Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA74-756 i I, I I 11 k -)• I\'') .-1 \ \ l - \ 1= \'I i �m� CITIZENS SERVICE CORP . �i II 'bZ til REZONE 1 ',74s,,• , 1, l; i �.5:_..4 IOb 137 30 /7.9 1 R.4 it y/,// / .r %%/ i m8 m3 •. .72. .9/ 136 131 , Al //// \ -91'11 * 0 1 / ,,,.i //y 1 1 1 , ,11,r iii _ -L._-,- ....7,.. ,,,,-. / / ;2/7//� / F'` f -yr, �., Lt '3 1411 .35 .32 t t 1////j l _.._ 1-8 y LB 23 10 �I I T .=W+ ' /r'/ ,� I .e3 .ub .b, jN 150 149 :'‘P.'''''''''::: 4 / B I f //' I Z 1 2 I 1 I 7W "�' 3 4 Z 3 4 1\ � I 1 I� ' / 5 W b 1 5 .. al 7 / 49 / 5. / ,W i --A REZONE APPLICATION : CITIZENS SERVICE CORP . ; Appl . R-756-74; rezone from G6000 to R-3 ; property - located on Lake Washington , south of and adjacent to N . E . 52nd •St . Land 3 . 57 Acres APPLICANT Citizens Service Corp . TOTAL AREA2 . 22 acres water • PRINCIPAL ACCESS Easement under railroad tracks from Lk . Wash . Blvd . N . EXISTING ZONING G-6000 EXISTING USE Single Family Residential & Undeveloped PROPOSED USE Multiple Family Condominiums COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Medium Density Multiple 1 COMMENTS Major areas of concern are : 1 ) density , 2 ) height , 3 ) access 4) arrangements of buildings , 5 ) Open Space , and 6 ) Environmental . Impact. A Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit will be required . . I /l saw_ ri pan)) ITY OF RENTON APR ; 1974 p ONE APPLICATION • For Office U ✓ i. �_ EP APPL. NO. 7-7‘ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION • $50 FEE; RECEIPT NO. ( APPEAL FILED FILING DATE CITY COUNCIL ACTION HEARING DATE ,i"-47,41-2,-/ ORDINANCE NO. & DATE aid'//rd.•aea." 9_.?*7y APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 : 1. Name CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION phone (206) 226-1800 2. Address P. 0. Box 239, Renton, Washington 98055 3. Property petitioned for rezoning is located on Lake Washington ixeduceessix South of and adjacent to xincl N. E. 52nd Street 4. Square footage or acreage of property 3.57 + Ac. Land, 2.22 + Ac. Water 5. Legal description of property if more space is required, attach separate sheet) See attached Exhibit "A" 6 . Existing zoning G-6000 Zoning Requested R-3 NOTE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclass- ifying property. Evidence or additional information to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. (See Application Procedure sheet for specific requirements) . Submit this form in duplicate. 7. Proposed use of site. Residential Condominium Development 8 . List the measures to be taken to reduce impact on the surrounding area. (See 1 . Establish new points of access to property, separate from those now used. Exhibit "B") 2. Landscaped improvement on east side of trestle. 3. Provide water-oriented condominium development with integrated open space and recreation features. See Exhibit "C".. 4. Development is not considered to adversely effect adjacent area. 9. How soon after the rezone is granted do you intend to develop the site? As soon as all governmental requirements can be met. 10. Two copies of plot plan and affidavit of ownership are required. Planning Dept. 2-73 \ A /r CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION LAKE WASHINGTON SHORES LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Government Lots 3 and 4, in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , King County, Washington, and of Block "D" of D. C. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle, Division No. 3, according to Plat recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 81 , records of King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the south quarter corner of said Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , said corner lying North 88°46'57" West of the Southeast Corner of said Section 29; thence North O 57'43" East 2077.48 feet to a point on a Mutual Boundary Agreement Line as delineated under Auditor's File No. 6502051 ; thence South 57e12155" East along said line 64.52 feet more or less to a point on the westerly margin of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, and the True Point of Beginning; thence North 57°12'55" West along said Agreement Line 641.99 feet to the Inner Harbor Line of Lake Washington; thence North 451'28'30" East along said Inner Harbor Line 353.25 feet to the southerly margin of Southeast 72nd Street; thence South 88°44' 10" East along said margin 432.89 feet more or less to the westerly margin of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, said margin being on a curve with a radius of 1382.68 feet; thence southerly along said railroad margin an arc length of 570.40 feet to a point of compound curvature, the center of which bears North 65°04'07" West; thence continue along said curving railroad margin an arc length of 37.93 feet, more or less to the True Point of Beginning. (r0 Rfc�/�/�� o APR z1 EXHIBIT A -0 fffff 2 3 1974 17 '/PG EPRP , AFFIDAVIT I, CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this3rd day of April , 19 74 , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle CI E SERVICE ORPO TION (Name 9f. N? Lary Public) '• .. ' �, . ignature of Owner) - c317;7 °.'S� F>�� OZ ./°;6 - ti �� 201 Williams Ave S, P.O. BOX 239 t1 dre-s ,.. _ .: .0)UBt\tc�,:,EC . (Address) :,, Q .;ijS Renton, WA 98055 (City) (State) 226-1800 (Telephone) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been foun orough and complete in every particular and to conform to the 0 a4- lations of the Renton Planning Department governing the V3 .ng��ttLL°(�� I tt��u O pplication . o, Date Received APR 3 1914 ' , 19 By: 9 + • , <c, 2L�NG DE PP` I 1 Renton Planning Dept. Revised May 1970 . , ' egil '''->"' ..tf �0pQ C TY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON i4 `""°'°� qt RONMENTAL IMPACT WORKSHEET FOR OFNG EP 0NLY : Application No . .E/G1-/-?