mitigation measures are proposed. 3.5.3.2 Action Alternative This alternative is consistent with adopted plans, policies, and regulations; therefore, no mitigation measures are required regarding inconsistency. No mitigation measures are proposed. 3.5.4 Potential Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3.5.4.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative allows for a minimal amount of new development beyond existing conditions and pipeline projects: only 1 million additional commercial square feet. The restriction placed on commercial development by existing zoning could hamper employment and economic growth in Overlake, reducing its role in the regional economy. Some increased congestion would be unavoidable. Therefore, the perception by adjacent residents of a diminished quality of life to the extent it is based on traffic congestion would be an unavoidable adverse impact. Potential inconvenience to residents and businesses during construction of transportation projects and/or new development would be an unavoidable impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- 66 3.5.4.2 Action Alternative Some increased congestion would be unavoidable. Therefore, the perception by adjacent residents of a diminished quality of life to the extent it is based on traffic congestion would be an unavoidable adverse impact. Potential inconvenience to residents and businesses could occur during construction of transportation projects and/or new development. 3.6 Transportation Existing Conditions and Impacts This section describes the existing transportation system characteristics and analyzes the transportation impacts of the proposed 2030 land use and transportation alternatives for Overlake. 3.6.1 Methodology The details explaining the methodology used in this analysis are included in Appendix E, which includes the following: • A description of the Bellevue Kirkland Redmond (BKR) model which was used to evaluate the alternatives. • A description of the model validation. • Assumptions used to analyze the level of service, and a description of the City’s concurrency standards. • Supplemental existing conditions information. The next section describes the definitions of the Level of Service (LOS) as defined by the Comprehensive Plan and the operational LOS analysis used in this study. 3.6.1.1 Intersection Traffic Operations Analysis Methods The quality of traffic operations on roadway facilities is often described in terms of LOS, a measure of operational conditions and motorists’ perceptions. Under the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA), local governments are required to set LOS standards for acceptable operation of their transportation systems. Each jurisdiction decides what level of traffic congestion is acceptable. This standard is adopted as part of the transportation element of the local government’s comprehensive plan. The GMA requires transportation improvements to be made concurrent with development, and land use adjustments should be made if transportation improvements cannot be identified. When a proposed development project causes a component of the affected transportation system to exceed the accepted standard, then the local government is responsible to either prohibit the project’s approval or require the developer to commit to—or pay for—transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- 67 improvements or strategies to mitigate the impacts in a time frame concurrent with the development (defined as within six years). The City of Redmond uses two methods to evaluate LOS at intersections. One is based on the volume-to-capacity ratios as defined by Transportation Research Board’s Circular 212. This LOS concept is adopted in the Comprehensive Plan as the method to establish traffic concurrency standards for a set of geographic areas, referred to as Transportation Management Districts (TMD). The ONP area is covered by the Overlake TMD. Table 3-11 shows the definitions and descriptions of LOS defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Table 3-11: Description of Average Intersection Level-of-Service LOS Categories Definition (average volume/ capacity ratio) Definition (subjective impression of user) LOS A Less than or equal to 0.600 Highest driver comfort, little delay, free flow LOS B 0.601 – 0.700 High degree of driver comfort, little delay LOS C 0.701 – 0.800 Some delays. Acceptable level of driver comfort: Efficient traffic operation LOS D+ (High D) 0.801 – 0.850 Some driver frustration. Efficient traffic operation LOS D- (Low D) 0.851 – 0.900 Increased driver frustration: Long signal cycle length LOS E+ (High E) 0.901 – 0.950 Near capacity. Notable delays. Low driver comfort: Difficulty of signal progression LOS E- (Low E) 0.951 – 1.000 At capacity. High level of congestion: High level of driver frustration LOS F Above 1.000 Break-down flow. Excessive delays Source: City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element The Overlake TMD has an operational standard of LOS calculated by averaging individual intersection volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. This methodology compares the volume of traffic demand at an intersection with the amount of traffic the intersection can physically accommodate, which is also known as capacity. Volume-to-capacity ratios less than 1.0 mean the intersection operates below capacity, while ratios greater than 1.0 mean the intersection is congested beyond capacity limits. The V/C methodology described here provides background for the City’s process for short-term, project-level review and analysis of a proposed development. In order to assess traffic impacts of future growth in the Overlake area, this study applied the operational LOS method, which is defined by the Highway Capacity Manual issued in 2000 (HCM 2000). The following describes the intersection LOS definition, referred to as the operational intersection LOS analysis method. ---PAGE BREAK--- 68 The HCM 2000 operational LOS is related to the average delay experienced by all vehicles as they approach the intersection. This methodology is typically used for calculating LOS at signal- and stop-controlled intersections. LOS ratings range from (good) to (poor) in the delay experienced. Table 3-12 shows the LOS definitions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. LOS A represents the best operation and LOS F the poorest operation. LOS D or E is usually considered the minimum acceptable standard in urban areas with some delays expected for certain traffic movements reaching F. Table 3-12: Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle (seconds) A 0-10 0-10 B >10-20 >10-15 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F >80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000, Transportation Research Board) 3.6.2 Existing Conditions 3.6.2.1 Roadways The arterial street classifications were combined for Redmond and Bellevue and are shown in Figure 3-4. Within the City of Redmond, the following streets are listed as the Principal, Minor and Collector arterials: Principal Arterials • 148th Avenue NE from NE 20th Street and Redmond Way • NE 24th Street from 148th Avenue NE to Bellevue-Redmond Road • West Lake Sammamish Parkway north of Bellevue-Redmond Road Minor Arterials • 156th Avenue NE from Bellevue-Redmond Road to NE 51st Street • Bellevue-Redmond Road from NE 20th Street to West Lake Sammamish Parkway • NE 40th Street from 148th Avenue NE to West Lake Sammamish Parkway • NE 51st Street from 148th Avenue NE to West Lake Sammamish Parkway Collector Arterials • 150th Avenue NE from NE 36th Street to NE 51st Street • NE 36th Street from 148th Avenue NE to SR 520 ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 • 152nd Avenue NE from NE 20th Street to NE 31st Street • NE 31st Street from 152nd Avenue NE to 156th Avenue NE • 156th Avenue NE from NE 51st Street to NE 60th Street • NE 60th Street from 154th Avenue NE to 156th Avenue NE • NE 20th Street from 148th Avenue NE to Bellevue-Redmond Road • 156th Avenue NE from NE 51st Street to NE 60th Street The Principal and Minor Arterials are generally multi-lane roadways in each direction, whereas Collector Arterials are single-lane roadways in each direction. Intersections with arterials are controlled by traffic signals. ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 Figure 3-4: Study Area and Street Classification Freeway - Principal Artirial N A Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Local Street ---PAGE BREAK--- 71 3.6.2.1.1 Daily Traffic Volumes Existing (2005) average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) volumes were provided by the cities of Bellevue and Redmond. Among the arterials within the Overlake area, 148th Avenue NE carries the highest number of vehicles in a range from 22,000 to 59,800 vehicles per day. The remaining north-south arterial routes (156th Avenue NE and West Lake Sammamish Parkway) receive daily usage generally ranging from 13,900 to 34,300 vehicles. NE 40th Street is a major east- west corridor within the Overlake area carrying daily traffic of 35,100 vehicles in the vicinity of the SR 520 interchange. P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes are typically 8 to 12 percent of the daily total volumes. The existing PM peak hour volumes are shown in Appendix E. 3.6.2.1.2 Intersection Traffic Operations Using the existing traffic volumes, the intersection LOS for traffic operation and concurrency were calculated. The 2005 PM peak hour intersection LOS results are summarized in Table 3-13 and illustrated in Figure 3-5 within and surrounding the Overlake area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 72 Table 3-13: Existing (2005) PM Peak Average Intersection Levels of Service and Concurrency Levels of Service in the Overlake TMD Concurrency Analysis Intersection Intersection Delay (Seconds) Delay Based LOS V/C LOS 140th Avenue NE NE 24th Street 35.2 D 0.97 E 140th Avenue NE NE 20th Street 59.1 E 0.94 E 140th Avenue NE Bel-Red Road 50.6 D 0.87 D 148th Avenue NE NE 51st Street 31.7 C 1.09 F 148th Avenue NE NE 40th Street 28.1 C 0.96 E 148th Avenue NE NE 36th Street 23.1 C 0.8 D 148th Avenue NE NE 29th Place 66.7 E 1.32 F 148th Avenue NE EB 520 Off-Ramp 46.3 D 1.01 F 148th Avenue NE EB 520 Ramps 11.2 B 1.01 F 148th Avenue NE NE 24th Street 101.2 F 1.31 F 148th Avenue NE NE 22nd Street 13.5 B N/A N/A 148th Avenue NE NE 20th Street 53.1 D 1.14 F 148th Avenue NE Bel-Red Road 97.6 F 1.3 F 150th Avenue NE NE 40th Street 21.9 C 0.59 A 152nd Avenue NE NE 24th Street 25.0 C 0.48 A 156th Avenue NE NE 51st Street 26.0 C 0.78 C 156th Avenue NE NE 45th Street 11.1 B N/A N/A 156th Avenue NE NE 40th Street 39.1 D 1.05 F 156th Avenue NE NE 36th Street 78.3 E 1.2 F 156th Avenue NE NE 31st Street 31.0 C 0.93 E 156th Avenue NE NE 24th Street 21.6 C 0.91 E 156th Avenue NE Bel-Red Road 30.5 C 0.98 E 159th Place NE NE 40th Street 106.2 F 1.09 F Bel-Red Road NE 24th Street 28.2 C 0.77 C W Lk Samm. Pkwy WB 520 On-Ramp 43.3 D N/A N/A W Lk Samm. Pkwy EB SR 520 Off-Ramp 46.5 D N/A N/A W Lk Samm. Pkwy Marymoor Parkway 10.6 B N/A N/A W Lk Samm. Pkwy NE 51st Street 12.0 B 0.79 D Bel-Red Road W Lk Samm. Pkwy 45.6 D 1.02 F Bel-Red Road NE 40th Street 47.5 D 0.96 E Bel-Red Road NE 20th Street 34.0 D 0.76 C WB SR 520 Ramps NE 51Street 5.8 A 0.39 A EB SR 520 Ramps NE 51Street 10.9 B 0.51 A EB SR 520 Ramps NE 40th Street 19.8 B 0.53 A WB SR 520 Ramps NE 40th Street 56.2 E 0.71 C District Average N/A N/A 0.92 E Source: Mirai Transportation Planning and Engineering, 2006 and Bel-Red/Overlake Transportation Study Annual Reconciliation Report for 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- 73 Figure 3-5: Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service (2005) LEGEND B-Los ~ Delay N ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 74 Most intersections evaluated as part of this study currently operate at LOS D or better. The following eight intersections currently operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour: • 148th Avenue NE and NE 24th Street (LOS F) • 148th Avenue NE and Bellevue-Redmond Road (LOS F) • 159th Avenue NE and NE 40th Street (LOS F) • NE 40th Street and SR 520 Off Ramp(LOS E) • 156th Avenue NE and NE 36th Street (LOS E) • 148th Avenue NE and NE 29th Place (LOS E) • 140th Avenue NE and NE 20th Street (LOS E) • 148th Avenue NE and NE 20th Street (LOS E) The concurrency V/C ratios and LOS were calculated with the assumptions that the committed roadway improvements in the CIP would be completed and that the pipeline development projects as of November 2005 would generate additional trips to the existing volumes. The November 2005 concurrency analysis shows that the Overlake TMD would operate at a V/C ratio of 0.92 when the pipeline development projects and the CIP improvements are completed. 3.6.2.2 Transit Services King County Metro, Community Transit (Snohomish County) and Sound Transit currently provide bus service within the Overlake area. King County Metro provides all of the local and regional service. All three transit agencies provide regional express service to other areas of the metropolitan area. Local transit service offers connections to major destinations in Redmond. All routes make connections at either the Overlake Park and Ride or the Overlake Transit Center. Figure 3-6 illustrates the local routes. Regional transit service offers connections to regional destinations in the Puget Sound Region. All routes have 45 minute or less headways during the peak period and make connections at either the Overlake Park and Ride or the Overlake Transit Center. Figure 3-7 illustrates the regional routes. Regional express transit service offers connections to urban centers, town centers and other destinations in the Puget Sound Region. All routes have 30 minute or less headways during the peak period. Figure 3-8 illustrates the regional express routes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 75 Figure 3-6: Existing Local Transit Routes NE 55th ~ 35th S sr - 222 11111 f 111111I11111111111111111111111 I [PHONE REDACTED] 249 - 253 269 N A ---PAGE BREAK--- 76 Figure 3-7: Existing Regional Transit Routes IIJ z w ~ NE 4-0 h ST w z ~ .c 0 NE °'l61h ST 225 - 229 230 232 I - 245 '1 1111111 247 N I A I ---PAGE BREAK--- 77 Figure 3-8: Existing Regional Express Transit Routes L • ~ ~ :z • ~ ' .c ~ • 1 / t ( i 242 250 / 256 261 - 266 268 644 441 111111111 ~ f ---PAGE BREAK--- 78 3.6.2.3 Non-Motorized Transportation 3.6.2.3.1 Pedestrian Program Plan In November 2005, the City of Redmond approved the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to guide the City’s transportation programs and projects. The TMP is based on the Comprehensive Plan and is designed to achieve the community goals and objectives. As part of the TMP, the pedestrian program plan focuses on improving the pedestrian environment to encourage walking. As a way to improve the pedestrian environment, the plan defines what the City’s sidewalk and crossing guidelines are and where these guidelines shall be put into place for evaluation. 3.6.2.3.1.1 Sidewalk Guidelines defined in Redmond’s TMP Minimum Requirements along street (see Figure 3-9): • Arterial with posted speed greater than 45 miles per hour: 5-foot planting strip and 6- foot sidewalk • Arterial with posted speed of 35 to 45 miles per hour: 8-foot sidewalk • Collector: 6-foot sidewalk • Local: 6-foot sidewalk • Minimum Requirements along multi-modal corridor: shown in Figure 3-9 • Non-retail without on-street parking: 5-foot planting strip and 8 foot sidewalk • Non-retail with on-street parking: 4-foot planting strip and 8-foot sidewalk • Retail with on-street parking: 4-foot planting strip, 8-foot to 12-foot sidewalk 3.6.2.3.1.2 Pedestrian System Sidewalks and informal paths exist along most roadways in the Overlake Neighborhood. However, an inventory of existing pedestrian facilities revealed some missing gaps. Several segments along Bellevue-Redmond Road, West Lake Sammamish Parkway, NE 51st Street and NE 31st Street do not have sidewalks. The following list highlights those areas with missing sidewalk segments: • Along the east side of Bellevue-Redmond Road between 156th Avenue NE and NE 40th Street. • Along West Lake Sammamish Parkway between NE 51st Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road. For the section north of NE Marymoor Way pedestrian facilities are provided by the Sammamish River Trail which runs parallel to the street. • A short segment along the northeast side of NE 31st Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- 79 • The south side of NE 51st Street between 156th Avenue NE and West Lake Sammamish Parkway NE. • The east side of the SR 520 overpass on 148th Avenue NE. For areas with a pedestrian facility, the arterial roadway segments were evaluated with the sidewalk guidelines defined in the TMP. Figure 3-10 shows results of the sidewalk inventory. Based upon the hierarchy of pedestrian environments and guidelines, only sections along 148th Avenue NE, 152nd Avenue NE, 156th Avenue NE, West Lake Sammamish Parkway, NE 20th Street and NE 40th Street meet the sidewalk guidelines. These locations include the following: • The west side of 148th Avenue NE between NE 60th Street and NE 29th Place. • The west side of 156th Avenue NE between NE 51st Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road and the east side between NE 40th Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road. • A short segment along the west side of 152nd Avenue NE between NE 20th Street and NE 24th Street. • A short segment along the east side of West Lake Sammamish Parkway between NE Marymoor Way and NE 51st Street. • The north side of NE 20th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 152nd Avenue NE. • A short segment on both sides of NE 40th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 150th Avenue NE. ---PAGE BREAK--- 80 Figure 3-9: Illustrations of Sidewalk Standards Source: City of Redmond Transportation Master Plan (November 2005). Pedestrian Tolen1nt Design Artetfal > 45 Str-t 'mph (quhkwo of comdor••nd pedt-Stll.,.. p(KJH) 0 e p&an11ngMf11) 30- •S mph H ~ CoUector 25- Str•eu 35 mph ~ ' 6' H Connedot" < 2S and Local Stl'ffU posted speed All St,eet,; < 25 in multlmodal mph corridors and ped•strfan places (scoflgure sa.7) Tolerant Design not applicable not applicable not applicable ..c:111 f 5' ! -i.i""r~!iti:.k ~ 5' ! t ~ ,r-¾ j ~ ]1i 6' H k 6 ' H 5' Pedestrian Supportive Design 8' j 0'-2' ~ 0 sidewalk 8' ~ ~1 ~ '·12_ ' J<1-2'f 12'- 1 ~fofOty CenterPedutrian Sys~ we S«tion lOC.pm•ntGuidie ---PAGE BREAK--- 81 Figure 3-10: Summary of Sidewalk Inventory ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 3.6.2.3.2 Bicycle System An inventory of bike facilities in the Overlake Neighborhood revealed that cyclists encounter a variety of bike conditions both on and off road. The City of Redmond has dedicated bike lanes and multi-use trails developed for parts of the neighborhood. Currently, shared roadway bike routes have not been designated for this area. The existing bike lanes are located at the following locations: • Full width bike lanes on West Lake Sammamish Parkway between Leary Way/SR 520 westbound ramps and Bellevue-Redmond Road. The section between NE 51st Street and Bellevue-Redmond Road is a full shoulder that can accommodate bikes. • Three-foot bike lanes striped in both directions along NE 51st Street between 156th Avenue NE and West Lake Sammamish Parkway; the section between 154th Avenue and 156th Avenue NE has a full 5-foot striped bike lane in both directions. • Full width 5-foot bike lane striped in the southbound direction on Bellevue-Redmond Road between 155th Place NE and NE 30th Street. The