- 77 Negative Dec . • Date Received 57- 3- 75/ EIS . . INSTRUCTIONS : The purpose of this information is to assist the vari - ous departments of the City to determine whether an environmental , impact statement will be required before approving and issuing a ' per- mit for a proposed project . Single family residential uses in non sensitive areas are exempt from this requirement,has established by Washington Administrative Code 173-34 . . In addition to the following information , please submit a vicinity map ( recommend scale : 1 " representing 200 ' to 800 ' ) and a site map ( rec- ommended scale. : 1 " representing 10 ' to 40 ' ) . , ' APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 30 BELOW : 1 . , Name of applicant CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION • 2 . Mailing . address P. 0. Box 239, Renton, Washington 98055 Telephone (206) 226-1800 • • 3. Applicant is : . Owner ' ElLessee ' FJContract purchaser L lOther (specify) Purchase -Option Agreement 4. Name and address of owner, if other than applicant : ' Telephone 5 . General location of proposed project (give street address if any • or nearest street and intersection Located on Lake Washington, south of and adjacent to No: . 52nd Street. - 2 - 6 . , Legal description ( if lengthy , attach as separate sheet) • See Attachment. 7 . Area 3.57 + Ac. Land, 2.22 + Water Dimensions 460 '. + x 550 ' + Land and Water 8 . Intended use of property or project ( include details : number of units , volume , etc . ) : 56 Units 34 + percent Coverage of Land (21% of Total area) 66 + percent Open Space 9 . Generally describe the property and existing improvements : , The property is comprised of three parcels . The two southerly parcels have existing single family dwellings . The third parcel includes run-down shacks and outbuildings . There are existing docks and small boat launching areas. There are also a number of pilings in the lake. 10 . Total construction cost or fair market value of proposed project including additional developments contemplated : $3.5 + Million (Fair market value) 11 . Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested : Begin End Dependent on approval date(s) by controlling governmental units, project construction will commence as soon as possible in one phase. 5 ' LAKE WASHINGTON SHORES LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Government Lots 3 and 4, in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East , W.M. , King County , Washington , and of Block "D" of C. D. Hillman 's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle, Division No. 3 , according to Plat recorded in Volume 11 of Plats , page 81 , records of King County, Washington , described as follows : Commencing at the south quarter corner of said Section 29, Township 24 North , Range 5 East, W.M. , said corner lying North 88°46'57" West of the Southeast Corner of said Section 29; thence North .0°57'43" East 2077.48 feet to a point on a Mutual Boundary Agreement Line as delineated under Auditor' s File No. 6502051 ; thence South 57°12 '55" East along said line 64.52 feet more or less to a point on the westerly margin of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, and the True Point of Beginning; thence North 57°12'55" West along said Agreement Line 641 .99 feet to the Inner Harbor Line of Lake Washington ; thence North 45°28'30" East along said Inner Harbor Line 353.25 feet to the southerly margin of North 52nd Street ; thence South 88°44' 10" East along said margin 432.89 feet more or less to the westerly margin of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, said margin being on a curve with a radius of 1382.68 feet; thence southerly along said railroad margin an arc 'length of 570.40 feet to a point of compound curvature, the center of which bears North 65°04'07" West; thence continue along said curving railroad margin an arc length of 37.93 feet , more or less to the True Point of Beginning. - 3 ' . 12 . List any other permits for ,this , project from state , federal , or other local governmental agencies for which you have applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency, whether the permit has been applied for, and if so , the date of the applica- tion , whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same , and the number of the application or permit : Date Agency . Permit Type Submitted* Number Status** City of Renton P1 rn,;n,g Dept Change of Zone 4/3/74 „ II n, Shoreline Mngmt. Sub. Dev. Permit Grading Permit City of Renton Building Permit Riii lding Dept. * Leave blank if not submitted.. ** Approved, denied or pending . ,, ; 13 . Has an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assess- ment been prepared for the proposed project? ' r—lYes x no If "yes" submit copy with this, environmental impact worksheet . It is being prepared at this time. 14 . Are there similar projects , both public and private , existing or planned in the immediate area : x yes I ! no don ' t know If "yes " explain . Quendall Terminals Development 15 . 