existing trails located within roadway right of way are as follows: • SR 520 trail from West Lake Sammamish Parkway south and west beyond 148th Avenue NE. • The Sammamish River Trail, a recreational trail, from the corner of NE Marymoor Way and West Lake Sammamish Parkway and paralleling West Lake Sammamish Parkway for a short stretch between West Lake Sammamish Parkway and SR 520. It then forks off and parallels the Sammamish River. • An additional recreation trail paralleling West Lake Sammamish Parkway between NE Marymoor Way and NE 51st Street. The existing bike lanes and trails are shown in Figure 3-11. ---PAGE BREAK--- 83 Figure 3-11: Existing Bicycle Lanes and Trails Wide Shoulders between NE 51st St and Bel-Red Rd LEGEND - Bicycle Lane - Trail N A ---PAGE BREAK--- 84 3.6.2.3.2.1 Bicycle Level of Service The adequacy of the bicycle facilities on designated bicycle routes in the Overlake study area were evaluated using the concept of bike level of service (BLOS) as defined by the Federal Highway Administration’s Bicycle Compatibility Index and Updates. It is a measure of on-road conditions and can not be applied to multi-purpose trails and other off-road facilities. Therefore, the evaluation of bicycle facilities was only applied to bicycle lanes and shared-use lanes (wider curb lanes). For the Overlake Neighborhood, the City’s arterials were evaluated using the BLOS concept. BLOS attempts to indicate the bicyclist’s comfort level for specific roadway geometries and traffic conditions. Each of the indicators listed below are weighted according to a mathematical equation. From this computation, scores were obtained. BLOS is defined using a range of scores. Table 3-14 describes the relationship between the score and the general conditions. The factors used to define the BLOS are: • Traffic conditions (average daily volumes, speeds, percent of heavy vehicles, on-street parking) • Roadway design (number of lanes, speed limit, width of outside lane, availability of shoulder) • Roadway surface conditions Figure 3-12 shows the results of the BLOS calculations. Most arterials in Overlake received a BLOS D or E. Generally, these arterials do not have any bike facilities in the form of dedicated bike lanes or wide shoulders. However, some streets with bike lanes with higher vehicular volumes rated a BLOS C or D such as West Lake Sammamish Parkway between SR 520 and Bellevue-Redmond Road. Roadways with bike lanes that are narrow with low vehicular volumes ranked a BLOS C such as NE 51st Street between 156th Avenue NE and 162nd Avenue NE. Streets with bike lanes with low vehicular volumes ranked BLOS A, including NE 60th Street between 156th Avenue NE and 154th Avenue NE and BLOS B, including NE 51st Street between 162nd Avenue NE and West Lake Sammamish Parkway. ---PAGE BREAK--- 85 Figure 3-12: Existing Bicycle Level of Service K If, Q / l ( I I ( [ ! t 1 ~ ! t ~ r ~ t \ f l J r A I t I 1 L r.J - B 1 r I C I l D ~ ~ E r 1 lr 1 11111111 F \ J r N ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 86 Table 3-14: Bicycle Level of Service Definitions LOS Score Descriptions of Level of Service Operations A < 1.5 Highest cyclist comfort. Little or no vehicular conflicts. Supportive infrastructure in place and/or very low vehicular volumes. B < 1.5 – 2.5 High degree of cyclist comfort. Little vehicular conflict. Some form of supportive infrastructure and/or low vehicular volumes. C < 2.5 – 3.5 Acceptable level of cyclist comfort. Some vehicular conflict. Some form of supportive infrastructure and/or lower vehicular volumes. D < 3.5 – 4.5 Some cyclist discomfort. More vehicular conflicts. Some form of supportive infrastructure with higher vehicular volumes. E < 4.5 – 5.5 High level of cyclist discomfort. Notable vehicular conflicts. Little or no supportive infrastructure with high vehicular volumes. F > 5.5 Highest level of cyclist discomfort. No supportive infrastructure with high vehicular volumes and possible high percentage of heavy vehicles. 3.6.2.4 Collisions The City of Redmond maintains a database for all collisions that occur within city limits. A review of the collision data for the period starting in May 2003 and ending in May 2006 revealed that the Overlake neighborhood does not have any collision hot spots. 3.6.2.4.1 Intersection Collisions In general, the average number of collisions per year at intersections in the area was below three. Only four intersections had more than three collisions per year: • 148th Avenue NE and NE 24th Street • 151st Place NE and NE 24th Street • 156th Avenue NE and NE 40th Street • 156th Avenue NE and NE 51st Street When the average number of collisions was normalized by the average daily traffic volumes per million vehicles, the resulting accident rates were below 1 percent. Only two intersections had rates between 0.5 and 1.0 percent. The most common collision types at intersections were rear endings followed by right angles. These types of collisions are typically associated with congestion. 3.6.2.4.2 Mid-block Collisions The average number of collisions per year at mid-block locations was also below three. Only four locations had more than three collisions per year: • 148th Avenue NE between NE 20th Street and NE 24th Street • 156th Avenue NE between Bel-Red Road and NE 28th Street • NE 20th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 152nd Avenue NE • NE 24th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 151st Place NE ---PAGE BREAK--- 87 When the average number of collisions was normalized by the average daily traffic volumes per million vehicles, the resulting accident rates were below 0.5 percent. Only two intersections had rates between 0.5 and 1.0 percent. The most common collision type at mid-block locations was rear endings, which are typically associated with congestion. A stretch of NE 20th Street between 148th Avenue NE and 152nd Avenue NE had a higher number of right angle collisions, which suggests issues with driveway access and congestion. 3.6.3 Alternative Descriptions 3.6.3.1 Roadways The Bellevue-Redmond Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) is an interlocal agreement between the cities of Bellevue and Redmond to balance transportation and development to the mutual benefit of both communities through 2012. This Interlocal Agreement was originally completed in September 1999 and has been updated annually since then. The agreement identifies specific projects intended to accommodate growth and create transportation solutions in both Bellevue and Redmond. This study assumes that under the No Action Alternative all funded projects within and immediately surrounding the Overlake area and projects outside of the Overlake area associated with BROTS would be in place by 2030. Under the Action Alternative, the same improvements in the No Action Alternative and many additional improvements were assumed to be in place by 2030. Table 3-15 shows the roadway improvements to be completed under the No Action and Action Alternatives. Figure 3-13 depicts the roadway improvement projects assumed to be part of the No Action Alternative. (This figure also includes the Arterial Bus Rapid Transit route proposed by King County Metro, which is a part of the Transit Now program, and non-motorized signage and pavement marking improvements at the SR 520 and NE 40th Street and NE 51st Street intersections.) Figure 3-14 illustrates the roadway improvements proposed under the Action Alternative. These transportation improvement projects are also described more in detail in Appendix E. As part of the ONP update, the functional class of two arterials would be modified: • Bellevue-Redmond Road from NE 20th Street to West Lake Sammamish Parkway would be changed from a minor arterial to a principal arterial. • NE 24th Street from 148th Avenue NE to Bellevue-Redmond Road would be changed from a principal arterial to a minor arterial. These modifications are proposed to make these two street segments more consistent with the rest of their respective corridors. The revised street classifications also more closely relate to the functional classification definitions included the TMP. ---PAGE BREAK--- 88 Table 3-15: Proposed Roadway Improvements Alternative ID Location Action No Action Action Freeway Modifications RED-OV-043 SR 520/I-405 Interchange Add WB to NB ramp capacity RED-OV-044 SR 520 off-ramp at West Lake Sammamish Pkwy Add a lane on WB off-ramp RED-OV-090 SR 520 Study and Improvements east of 108th Ave NE Increase freeway capacity by adding general purpose lanes and making interchange improvements at key locations. RED-TMP- 005 SR 520/148th Ave NE Interchange Add a new off-ramp connecting to NE 31st Street New Streets RED-OV-037 NE 28th Street between 156th Ave NE and 152nd Ave NE Construct a new street as a local access street RED-OV-039 150th Ave NE from NE 51st Street to NE 55th Street Extend 150th Avenue NE RED-OV-045 NE 28th Street between new 151st Ave NE and 152nd Ave NE Construct new NE 28th Street as a local access street RED-OV-046 151st Ave NE between end of existing 151st Ave NE to new NE 28th Street Construct new 151st Avenue NE as a local access street RED-OV-048 NE 23rd Street from 152nd Ave NE to Bel-Red Road Construct new NE 23rd Street a local access street RED-OV-049 NE 23rd Street from 148th Ave NE to 152nd Ave NE Construct a new street as a local access street RED-OV-094 151st Ave NE between NE 20th and NE 24th Streets Construct a new street as a local access street RED-OV-079 NE 36th Street Bridge Over SR 520 Construct new NE 36th Street and bridge over SR 520 Street Modifications BROTS-11.1 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy /NE 51st Street Add second SB lane to south leg of intersection BROTS-22.3 156th Ave NE/Bel-Red Road Construct a SB right-turn lane BROTS-31.0 Bel-Red Road and W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Construct an additional SB left turn lane BROTS-4.1 159th Ave NE/NE 40th St Construct an additional NB left turn lane ---PAGE BREAK--- 89 Alternative ID Location Action No Action Action BROTS-79.0 148th Ave NE/NE 36th Street Provide dual SB left turn lanes and widen the WB approach to add right turn lane BROTS-8.1 150th Ave NE /NE 40th Street Construct a NB right turn lane and combine two 150th Ave NE intersections. BROTS-85.0 150th Avenue NE/NE 51st Street Add north leg to intersection and signalize intersection RED-OV-040 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy from NE 51st Street to Bel- Red Road Widen the street to include two through lanes in each direction, left turn lanes and bike lanes RED-OV-041 148th Ave NE/NE 24th Street Intersection Add dual left turn lanes on the EB and WB approaches RED-OV-065 152nd Ave NE from NE 20th to NE 31st Streets Implement a multi-modal pedestrian corridor concept RED-OV-074 148th Ave NE/Old Redmond Road Lengthen NB left-turn lane on 148th Avenue NE RED-OV-075 NE 24th Street from 148th Ave NE to Bel-Red Road Implement more stringent access management RED-OV-076 156th Ave NE /NE 31st Street Construct an additional WB left turn lane RED-OV-077 156th Ave NE/NE 36th Street Construct an additional SB left turn lane RED-OV-078 Bel-Red Road/NE 30th Street Construct new right-in/right-out access to Microsoft Campus. RED-OV-080 152nd Ave NE from NE 20th to NE 31st Streets Reconfigure 152nd Avenue NE to one through lane in each direction, center left turn lane, bike lanes RED-OV-082 148th Ave NE from NE 20th to NE 36th Streets Implement more stringent access management RED-OV-086 Redmond Way/148th Ave NE Widen NB to include dual left turn lanes and two through lanes RED-OV-087 Bel-Red Road Widening Widen the street to include two through lanes in each direction, left turn lanes and bike lanes RED-OV-088 Bel-Red Road/148th Ave NE Add dual left turn lanes on the EB and WB approaches RED-OV-092 Redmond Way/148th Ave NE Modify channelization so EB and WB lefts can go concurrently ---PAGE BREAK--- 90 Figure 3-13: No Action Alternative Planned Transportation Improvements / / / 0~ - 0 0 0 .Afterial Bus Rapid Transit Signal/Pavement Markings Pedestrian Crossing Improvement New Bridge Intersection Widening New Signal New Access N Study A Area ---PAGE BREAK--- 91 Figure 3-14: Action Alternative Planned Roadway Improvements r LEGEND - Roadway Wdening ~ Access Management ~ Re-Channeliza SR 520 Widening tiOn Between 1-405 - New Bridge and SR 202 New Street Intersection 0 Widening 0 New Signal New Ramp N Interchange ~ Capacity Increase ---PAGE BREAK--- 92 3.6.3.2 Transit 3.6.3.2.1 Transportation Master Plan The Redmond TMP places a strong emphasis on making transit an important mode in the transportation system. The introduction to the transit section of the TMP states: • Public transportation plays an important economic and social role in the City of Redmond. • Public transportation is an economic engine. • Public transportation mitigates traffic. The Transit System Plan (TSP) was established in the TMP to provide a better transit system for those traveling within Redmond, and for those traveling to and from areas outside Redmond. The TSP identifies the needs for both local and regional connections. It also states that the intent of the TSP is to present the current conditions and develop a list of future needs. Redmond will need to continue to work with transit agencies to plan for a more robust network of local connections that provide seamless transfers with regional routes to urban centers. The local and regional systems will need to provide a time competitive means of travel and offer enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connections. 3.6.3.2.2 King County Metro Six-Year Transit Development Plan The King County Metro Six-Year Transit Development Plan, adopted in September 2002, establishes objectives and strategies to increase transit and rideshare services and add new transit-supportive capital facilities throughout King County. The City of Redmond has worked closely with King County Metro to incorporate into this plan many of Redmond’s transit policies adopted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The King County Metro plan recognizes that a core network of routes providing frequent, all-day connections between major destinations is needed. A web of local and intercommunity routes supports the core network and allows people to travel to both local and regional destinations. These hubs are identified as Downtown Bellevue, Overlake, Downtown Redmond, and Crossroads. In addition, a recent initiative passed in King County, known as Transit Now, will expand King County Metro Transit service by 15 to 20 percent over the next 10 years. Intended to help Metro keep pace with regional growth, this plan will provide bus rapid transit (BRT) service on 148th Avenue NE from Downtown Redmond to 156th Avenue NE and NE 8th Street to Downtown Bellevue. The No Action Alternative includes this BRT service improvement as shown in Figure 3-13. 3.6.3.2.3 Sound Transit East Link Light Rail Sound Transit has recently updated its Long-Range Plan regarding the future regional transit system. Consistent with the Long-Range Plan update, the next phase of light rail transit (LRT) improvements proposed in the Sound Transit 2 (ST2) package of mass transit projects includes the East Link Project. East Link is a proposed extension of the Central Link LRT system with a corridor extending approximately 19 miles from Downtown Seattle to Downtown Redmond via ---PAGE BREAK--- 93 I-90, Mercer Island, Downtown Bellevue, Bel-Red Corridor and the Overlake area. The Sound Transit Board has identified a package of projects to present to voters in November 2007. This package defines the East Link project’s length and general implementation schedule. The actual project length could vary between 11 and 19 miles and it is uncertain at this time when the East Link LRT line would serve the Overlake area. Although the LRT system itself will generate some construction and operational impacts in the Bel-Red Corridor and Overlake, this environmental document addresses only those actions taken by the City, as opposed to those taken by Sound Transit. A project-level EIS is currently underway for the East Link Project and a draft report is expected to be released in Fall 2008. The ONP assumes that the East Link light rail line would not serve Overlake by 2030 under the No Action Alternative. On the other hand, under the Action Alternative, the study assumed that the East Link light rail line would be extended from Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Redmond through Overlake with two stations in Overlake: the Overlake Village Station located in the vicinity of the 152nd Avenue NE and NE 24th Street intersection, and the NE 40th Street Station near the current Overlake Transit Center on 156th Avenue NE south of NE 40th Street. The proposed transit facility and service improvements in the Action Alternative are listed in Table 3-16, and are illustrated in Figure 3-15. The transit service and facility improvements assumed in the Action Alternatives are generally described as follows: • East Link Light Rail Line and stations; • Bus Rapid Transit Services; • Peak period regional bus express services; and, • Transit queue bypass lanes ---PAGE BREAK--- 94 Table 3-16: Action Alternative Proposed Transit Facility and Service Improvements ID Location Action RED-OV-001 Redmond to Bellevue via Overlake and Crossroads Arterial BRT provided by King County Metro RED-OV-002 Overlake/Eastgate Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Arterial BRT line that connects the Overlake Transit Center with Eastgate Park and Ride Lot, provided by King County Metro RED-OV-003 Redmond to Bellevue via Overlake and Crossroads Provide for uniquely designed bus shelters for the BRT lines RED-OV-004 Park Peak Period Commuter Bus Peak period express services provided by Sound Transit or Community Transit RED-OV-005 Issaquah/Sammamish Peak Period Commuter Bus Peak period express services provided by Sound Transit RED-OV-008a 148th Ave NE/NE 40th Street (NB only) Queue Bypass Lane RED-OV-008c 148th Ave NE/Old Redmond Road (SB only) Queue Bypass Lane RED-OV-008g 156th Ave NE/NE 36th Street (NB only) Queue Bypass Lane RED-OV-008h 156th Ave NE/ NE 31st Street (NB only) Queue Bypass Lane RED-OV-009 Seattle to Downtown Redmond LRT provided by Sound Transit RED-OV-011 Overlake Transit Center Provide for LRT station RED-OV-071 NE 40th Street /SR 520 Interchange Provide direct access ramps from center HOV lanes to NE 40th Street RED-OV-085 North Seattle/Overlake Improved peak period express services between Overlake Transit Center and North Seattle, provided by Sound Transit or King County Metro RED-OV-089 Overlake Intersections Provide Transit Signal Priority along 148th, 156th, and 152nd Avenues NE. RED-OV-093 NE 24th Street and 152nd Ave NE Provide for LRT station ---PAGE BREAK--- 95 Figure 3-15: Action Alternative Proposed Transit Improvements • • • • NE • • • • • • • • • • • • • z w • • To/From North Seattle Bellevue • • • • Overlake Village Station Options To/From Issaquah/ Sammamish P&R - c:::J r()J 0 LEGEND light Rail Transit light Rail Station Arterial Bus Rapid Transit Peak Period Commuter Bus Multi-Modal Corridor Transit Signal Priority and Queue Bypass Transit Signal Priority N ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- 96 3.6.3.3 Transit Mode Share The ONP Update study did not use the BKR model’s mode split model to forecast transit ridership for 2030, as discussed in the model validation section in Appendix E. Instead, the following mode share assumptions were applied to the model: • 5.4 percent of the total person trips generated by land use in Overlake would use a transit mode during the PM peak hour in 2030 under the No Action Alternative. • 15.3 percent of the total person trips generated by land use in Overlake would use a transit mode during the PM peak hour in 2030 under the Action Alternative. The mode share assumption for the 2030 Action Alternative is roughly the same as the mode share assumed for the BKR model’s mode share provided by Bellevue as their Bel-Red Corridor Study No Action Alternative. 