'Is the proposed project located in or adjacent to an area or structure having unique or exceptional historic , cultural , or other values considered important by some sectors of the popu- lation? yes Jno If "yes " explain . 16 . Is the proposed project located in an area that may be considered sensitive and, is subject to erosion, landslides , floods , etc . ? yes xi n° If "yes" explain . - 4 - 17 . Is the proposed project located in an area that has a number of large trees or other natural landscaped areas , waterways , marshes or wildlife? Ix lyes no If "yes" explain . Adjacent to Lake Washington ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT : In the following questions summarize what the applicant feels will be the environmental impact , both beneficial and adverse , of the proposed project. Consideration should be given to both the human and natural environmental as well as physical , social , and aesthetic aspect. For projects which are part of a more extensive plan , consider the implications of the entire plan and not just the project now being proposed . -. . 18, Land Use : Will the project have a significant effect on land use in the surrounding area? IIyes " x no Explain : • Project is in compliance with City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. . 19. Project Design and Appearance : Will the project design , appear- ance , landscaping , etc. , assure the maximum .protection for the natural environment? x yes no Explain : Project will enhance the area in compliance with the site's natural features. , . 20. Ground Contours : Does the proposed project have an effect on the existing ground contours of the project location? 1 , x yes . l . lno . Is , the project likely to cause erosion or sedimentation? I— yes 2 xx no? If,'fyes" to either , explain . 1 . The Project is designed to mitigate the impatt ;:however. 2. The development will improvejthe errosion and 'sedimentation conditions . - 5 21 . Air Quality: Will construction of the project and use of the completed project have a substantial effect on the existing air quality? (Consider the effect of any gas , chemicals , smoke , dust , particulate matter , and odors) ? ,yes X no If "yes " explain . 22 . Water Quality : Will construction , of the project and use of the completed project be likely to have an effect on the existing water quality of the area? (Consider the adequacy of drainage and runoff and the likely endpoint of any liquids draining from the project. ) Eyes cx no . Is there a good possibility that this project will equir an expansion of local water and/or ' sewer facilities? yes lxxino If "yes" to either , exp ain . 23 . Noise : Will construction of , the project or use of the completed project significantly affect the existing noise levels of the area? r jyes [ZZlno . Will the project be affected by airports , . freeways , railroads or other sources of noise? (x ( yes El no If "yes" to either , explain . Project lies adjacent to the BNRR and is a short distance from 1-405. Through site planning, building design , and landscaping, the impact will be minimized. 24 . Population Density: Will a noticeable population change result from this project? (Consider the present density per acre in the surrounding community to the proposed density of the project and including daytime density. ) yes 1no . Will the pro- ject cause periodic or temporary fluctuations in po ulation. due to tourism , employment , shopping , schools , etc . eyes xxlno. - If "yes" to either , explain . . Yes , project will cause an increase of 140 + persons. Said increase is not' con- sidered significant. The density of the project is 122.5 percent less than the adjacent_ Misty Cove Apartments and172.8 percent greater than Ripley Lane to the north. Density based on population would put the proposed development 35 . 1 percent greater than Ripley Lane. 6 - 25 . Effect on Population : Will the proposed action directly or in- directly cause the relocation of a sizeable number of persons or the division or disruption of existing community patterns of liv- ing? yes jxx( no If "yes" explain . 26 . Schools and Parks : Will the proposed project have an effect on schools and parks in the area? If "yes" explain . [xxlyes [mo The impact on schools will be very insignificant.. School population will be very small . The residents ' recreation needs are largely taken care of within the development. 27 . Transportation : Will construction of the project or use of the completed project have a significant impact on transportation in the, area? r---I yes X no., Explain : Traffic counts in the area are very low. The project will not make a significant increase. 28. Public Use : Will the project be available for use by all,: sectors of the public? f Explain : 1 Eyes Hno The project is a private residential ' development with improvements . and open space reserved for the owners ' use. 29 . Other Impacts: Identify any other beneficial or adverse environ mental impacts which may result from the construction or comple- tion of the proposed project. A portion of the site has several run- down buildings and has become a dumping ground. The proposed project will improve the visual and economic condition of the overall area, without damaging the environment. - 7 - 30 . VIEWS OF LOCAL GROUPS : Have you made your plans known to interested community roups or neighbors in the vicinity of the project? 'yes no - If "yes" what are their reactions? If "no" do you intend to contact these people?( .yes xxno We intend to use the hearing process required by the controlling governmental agencies. CERTIFICATION BY OWNER/REPRESENTATIVE The Owner/Representative identified in Item No . 1 or 4 above hereby certifies that the information furnished in this Environmental Work- sheet is true and , accurate to the best of their knowledge . Signature Title Date • - 8 - TO BE FILLED IN BY CITY DEPARTMENTS REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Ch(_:. )G- Comments : A4s RV-11Qu -1Da--/4-7<1 Sign of Director or Authorii;Tiiipresentative te REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : 71-2,6,, FIC Comments : A 76 R0.6,1 \46N5 be"; C_LEA 12.01 t:70 • 1)61-69-.PAA QATIOr-I OP. it.i €,Q1/4.)licid P2/3v r>e.T. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date - 10 ACTION( By RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL A. Staff revief . determined that project Has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects . May have significant environmental impact and a complete environmental , assessment should be prepared by applicant prior to further action on request for permit. B . Reasons for abovelgonclusion : } Signature of Responsible Official or Authorized Representative Date : Form : EIS-1 Planning Department October 15 , 1973 ROU'I'1: SCHEDULE :DUI,l; PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE ROUT::l) 517. PLEASE REV TIlTS AlPLTCATION L'OR;.. K--M-74 1:1::z(1-5 (!mz,=► e.„ S Wt� ('�1L.?, MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SI'1:C11\I. 1'I:RMI'I.' WAIVLI( SIIORLLINL MANAGEMENT .PERM:LT OR L:XLMI"PION • AND RI TURN TO THE PLANN]NC DEPARTMENT WITll I\NY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT IIAVE, 13L1'ORE^ SICNAT'URL OR INI'1':EI\L DI::PI\RTMLNT APPROVAL DENIAL DATE �iTl'I]jU ` RAPPIC ENG). X ejri n 7+ (4v 't' oy-, (r:NciNt:EIN )C ✓ 4 -22- 74 • HEALTH P.t,�;. I,c rim ..' _ x, '-2-2-7 Q-- REVIEWER S COMMENTS OR APPROVAL CONDITIONS : LA•ri 1-ra- Pi/a,::t,t T` 'r t e 6�.1C( t S 140 Arc.1,_. s c,tppLy t,tic 1 M.Era r WP t-G2 L.%$ , Pr;,:>fbce.C., r&L.. Alc»,1 (0 P.(r.u2 t3 ate • c74 Q•�• G� �,�' �C.�'LrV C.-.� Ll.J Q, ' • ( T•4'r.� Cit 1- ' � t% / ✓ % _ `. -L_�.`'.-•E'•(G�-'GCit..-'�,•�,�-., �- .'Cj-f��/r'�- yl-4.' �L.+Z"'�p. l.�lT . ��' v J • u1 C1-Ii U hS i re 4.0 i•d-e/irea i as/C.. . • —i4 —7/ TPublic Notices Road. Legal description on file in Planning Department.office. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING IN B-1 AND R-3 ZONES; file No. SP-775- 74; property located at southeast corner Union Ave. N.E. and N.E. 4th Ave. Legal description on file in Planning Department office. 6. WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IM- PROVEMENTS IN G-7200 ZONE: file No. W-776-74; property locat- ed on 27th N.E. between Ed- monds Ave. N.E. and Aberdeen _ ve. N.E. Legal description on file NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING in the Planning Department Of- RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION face. ob- RENTON,WASHINGTONAll topersaidns interestedeions or A public hearingwill be held jecting said petitions are invit ed to be present at the planning 4y the Renton Planning Commis- commission meeting on June 26, sic.i at its regular meeting in the 1974 at 8:00 p.m. to voice their Council Chambers, City Hall, Ren- protests or objections to same. ' ton, Washington, on June 26, Published June 16, 1974 1974, at 8:00 p.m.to consider the BYLUND V. WIK, p following petitions: Secretary 1\_,(,5-7 4- .. ' 1. REZONE.FROM G6000 TO R- Renton Planning Commission 3; file No. R-756-74; property lo- CERTIFICATION cated on Lake Washington, south ' • I, Michael L. Smith, hereby. of and adjacent to N.E. 52nd.St. certify that three' copies of the • Legal description on file`in Plan- •above document were posted by Wing Department office. me in three consplcuous places 2. REZONE FROM G TO L-1 OR on the property described above' M-P; file No. R-774-74; property as prescribed by law,,' ' located West Valley Highway ' SIGNED' north of S.W. 43rd and south of M,Ichael L. Smith ' Hill-Raleigh properties. Legal de- ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to • scription on file in Planning De- before me, a Notary Public, on• partment office. the 13th day of June, 1974. 