3.6.3.4 Transportation Demand Management Actions The Redmond TMP set all day travel mode share objectives for Redmond residents. The TMP specifies that by 2022 the single occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode share should be reduced to 35 percent from the 2003 share of 44 percent. Conversely, the share of all other modes (carpool, vanpool, transit, bicycle, and walking) should be increased to 65 percent in 2022 from the 56 percent in 2003. To achieve this goal, the Action Alternative includes a set of actions to reduce SOV travel in Overlake. The transportation demand management (TDM) actions for Overlake are listed in Table 3-17. ---PAGE BREAK--- 97 Table 3-17: Action Alternative Proposed Transportation Demand Management Actions Project ID Proposed TDM Actions RED-OV-051 Establish a non-SOV mode share goal of 40 percent for 2030 peak period work trips RED-OV-052 Expand existing TDM program RED-OV-053 Enhance existing TDM plan with a new regional Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) plan RED-OV-054 Designate the Overlake Urban Center as a Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center (GTEC) RED-OV-067 Adopt a new CTR ordinance to implement TDM actions by aggressively seeking funding for programs 3.6.3.5 Parking Management Actions The City adopted several parking management policies in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to meet the City’s TMP mode share objectives and to use land more efficiently. The following Redmond policies aim at influencing the travel behaviors of those who choose to drive alone: • Develop and implement comprehensive parking management programs that address shared parking, transit access parking, and localized parking imbalances. • Evaluate parking pricing strategies as a mechanism to support TDM objectives. • Consider reducing the minimum and maximum parking ratio requirements. • Encourage a reduction in required parking ratios, less than the required minimum for office, industrial, institutional and mixed uses. To support these policies, the Action Alternative includes specific actions that would reduce SOV mode share and are listed in Table 3-18. ---PAGE BREAK--- 98 Table 3-18: Action Alternative Proposed Parking Management Actions Project ID Target Area Parking Management Action RED-OV-055 Residential Area Establish residential parking permit program as needed RED-OV-056 Overlake Neighborhood Add further definition to existing system of defining parking standards by use RED-OV-057 Overlake Neighborhood Eliminate minimum parking standards RED-OV-058 Overlake Neighborhood Maintain 3 spaces per 1,000 SF office space maximum RED-OV-059 Vicinity of major transit facilities in Overlake Reduce parking standards for developments near transit facilities RED-OV-060 Overlake Neighborhood Develop parking credits for mixed use developments RED-OV-061 Employment Area Eliminate parking subsidies for office employees RED-OV-062 Overlake Village Provide on-street parking with time limits RED-OV-063 Employment Area Require commercial leases to separate out parking costs from office rental space costs RED-OV-070 Overlake Village Implement paid parking for on-street parking spaces RED-OV-091 Overlake Neighborhood Create and implement a parking development and management program that minimizes on-site parking, encourages shared parking 3.6.3.6 Non-Motorized Transportation 3.6.3.6.1 TMP Bicycle System Plan The TMP specifies that the City’s various planned non-motorized transportation facilities function as a system that would allow bicycling and walking to become more viable transportation options. It defines a system of primary and secondary bicycling corridors based on facility length. Primary corridors are at least 2.5 miles long and secondary corridors at least 1 mile in length. The function and facility type for the bicycling corridors are summarized below. Primary Bicycling Corridors • Function: Allows bicyclists barrier-free travel for distance of 2.5 miles or more • Trail components: Backbone trails (multi-use facilities with paved trail surface) • Bikeway components: Bicycle path or on-street bicycle lanes Secondary Bicycling Corridors • Function: connects into primary system to provide greater access into all parts of the community; typically for a distance of at least one mile in length • Trail components: Backbone trails (multi-use facilities with soft surfaces) ---PAGE BREAK--- 99 • Bikeway components: Bicycle paths (trails with soft surfaces and/or steep terrain); on- street bike lanes; paved shoulders; wide curb lanes and signed bike routes on non- arterials Local Connections • Function: Connects residential neighborhoods and individual destinations into the citywide system with special emphasis on schools • Trail components: Wide sidewalk trails; short trail segments linking with collector and backbone trails; paved surface if desired to support bicycling • Bikeway components: All local streets as undesignated shared roadways 3.6.3.6.2 Street Crossing In the state of Washington, drivers must yield to pedestrians at all intersections, regardless of whether the crosswalk is marked or unmarked (Revised Code of Washington 46.64.235). Under the City’s TMP, the pedestrian program plan establishes a hierarchy for crossing treatments: • Unmarked crossing: locations where less than 20 pedestrians per hour cross streets • Marked crossing: locations where more than 20 pedestrians or more than 15 elderly or children per hour cross streets • In-pavement lighted crosswalk: locations where 40 or more pedestrians per hour cross streets during 2 hours in a 24-hour period • Pedestrian signal: locations where more than 80 pedestrians cross streets for each of 4 hours during a 24-hour period or 152 pedestrians cross streets for any one hour period Mid-block crossings are most appropriate in urban areas but should be avoided under the following circumstances: • Immediately (less than 300 feet) from a traffic signal or bus stop • Within 600 feet of another crossing point except in a central business district or other locations with well-defined need; recommended minimum separation distance is 300 feet • Streets with speed limits above 45 miles per hour. Redmond defines the maximum block length between legal crossings as not more than 1320 feet (one-quarter mile). However, in pedestrian supportive environments, the maximum distance between crossing opportunities is 528 feet (one-tenth mile) Along 148th Avenue NE, existing mid-block crossings are located between: ---PAGE BREAK--- 100 • NE 31st/32nd Street and NE 24th Street; • NE 36th Street and NE 37th Place; • NE 42nd Place and NE 43rd Place; and, • NE 57th Street and NE 61st Way. Based on these guidelines, the Action Alternative includes several mid-block pedestrian street crossings on 152nd Avenue NE between NE 20th and NE 31st Streets and 156th Avenue NE between NE 31st and NE 51st Streets. 3.6.3.6.3 Multi-Modal Corridors To enhance the pedestrian environment, the TMP designates several corridors in Overlake as Multi-Modal Corridors, corridors which should place an emphasis on walking, bicycling, and transit use in addition to vehicles. In Overlake, the following streets are designated as Multi- Modal Corridors: • 148th Avenue NE from NE 20th Street to Redmond Way • NE 24th Street from 148th Avenue NE to West Lake Sammamish Parkway • 152nd Avenue NE/NE 31st Street from NE 24th Street to 156th Avenue NE • 156th Avenue NE from NE 31st Street to NE 51st Street • NE 40th Street from 148th Avenue NE to West Lake Sammamish Parkway • West Lake Sammamish Parkway from NE 24th Street to SR 520 • NE 51st Street from 148th Avenue NE to 156th Avenue NE The Action Alternative includes specific actions that will support the City-wide pedestrian and bicycling goals and objectives of the TMP. These actions and programs are listed in Table 3-19 and illustrated in Figure 3-16. ---PAGE BREAK--- 101 Table 3-19: Action Alternative Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Project ID Corridor Action RED-OV-016 NE 40th Street from 156th Ave NE to West Lake Sammamish Pkwy Provide bicycle lanes/urban pathway RED-OV-017 NE 40th Street from 148th Ave NE to 156th Ave NE Provide bicycle lanes/urban pathway RED-OV-018 NE 51st Street from 148th Ave NE to 154th Ave NE Provide bicycle lanes in both directions RED-OV-019 150th Ave NE from NE 51st Street to NE 36th Street Provide bicycle lanes in both directions RED-OV-020 NE 31st Street from the new SR 520 overpass to 156th Ave NE Provide bicycle lanes RED-OV-021 Bel-Red Road Complete bicycle lanes RED-OV-022 156th Ave NE from NE 31st Street to NE 40th Street Provide a wide (12-feet) urban pathway RED-OV-023 East side of 156th Ave NE from Bel-Red Road to NE 31st Street and from NE 40th Street to NE 51st Street. Provide a wide (12-feet) urban pathway RED-OV-024 East side of 148th Ave NE from NE 36th Street to Redmond Way Provide a wide (12-feet) urban pathway RED-OV-025 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy between NE 51st Street and Bel-Red Road Provide interim non-motorized facilities by striping the west side to include a bicycle lane and pedestrian path* RED-OV-026 SR 520/NE 40th Street Grade separate SR 520 Trail RED-OV-027 SR 520 at NE 51st Street and NE 148th Ave NE Grade separate SR 520 Trail RED-OV-028 150th Ave NE between NE 40th Street and NE 51st Street Provide sidewalks where missing RED-OV-029 148th Ave NE in the vicinity of NE 