3. REZONE FROM•G TO M-P Harriet M. Hilder AND.SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW Published in the Renton Re- '.FILLING•AND GRADING; files No. cord-Chronicle June 16, 1974. R-759-74 and- No. SP-760-74; R2798; ,' property located approximately�- - 1200' north of S.W. 43rd on West Valley Highway. Legal description on file In Planning Department office. • 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW' FILLING AND GRADING IN L-1 • ZONE; file No. SP-76874;'proper- ty located at 3000 East Valle NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION RENTON , WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION AT ITS REGULAR METING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL , RENTON , WASHINGTON , ON April 24 19 74`, AT 8 : 00 P . M . TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . REZONE FROM G6000 TO R-3 ; file No . R-756-74 ; property located on Lake Washington , south of and adjacent to N . E . 52nd St . Legal description on file in Planning Department office . 2 . REZONE FROM P-1 TO G-7200 ; file No . R-761-74 ; property located on N . E . 27th St . between Edmonds Ave . N . E . and Aberdeen Ave . N . E . Legal description on file in Planning Department office . . 3. REZONE FROM G TO M-P ; file No . R-762-74 ; property located on West Valley Highway between Ralph Leber Co . and So . 180th . Legal description on file, in Planning Department office . 4. REZONE FROM GS- 1 TO L- 1 ; file No . R-764-74 ; . property located on S . W . 16th St . between Oaksdale and Pacific Ave . S . W . Legal description on file in Planning Department office . 5 . SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING .IN G ZONE , file No . SP-763-74 ; property located at Black River Junction . 6 . TEMPORARY SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT INDIVIDUAL GARAGES FOR RENTON BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN B- 1 ZONE , file No . TP-766-74 ; property located at 4210 Jones Ave . N . E. 7 . SITE APPROVAL FOR OFFICE-WAREHOUSE FACILITY IN M-P ZONE ; file No . SA-767-74 ; property located in Earlington Industrial Park No . 2 , west side of Thomas. Ave. S . W. • ALL PERSONS INTERESTED OR OBJECTING TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON April .242 1974 AT 8 : 00 P . M . TO VOICE THEIR PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS TO SAME . BYLUND V . WIK , SECRETARY PUBLISHED April 14 , 1974 RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION I , Michael L . Smith , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE HOSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW . ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn Lc.„1.6g( Lo before me , a Notary Public , SIGNED _ on the 11thday of April 19 74 . Staff Report June 26, 1974 Page Two APPLICATION: REZONE - G-6000 TO R-3 APPLICANT: CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION LOCATION: Located on Lake Washington south of and adjacent to N. 52nd Street. ZONING: G-6000 REQUEST: Applicant requests Planning Commission approval of rezone from G-6000 to R-3 . COMMENTS: 1 . EIS has been requested for this proposal . 2. The City Attorney has reviewed the matter of feasibility of contract zoning as requested by the applicant and has submitted a negative response . The City 'Attorney ' s conclusion is that the EIS should be finalized and all action completed prior to action by the Planning Com- mission. 3. Applicant has requested continuance to July public hearing due to delays in negotiations with respect to parties involved. STAFF Recommend continuance to July 24 public hearing RECOMMENDA- as requested by Citizens Service Corporation. TION: APPLICATION: . SPECIAL PERMIT - FILL APPLICANT: GARY MERLINO LOCATION: 3000 East Valley Road ZONING: L- 1 APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE Ordinance 2820, Mining, Excavation F, Grading Sections ZONING CODE: 4-712 and 4- 722 (B) REQUEST: Applicant requests special permit from Planning Com- mission to fill the 5 . 8 acre site with approximately 50, 000 cubic yards of fill . COMMENTS: 1. Upon completion of its review, the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended approval subject to : a. Easterly 87 ' of site being excluded from fill permit per recommendation of Div. of Hydraulics , King County Public Works Dept. to Dept . of Ecology. b. Site plan approval required at time of development, especially with regard to building location, landscaping, parking and circulation. c. Two percent landscaping requirement as per Soil Conservation Service . STAFF REPORT CITY OF RENTON MAY 22 , 1974 APPLICATION : REZONE APPLICANT : CITIZENS SERVICE CORP . LOCATION : On Lake Washington, south of and adjacent to N. E . 52nd St . • ZONING : G-6000 APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE 4-725 ; 4-709 (A) ; Chapter 22 , Parking and ZONING CODE : Loading REQUEST : Planning Commission approval of rezone of G-6000 to R-3 . COMMENTS : This item was continued pending review of envi- ronmental assessment . In terms of the Shoreline Management Program the staff has determined that this area be somewhat unique and fragile and, therefore , an EIS is necessary. The applicants have been so advised. STAFF Recommend continuation pending development of RECOMMENDA- EIS and appropriate review. TION : APPLICATION : SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICANT : SHELC OIL COMPANY LOCATION: Approximately 1/2 mile west of East Valley Road , midway between the Olympic Pipeline/Mobil Oil site and Longacres Race Track . ZONING : H-1 APPLICABLE SECTIONS ' OF THE ZONING CODE : 4-713 REQUEST : Special permit by the Planning Commission to construct a petroleum receiving/storage/marketing plant on the subject site . COMMENTS : 1 . This item was continued from the February 22nd public hearing meeting in order to finalize ° the EIS . Additional response was requested from the Shell Oil Co . , and staff is undertak- ing redrafting of the EIS document . 