22nd Street Provide a grade-separated pedestrian overpass RED-OV-030 148th Ave NE (east side) from NE 27th Street to NE 29th Street Provide a 12' sidewalk RED-OV-032 SR 520 between the Overlake Transit Center and the Microsoft west campus Provide a new direct pedestrian connection over SR 520 RED-OV-034a 156th Ave NE between NE 36th Street and NE 31st Street Provide a signalized mid-block crossing* RED-OV-034b 156th Ave NE between NE 45th Street and NE 51st Street Provide a signalized mid-block crossing* RED-OV-035a 152nd Ave NE between NE 20th Street and NE 24th Street Provide a mid-block crossing with in- pavement lighting* RED-OV-035b 152nd Ave NE between NE 24th Street and NE 31st Street Provide a mid-block crossing with in- pavement lighting* ---PAGE BREAK--- 102 Project ID Corridor Action RED-OV-035c 150th Ave NE between NE 40th Street and NE 51st Street Provide a mid-block crossing with in- pavement lighting* RED-OV-066 NE 51st Street from 156th Ave NE to W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Construct standard bike lanes in both directions RED-OV-068 NE 26th Street from 148th Ave NE to 156th Ave NE Construct urban pathway RED-OV-081 NE 51st Street from 154th Avenue NE to W Lake Sammamish Pkwy Install additional bike signage and pavement markings in existing bike lanes* RED-OV-083 SR 520 Trail Crossing at NE 40th Street and NE 51st Street Additional signage, pavement markings and other treatments* RED-OV-084 NE 40th Street/SR 520 Overpass Improve pedestrian crossings over SR 520 * Near-term interim pedestrian and bicycle improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 103 Figure 3-16: Action Alternative Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements LEGEND - Sidewalk - Bike Lane - Pedestrian • • Bike Lane and Improvement Bike Signage • Pedestrian - Multi-use Trail Crossing with 0 G.-ade 0 Signal Separated Bi750 seats). and Related Act1v1tIes' _ [Charitable. Social. Professional & Labor Organizat,o~s _ Co111rnunicatIon and Ut1lit1es fRa·iroad Facilities (Excluding Yards. Shops and Ma,~tenance Fa~il1ties) C p IP PPP ~ ~ p Ip p p P P, P IP' i 1slS PIP ! ,s I I I I C L I P 1 PiP p p ! I I pl I p p p p p p p · - IPIP, !p'ptl I I I I · 1s 1 s s 'P P : P i P- p 'P ' I s s i I s s C I C p IS· I I C: C: I r.n, . - . ~ j 's ' sl ,c c, I . p F: I 1 p iC p p ---PAGE BREAK--- lTrans1t Facilities, including Transit Centers. Ra,! and Park-and-Ride Lots P I P 1 P P 1 Motor Vehicle Maintenance Garage. Motor Freight Services and Terminals C , P P !Hei1ports and Helicopter Landing and Storage (_excludinq_ medivac) _ C C C !Comrnerc1al Parking Lots & Parking Garages , P • • P i ,F1!r,, Video. TV. and Radio Broadcasting or Production Studios J -i : rowmg Operator~ and Auto lrnpoundment Yarqs j S ~ 5 _i__SP - SP , L..1rae Sa:cl1 tc D1st,es1Amatet..r Rado Antenna'" r- 1 C- C S S ' iBroadcast and Re1ay Towers,,, ".V1°eless ComP1unicat1on F ac1i1t1es ' LOG)! Utilities Regional Utilities Solid \tVaste Transfer Stations - p = Permitted Use S = Special Use: C = Conditional Use Notes ~ p p p i p I p p p p 1-I:_ ! - · L,m ted :o ,;:,per stor,es ,n rr>1xcd t,se structures. See RCDG Z'..:'.G.3.L.25 reqard1nq max,rrn.•P r r • ,1'Hl~ GH1C . !)uild1·1g ti~1qht prov1s1nns See c1du!: 1eg1..dauo11s ,n Ct1apler .2.l.D..2.!l RCOG Adult Entertainment. \-Vnen locatP.cl 111 a rnult1-lenant bu1lcing Limited to a maximum seating capc1city 01 50-pcrson HP , .::.erat•or• only allowed between '3am to 1 Opni, on -site parking to be provided tor e,,cn ernproye,J • See RCDG 2C!C GO 30-070. Convenience Commercial Clusters. and ?llC 60 30 -030. Conven,ence Uses Al .is an Accesso~v Use to a Transit Center Subject lO aquifer protection and sens1t1ve areas regulaliors in Chapter 200 · RCDG Not cillowed 111 ,'V,llows Corridor Business Park zone See RCDG 2nc 70 Provided retail sales are manufactured goods produced on the prerrnses and accessory or scconca'y to the •na'v ,r·a iufclcUring or who!esaling activity The outlet area shall not exceed 10 percent of the user·s share of !tie woss : oor area or 1,0CO square feet 1 Rock crust11ng equipment, asphalt, and concrete batch plants. silos and other related equipment may e,:e,,rJ a maximum ne1qh1 ol 90 feet Suo1ect ·o Spec;iat Use Cilter:a RCDG ?OD 170 3C. Bench Plants any-o-1meo ·;e•1,clcs arc a, 1 0\ 1,w,i 111 ttie OV motor v,0 n,cle rra1ntenJnce fac,lit es for company-owned vehicles shall Le accussory w,,,r ;illow•!<1 us.-, IP rhc OV :one. a spec:al developn1ent tJP.rrn,I shall t>e rcqu,rc,j even though 1t1e use 1s accessory ! rhpr ,sc e ,ra :·,:er-::ir,ce facll1:1es ~hcJI. not be allowed v:1th 1r a Trars:tion 0~1e ay Con •nerc a, park m.i lots. ,·ornrnerc1;il p;ir~1ng g?.r,iges and cornrnerc1al parkm'1 strur:tt,res ar" ;)roh1tJ1ted fro:" s:,;r ng al)andoned or ca·naged vehicles Commerc;a, par"-1nr; ots not accessory to another use shall obtain a Spec:al Deve,oµment Permit ba'.ore r q authorized 1r1 it'e OV ~'one Sub1ect to Special Use Criteria. RCDG 200 170 Telecornmunicat,on Facilities When localed 111 the V\:illows1Rose Hill Neighborhood. See RCDG 20C zn 5C nzo, Cunvernencc Retail a:,d SE:rv1ces. • 1 Su!)Ject io secure community transition facility criteria. RCDG 200 170 55. essential public facility critcr,a, RCDG 2.JF 40 80. and RCDG 20F 30.40 ror a Type Ill permit Full-time equ111alenc1es. where one full-time equivalent shall equal 15 credits 111 a given quarter. sha!! estab ,sh tne capacity of the number of students for vocat1on<11. trade. anc technical schools in t11e MP F'.(rn,ng "'Voca:;onal. lrGde crnd teciin1cal sd1oo!s onlv OHwr educat,onal uses arc nr0h,b1tPci ,Ord 21:,s, Oro 2152. Oro 2129 Ord 21C·2) > Code Publishing Company c!tSPiltch 7 00 1 i'!JOB) w - • ---PAGE BREAK--- WASH i NG T ON August 20, 2007 Coby Holley PS Business Parks, LP. 70 I Western A venue Glendale, CA 9 I 20 I Dear Mr. Holley, Thank you for your letter dated April 23, 2007 commenting on the Overlake Neighborhood Plan (ONP) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). We appreciate your comments and believe that we can address some of your questions and concerns. We appreciate your general support of the overall long-term vision for the Overlake Village area, where the Overlake Business Center (south) is located. We also recognize that the vision will take many years to fully achieve and will be met through coordinated actions by both public and private entities. Your letter discusses three items you identify as critical steps in achieving the vision: - Bel-Red Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) Agreement update: Your letter states that most development under the Action Alternative would potentially be delayed in implementation because it is subject to BROTS. That is not accurate. Residential development is not limited by the BROTS agreement. In addition, any redevelopment that does not increase the amount of non-residential floor area is not limited. With regard to timing of the BROTS update, the planning and transportation analysis that Redmond and Bellevue have undertaken for Overlake and the Bel-Red Corridor provides a significant portion of the technical work needed for an update to the BRO TS Agreement. Completing this update is a high priority for both cities and we anticipate that the work will be completed in 2008. - East Link light rail: The City has been coordinating with Sound Transit on this portion of the ST2 package from the very beginning and will continue to coordinate as the process continues. In addition to light rail, another form of high capacity transit will be serving Over lake in the nearer future: King County Metro ·s arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) route connecting Downtown Redmond and Downtown Bellevue via Overlake and Crossroads. Funding for this route was approved in the November 2006 election; the route will be operational by 2011. One of the key reasons Redmond undertook the ONP update and SEIS is to begin the process, in coordination with the City of Bellevue, of extending the planning horizon year for Overlake to 2030. This analysis has included evaluating a potential increase in the allowed floor area ratio (FAR) that applies to the Employment Area in Overlake, where Microsoft and other City Holl · 15670 NE 85th Street • PO Box 97010 • Redmond, WA• 98073-9710 ---PAGE BREAK--- companies are located. The SEIS fully acknowledges that the City proposes to act on proposed ONP updates in phases including any increases in potential zoning capacity in the Employment Area. Analysis of appropriate growth phases and associated facility and service improvements will be part of updating the BROTS Agreement, and will be accompanied by Redmond's update to the existing Overlake SEPA Planned Action. It will also include updates to functional plans, including transportation, parks and utilities. Our first phase of proposed updates will not change the allowed FAR in the Employment Area, maintains the City's commitment to the BROTS cap on commercial development, does not contemplate more residential dwellings through 2030 under the Action Alternative than are allowed under current zoning, and is not dependent on extension of light rail. - Additional transportation improvements: The Action Alternative identifies a number of transportation improvements to mitigate the impacts associated with additional growth in Overlake. Nearly half of the proposed projects are included in existing plans, are funded, or would be funded by private development. Approximately an additional 20 percent are regional in nature. The remaining one-third of the proposed projects would be added to existing plans as part of Phase II of the Overlake project. Increases in employment and housing over the 24-year planning horizon will create related demands for transportation and other public facilities and services and utilities. However, development will occur over time and demand will increase incrementally through 2030. Although the City identifies future infrastructure needs associated with future growth, we are not required to build infrastructure in advance of potential development; in other words, development of public infrastructure is required to be concurrent with development. As part of your due diligence period prior to purchase of the Overtake Business Center (OBC), representatives of PS Business Parks and City staff met in person and by conference call several times to review a number of features relevant to the property. This included but was not limited to the adopted neighborhood plan, permitted uses, other aspects of existing zoning, Redmond's building code, concepts under consideration for the proposed neighborhood plan update, and light rail transit alignments under consideration by Sound Transit. Your letter comments that the SEIS should analyze the current permitted uses and any impacts. The structure of permitted uses in the existing Retail Commercial (RC) was last updated in 1999. The City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning reflect the City's responsibility to plan for our 20-year employment and housing targets. The permitted uses that exist for Overlake are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and growth targets. For this reason, a significant change to permitted uses was not proposed in the Action Alternative nor analyzed in the DSEIS. Your letter also requests an expansion of the permitted uses in the RC zone to include a variety of uses typical of Redmond's Business Park and Manufacturing Park zones. Many of the permitted uses in the RC zone support the vision of Overtake Village as evolving into a true, urban residential/mixed-use place. The uses are largely pedestrian-generating or -oriented in nature to help increase the vibrancy and economic vitality of the area and include a variety of retail, service and entertainment uses, as well as multi-family residential. These uses also include a wide variety of businesses or other organizations that serve the general public, such as personal, financial, legal, medical and minor repair services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Advanced technology and business park uses are currently permitted in three zones in the City- Business Park (BP), Manufacturing Park (MP), and Overlake Business and Advanced Technology (OBA as well as within the Downtown Districts, which together account for 86 percent of the commercial or mixed-use zones in the City. Allowing these uses in Overlake Village would add pressure to one of the few areas that does not allow advanced technology, research and development, and similar business consulting services. Maintaining locations in which businesses that serve the general public can locate is consistent with adopted policy and the community's vision. During the past few months. several businesses consistent with the existing zoning have leased space in Overlake Business Center. Expanding the allowed uses in Overlake Village to permit the types of businesses you requested could further delay redevelopment of the area and achievement of the vision. Allowing such uses to locate in this area as of right would create "going concerns" in the long-term and further delay the addition of residential uses, a key concept in the long-term vision for Over lake. These uses were intentionally included in the OBA T zone to focus them in this location and not permitted in the RC zone. We recognize that over the years, a number of businesses have located in the OBC without seeking business licenses from the City of Redmond. During the past several months, our joint efforts have resulted in licensing of nearly all of businesses at OBC. As of this date, we understand that less than 5 businesses have not responded. We also recognize that a number of these businesses are business park uses that do not comply with the zoning. In response to your letter and other public comment on this subject, staff is recommending a revision to the nonconforming use provisions to allow all existing, licensed businesses in Overlake, regardless of the type of use, to continue as long as they wish. Once these current uses vacate the space, the space would need to be occupied by a use that conforms to the zoning. Staff is not proposing that businesses that do not comply with the zoning have the ability to expand in terms of floor area. You also propose that Redmond add "Flexible Use Zoning" to its zoning code. You describe this as establishing performance criteria for allowed uses and allowing case by case decision making through an administrative process. We believe that the community and applicants are better served by providing predictability and clarity in our zoning code rather than business by business decisions. Further. we are very concerned about the impact of this approach in terms of staff time and diminished staff availability for key tasks such as development review. The Comprehensive Plan that guides Redmond's neighborhood planning efforts contains a variety of goals and objectives which must be carefully balanced in planning for the future. Your letter cites a number of Economic Vitality goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan. However, those goals must be balanced with other goals, including those related to providing housing opportunities. Over the past 15 years, job opportunities in Redmond have grown significantly but housing opportunities have not kept pace. In addition, as Redmond's supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the single- family zones decreases, Overlake and Downtown will become increasingly important in helping to meet the City's future housing needs. We believe that the economic vitality of the Overlake Village area will ultimately be strengthened through the addition of a greater intensity and variety of uses than exists today. Redevelopments that arc consistent with the mixed-use vision will create economic activity during all hours of the day, rather than just in the afternoon or early evening hours during which many Overlake Village area businesses are successful now. 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- If you have any further questions regarding the ONP project or the Final SEIS, please contact Lori Peckol at [PHONE REDACTED] or [EMAIL REDACTED]. Sincerely, Rob Odle Planning Director 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- T SOUNDTRANSIT April 23, 2007 Rob Odle Responsible Official City of Redmond Planning Department P.O. Box 97010, MS: 4SPL Redmond, WA 98073-9710 Dear Rob: Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Redmond Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Draft Supplemental Environment Impact Statement (DSEIS). We applaud the City's effort to review its Comprehensive Plan policies and implementation strategies that plan and provide support for high capacity transit. We are particularly encouraged by the proposed changes ancl sfrafeg1es that may1ncrease Easf Link ridersmp, and thal over time creates a more livable and sustainable community for the Overtake Village area of Redmond. Attached are our comments which mostly seeks clarification on how the East Link Project is represented and which jurisdictions have certain authority of implementing actions identified in the DSEIS. In particular we would like to call your attention to several instances where the DSEIS intimates that the East Link Project is predicated on the "Action Alternative." That may not be the intent. However, we have pointed that out on your figures and text that the East Link Project should be assumed as serving the Overtake Neighborhood: Employment Area and Village in both the No Action and Action Alternatives. Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment on the DSEIS. Let me know if you have questions. Leonard Segment Manager East Link Project LM: ab Eas1 Link Jurisdict1011 Comments/Redmond Ovel'lake Attachments: DSEIS Comments c: Lori Peckol, Planning Manager, City of Redmond Terry Marpert, Principal Planner, City of Redmond Don Billen, East Corridor Project Manager, Sound Transit Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority • Union Station 401 S. Jackson St., Seattle, WA 98104-2826 • Reception: (206) 398-5000 • FAX: (206) 398-5499 • www.soundtransit.org BOARD CHAIR John W. l adenburg Pierce County Executive BOARD VICE CHAIRS Connie Marshall Bellevue Councilmember Mark Olson Everett Councilmember BOARD MEMBERS Julie Anderson Tacoma Councilmember Mary-Alyce Burleigh Kirkla1td Councilmember Fred Butler Issaquah Deputy Council President Dow Constantine King County Co,mcilmember Dave Enslow Sumner Mayor Doug MacDonata- Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary Richard Marin Edmonds Counci/member Richard Mciver Seattle Councilmember Greg Nickels Seattle Mayor Julia Patterson King County Councilmember Larry Phillips Chair, King County Council Aaron Reardon Snohomish County Executive Ron Sims King County Executive Claudia Thomas Lakewood Mayor Pete von Reichbauer Vice Chair, King County Council CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Joni Earl ---PAGE BREAK--- General City of Redmond Overtake Neighborhood Plan Update and Implementation Project Draft Supplemental Environment Impact Statement Sound Transit Review Comments April 23, 2007 1. As presented in the Draft SEIS, the East Link Project is presented as if it is predicated on the Action Alternative. Subject to the approval of a financing plan by the voters in November 2007 the East Link Project will happen with or without changes to the current Overlake Neighborhood Plan. The East Link Project should be included in all actions (build and no-build) contemplated in this update. 