2 . The procedure used in drafting this latest revision is to combine the material that Shell has provided in an addendum which the staff has prepared. This has been done in order to answer the questions which the previous docu- ment failed to adequately address . 3. Revi-ew of the impact document is presently being undertaken by a consulting firm. This work and completion of the EIS by staff is estimated to be completed by July 1st , allowing approximately three weeks for Planning Commission review . Anticipate the Commission decision can be made at the public hearing meeting of July 24th. STAFF Recommend continuation to public hearing meeting RECOMMENDA- July 24th in order to complete EIS . TION : Staff Report April 24 , 1974 Page Two 4 . Applicant has agreed to provide a means whereby the open space between the houses at the end of the culdesac can be guaranteed to remain , either by restrictive covenants or with a homeowners ' association agreement . STAFF RECOMMENDA- Recommend approval subject to ; TION : 1 . Incorporation of applicants ' proposals as indicated in Exhibit 1 . 2 . Providing of landscaping suitable for screen- ing purposes with sufficient height and spacing for those purposes along the east property line and along the northwest portion of the north property line subject to approval of the Plan- ning Commission . 3 . Provide for retention and maintenance of open space at the north end of the subject ' s site between the two ( 2 ) buildings at the end of the culdesac by restrictive covenants . 4 . Provision of a Landscaping Installation Main- tenance Bond . 5 . Provision of a twenty ( 20 ) foot setback of all structures along N . E . 8th Street. APPLICATION : REZONE APPLICANT : CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION LOCATION : South of and adjacent to N . E . 52nd Street along Lake Washington . ZONING: G-6000 APPLICABLE • SECTIONS OF THE 4-725 ; 4- 709 (A) ; ZONING CODE : Chapter 22 , Parking and Loading REQUEST: Planning Commission approval of rezone of G-6000 to R- 3 . COMMENTS : 1 . The necessity for an Environmental Impact Statement on this project is apparent . 2 . Detailed review is required for such elements as heights , setbacks , landscaping screening and open space should be examined carefully with relation to adjacent land uses . STAFF RECOMMENDA- Recommend continuation to allow for the preparation TION : and appropriate review period of the Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed development . I eiii tens Renton ' Planning Commission Meeting October 23 , 1974 Page Seven B. CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION , APPLICATION R-765-74 ; Rezone from G6000 to R-3. It was noted that Citizens Service Corporation has advised that they are withdrawing their applica- tion . C. LOUIS B. ROWLEY , APPLICATIONS R-787-74 AND SP-788-74 ; Rezone and Special Permit . The Assistant Planning Director advised that the Louis B. Rowley applications for rezone and special permit with regard to property located on Park Avenue North between North 30th Street and North 32nd Street have been withdrawn . D. SCARSELLA BROTHERS , APPLICATION SP-760-74 ; Special Permit. - Assistant Planner Smith noted that Alan Austin , attorney for the applicant , has been recontacted regarding availability of the environmental impact statement , which he advised would be forthcoming early in October. Mr. Smith referred the Commis- sion to information received from the Soil Conser- vation Service relative to the ponding area on the site and noted it will be included in the review process . E. P . A. W. CONFERENCE , NOVEMBER 1 AND 2 - EVERETT The Vice Chairman noted the Planning Association of Washington fall conference to be held in Everett Ion November 1 and 2 and asked who wished to attend,. ( Commissioners Scholes , Wik and Seymour indicated 'their interest . ;ACTION: 1 !MOVED BY TEEGARDEN, SECONDED BY GIBSON, THAT COMMIS- SIONERS SCHOLES, WIK AND SEYMOUR BE AUTHORIZED TO 'ATTEND THE FALL CONFERENCE OF THE P .A .W. IN EVERETT, NOVEMB,ER 1 AND 2. MOTION CARRIED. F. (OTHER "CITIES FOR PEOPLE" The film, "Cities for People , " to be shown at the University of Washington on October 30 , 1974 , at 8 : 00 p. m. was discussed. Representatives from the Planning Commission and staff will be in attendance . W. STEWART POPE - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO COMPRE- HENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Commissioner Gibson gave a report concerning the City Council public hearing regarding the W. Stew- art Pope request . As there ' was no further business before the Commission , IT WAS MOVED BY MOLA, SECONDED BY TEEGARDEN , THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned at '10 . 