2. In several instances descriptions of actions to be taken to implement specific elements of the plan, a reader may assume the City of Redmond is responsible for certain actions where in fact they are the actions of other agencies such as Sound Transit and Metro King County. While the correct jurisdiction may be implied it may be confusing for the uninformed reader. Specific 3. P.i - Fact Sheet - Description of Proposal, 3rd paragraph - The Statement "This alternative envisions the extension of Sound Transit light rail transit from Bellevue through the study area to Downtown Redmond." For the purposes of this Overlake Neighborhood Plan Update (March 2007) we feel it would be more appropriate to rephrase that statement as follows: "This alternative envisions the extension of Sound Transit light rail transit from Bellevue Downtown Seattle through the study area to the Overlake Transit Center in the study area tB Downtovm Redmond. 4. P.5 Project Background, 3rd bullet: In the statement" plan effectively for extension of light rail transit and other facility improvements " what other facilities are contemplated here? 5. P.8 Section 1.6.2 - May be more appropriate to refer to the second station in the planning area as "in the vicinity of' or "near" NE 40th. 6. P.23 Figure 2-1: No Action Alternative- Overlake Village. This figure should show, in a generic fashion, that the East Link Light Rail Project is assumed to serve the Overlake Neighborhood in the No Action Alternative map. 7. P.26 Figure 2-4: No Action Alternative Transportation Projects. This figure should show in a generic fashion that the East Link Light Rail Project is assumed to serve the Overlake Neighborhood in the No Action Alternative Transportation Projects map. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. P .29 Transit projects, 1st bullet: This bullet should indicate that the development oflight rail transit service and stations is a Sound Transit project and include a statement that the light rail project is in the early stages of design and environmental review by Sound Transit. 9. p.29 Transit Projects: Is the BRT and peak period commuter bus mentioned in the second bullet and on Figure 2-9 part of King County Metro's "Transit Now" or Sound Transit service? The service provider and status of the planning should be made clear. 10. P .31 Figure 2-5: Action Alternative - Over lake ViHage - shows one of the potential stations (behind Safeway) on a curve. Stations would be on a straight section only. It also shows Bel-Red Road as a potential light rail alignment. Please delete as that alignment is no longer being considered. 11: P .50 Table 3-8, l st row/2nd column: states that no light rail is assumed as part of the East Link project for the No Action Alternative. This is not accurate as the _ _past Li~r.Qject is not de2endent on the Overlak~ Neighbor]l.ood Plan Update. Further, the representative alignment for ST2 financial planning purposes assumed a station in the Overtake Village Area. 12. p.50 Table 3-8, 2nd row/2nd column Under "Achieve a target housing density and mixed of use" the No Action alternative states "moderate support for extension of light rail transit" which seems inconsistent with the statement in Row 1 of the table and/or is contradicted by the statement on p.52, in the 1st paragraph which suggests light rail would occur without the plan change. 13. p.90 2nd sentence: The Sound Transit Board will identify a package of projects to present to voters in 2007. Add "November 2007." 14. p.90 1st paragraph/last sentence: "A project-level EIS is currently underway for the East Link Project and is expected to be released in early 2008. Change to " and a draft report is expected to be released in eafl:y Fall 2008." 15. p.91 Table 3-16: Under the transit facility actions there are facilities, services and improvements that can be provided within the jurisdiction of the City of Redmond and those that are provide by other jurisdictions including Metro and Sound Transit. Suggest changing "Provide" to "Provide for" or "Work with" those agencies that provide those services and facilities as appropriate. 16. P.101 3.6.4.2.1: How did Redmond arrive at an assumption of 15.3% transit mode share for the Action Alternative? 17. P .101 3 .6.4.2.1: The city made assumptions regarding transit mode share for the No-Action and Action Alternatives. For East Link analysis, Sound Transit will ---PAGE BREAK--- forecast ridership using its own transit forecasting model and the results will likely be different. Appendix A 18. p.A9 Appendix A: Draft Policies: N-OV-28 on page A9 refers to a mode-split goal and includes as a way of reaching it as providing expanded transit options including light rail and BRT . This makes it sound like the City would be providing these services. It may be more appropriate for the City to provide a transit supportive environment as mentioned previously in the policy and to include language regarding working with transit providers to provide these services. 19. P.Al O N-OV-35 specifically identifies 3 options for a preferred light rail alignment through Overlake Village. These are consistent with what is to be studied in the EIS at this time, but it may be more appropriate to include flexibility in this policy to allow for modifications to the station location that still address the community vision. 20. P.A13 N-OV-54, 4th bullet, see comment on p.91 above 21. P .A 15 N-OV-66 "Prepare a station area plan for a light rail station area once a light rail alignment is identified " Change to" . once a light rail alignment is identified selected by the Sound Transit Board of Directors " Appendix B 22. P.B5 Overlake Village Map - Delete light rail alternative alignment on Bel-Red Road. Also revise per comment 19 23. P.B37 RCDG 20C.45.40-130: Revised Draft Overlake Arterial Streets Cross Sections - In order to provide for a light rail corridor on 152nd Ave NE removal of the median and on-street parking would provide only 28 feet for the light rail guideway. Sound Transit light rail design assumes 30 feet. Appendix C 24. P.4 While part of the Link Light Rail system, the Tacoma Link vehicle will not be used on the East Link Project. Suggest replacing with an image of Central Link vehicle. 25. C - P .11 - Overlake Village Actions Revise per comment 9 and 19 26. P.27 T-4 (sidebar) In the statement" In planning for transit services, Redmond will strive to achieve • Timely identification of preferred light rail route to ---PAGE BREAK--- support redevelopment decisions in the next three years." Please explain what is meant by or what actions Redmond contemplates to "to achieve timely identification of a preferred light rail route." 27. P.37 Implementation: 3 - The statement "Identify what can be done before a preferred light rail alignment is selected." What is meant by "what can be done?" Appendix E 28. P .E 1: Transit: Please change the following statements "As part of its recently adopted ST2 Plan, Sound Transit is proposing to build an LRT line from through the Bel-Red Corridor in the Bellevue and Overlake Area to Downtown Redmond- known as the East Link Project" to "As part of its recently adopted ST2 /4m Draft Package" Sound Transit is proposing to build an LRT line from through the Bel Red Corridor in the Bellevue and Overlalce Area to Downtown Redmond extend the Central Link Light Rail Transit project from Seattle to Bellevue and Redmond via I-90 and Mercer Island - known as the East Link Project. 1ntlie same paragrapnits fates ''Tiierefore, "the [RT line is not assumed in-the No Action Alternative, but is included in the Action Alternative." This should be stricken. See comment 1. 29. P.4 of 10 Transportation Action Alternative RED-OV-035a and RED-OV-035b: Mid-Block Crossings - These two projects would provide mid-block crossings on 152nd Ave NE between NE 20th Street and NE 24th Street, and NE 24th Street and NE 31st Street respectively. The East Link Project D3 Alternative does not assume these crossings and may not be possible due to system design or have operational impacts. 30. P.9 of 10 Transportation Action Alternative RED-OV-071 and RED-OV-085 - Change "NE 40th Street Transit Center" to "Overlake Transit Center" . ---PAGE BREAK--- ~~-,cityofRedmond W A S H I N G T O N August 21, 2007 Leonard McGhee, Segment Manager East Link Light Rail Sound Transit Union Station 401 S Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-2826 Dear Leonard, Thank you for your comments on the Overtake Neighborhood Plan (ONP) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). We appreciate your comments, both general and specific, and believe that we can address some of your questions and concerns. It was not our intention for any portions of the Draft SEIS to imply that the East Link Project is predicated on the Action Alternative; these instances will be revised for the Final SEIS. We will also clarify in the Final SEIS when an agency other than the City of Redmond will be responsible for implementing specific elements of the plan, such as light rail or other transit service. While we recognize that the East Link Project is subject to the approval of a financing plan by the voters in November 2007 and could serve the Overlake Village and Employment Areas under either the No Action or Action Alternative, we felt it important to analyze the transportation system both with and without the presence of light rail. The absence of the East Link Project in the No Action Alternative was intentional as a means of responding to citizen comment and providing a baseline analysis of the transportation system and traffic conditions in the future. In addition, we believe that not including light rail in the No Action Alternative expands the range of alternatives considered and is therefore more consistent with SEPA requirements. For these reasons, we believe it is important to analyze one alternative without light rail. The Final SEIS will better clarify this r