45 ! p . m. ar y Gibson , a ret ry Norm Ross , Chairman _i 2- FEDERAL SAVINGS&LOAN�ASSOCIATION 201 tViti ..1 +L't f EN4ULtiYUR9�1f •1800 September 24, 1974 City of Renton Planning Department Municipal Building Renton, WA 98055 Re: Citizens Service Corporation Rezone Appl. #R-756-74 Gentlemen: The Board of Directors of Citizens Service Corporation, - 201 Williams Avenue South, Renton, Washington, at their regular meeting on August 19, 1974, unanimously voted to terminate the Lake Washington Shores Project in the City of Renton. The main reason for' the termination was the expiration of the Earnest Money Agreement (s) on the to-be-acquired real estate; additional capital requirements in order to qualify the subject real estate for development; the uncertainty about additional wasted time needed to process the project to the point of project approval; and frankly, the uncertainty about the density, have all contributed to the decision to abandon the proposed project. We felt that this project would have been a real asset to the community and we would have been proud to participate further in the growth of this city. We are looking forward to working with you on other projects in the City of Renton. Sincer , • • OSS E. WOODWARD, JR. Executive Vice President/Mana:er Citizens Service Corporation REW:wb OF REND .F� O� R�N j;'`',. • RECEIVED o � aECE1 b ° SEP 26 1974 SEP -40 1914 9,y-'NGDAPPck ��," NGDE% 4.7 -e ins, OF R. � ti ? U ., stp, 2, PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON,WASHINGTON a MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTOH,WASHINGTON 98055 • MOM 9, *0 235-2550 ZS�ORl CA PIT 0�a� . September 16; 1974 Mr. Ross Woodward Citizens Service Corporation P. O. Box 239 Renton, Washington 98055 RE: CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION REZONE, Appl. No. R-756-74 Dear Mr. Woodward: As a result of our last meeting on July 18, 1974, with Mr. Val Rupeiks, your consultant for the proposed project, it was our understanding that matters were proceeding; and we would be receiving additional input in the near future. Since that time, we have heard rumors that the proposed project has been dropped. Please advise us as to the status of the project and whether you wish to continue with the rezone and related procedures. We would be happy to meet with you, if you have any further questions. Ver truly yours, - '--------'X_-el ,--l..., 1:6 Michae L. Smith Assistant Planner ov 41 ; '' PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON,WASHINGTON Q MUNICIPAL BUILDING 0 RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 • X3xIXi p 49 235-2550 CAPITAL. July 1 , 1974 Ross E. Woodward , Jr. Executive Vice President Manager Citizens Service Corporation 201 Williams Avenue So . P . O. Box 239 Renton , Washington 98055 , Dear Mr . Woodward : We are in receipt of your letter confirming your request to be removed from the Planning Commission ' s June 26 Public Hearing agenda . The Commission continued the hearing on your request for rezone to their September 25 , 1974 meeting . This was done in order to provide the necessary time for preparation , review and distribution of the Environ- mental Impact Statement. In order to expedite your request it is desirable that the work on the EIS be completed as soon as possible in view of the review periods required by State Law. The Planning Department staff is available at your request to review this matter with you . Please call me if you have any questions . Very truly urs ichael L . Smith Assistant Planner MLS/kh Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 26 , 1974 Page Two He noted that environmental impact occurs at the time of develop- ment ; therefore , the staff recommends approval of rezoning to M-P but continuance of the request for special permit to fill . The Planni ng Director pointed out the ponding area on the map and noted that it touches the proposed warehouse facility. It is the staff ' s opinion that zoning of the property would not preclude development of a portion of the property but granting of the fill would create loss of the pond area . Mr . Ericksen discussed the planned Valley Drainage Project and proposed provisions for its funding . Comments were invited from the applicant. Mr . Allan Austin , attorney representing Scarsella Brothers , Inc . , 1515 Norton Building , Seattle , stated that Mr . Cokely of the Soil Conserva- tion Service had advised him that areas that they have mapped for preservation are tentative and' not defined by boundaries . The pond was described as covering fifty to sixty percent of the property during the wet season . He described the applicant' s reasons for seeking relocation of his business facilities , noting that his lease at his present site expires in May 1975 . The property has been owned by the Scarsella ' s for ten years and is . being sought for industrial use due to its proximity to the West Valley Highway and the railroad . Mr. Mola invited comments from the audience , but none were received . The Chairman then called for a report from the Zoning Committee . Commissioner Ross , chairman , read his reporX which advised that it was the conclusion of the committee that rezoning to M-P would have no detrimental impact on adjacent properties . Further comment by the Commission was invited by the Chairman , but none was offered ; and IT WAS MOVED BY ROSS , SECONDED BY . GIBSON , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED . MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ACTION: MOVED BY ROSS, SECONDED BY HUMBLE, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SCARSELLA BROTHER$ APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM G TO M-P TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AS THE REQUEST IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND THAT THE MATTER OF EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES BE CONFIRMED WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B1 CITIZENS SERVICE CORP . ; Appi . R-765-74; rezone from G6000 to R-3; property located on Lake Washington , south of and a jacent to N. E. 52nd St. Noting that the item had been continued from a previous hearing to allow time for preparation of an environmental impact state- ment, the Chairman requested staff comment . The Planning Director stated that the applicant has requested further continuance until July 24 , 1974. ACTION: MOVED BY ROSS, SECONDED BY SEYMOUR, THAT THE CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION REZONE APPLICATION BE CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 24, 1974. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • • RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MEETING JUNE 26, 1974 MINUTES COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Humble, Larry Gibson , Anthone Mola , Bev Morrison , Norman Ross , Arthur Scholes , Patricia Sey- mour. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Clark Teegarden , Bylund Wik. CITY STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Ericksen , Planning Director; Michael Smith , Assistant Planner; Mounir Touma , Public Works Department ; Willis Roberts , Recording Secretary. • I The June 1974 public hearing meeting of the Renton Planning Commission was called to order at 8: 05 p.m. by Commissioner Mola , who was acting as Chairman . i . ROLL CALL was taken by Commissioner Ross , who was acting as Secretary. All members responded present with the exception of Commissioner Seymour (previously advised she would arrive late) , Commissioner Teegarden (out of town) , and Bylund Wik (out of town) . . ACTION: - I MOVED BY ROSS, SECONDED BY SCHOLES, THAT THE ABSENT COM- I, MISSIONERS BE EXCUSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. a- BEV MORRISON, NEW APPOINTED COMMISSIONER was introduced to the Commission and,, the audience by Commissioner Mola', Acting Chairman . 3. APPROVAL,OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING was requested by Acting Chairman MoTa. Inasmuch as not all members had had an opportunity to review them, it was MOVED BY SCHOLES , SECONDED BY .HUMBLE , THAT APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES] OF THE JUNE 12 , 1974 , MEETING BE HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL THE JULY ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING . MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . 4 . CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS : REZONES: A, SCARSELLA BROS . , INC . ; Appl . No . R-759-74; rezone from G to M-P ; property located approximately 1200 ' north of S .W. 43rd on West Valley Highway. Noting that the application had been continued , Chairman Mola requested the current status from the Planning Director. Mr. Ericksen reminded the Commission that the site includes a ponding area which has been designated for retention as a wildlife habitat by the Soil Conservation Service . An environmental assessment was requested by the staff in order to evaluate environmental impact . The assessment was received June 25 , 1974 , and the staff has not had an oppor- tunity to make an evaluation at this time . Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 26 , 1974 Page Three Discussion followed regarding the full agenda to be con- sidered at the July 24 , 1974 , meeting ; and it was MOVED BY SEYMOUR , SECONDED BY SCHOLES , TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION . MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Further discussion ensued regarding the necessity of allow- ing a minimum of thirty days for public study following 1 publication of an EIS , which would preclude possible action in July. Mr. Ericksen stated that the City Attorney had advised that regarding the applicant ' s proposal for a con- ditional rezone that any such agreement would have to be subject to the outcome of the EIS . State law requires con- sideration of the EIS before action may be taken by the Planning Commission . ACTION: ON THE QUESTION - MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Mola again opened the original motion to continue the Citizens Service Coprporation application for a vote. MOTION DEFEATED. MOVED BY SEYMOUR, SECONDED BY ROSS , THAT THE ,PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION BE CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25, 1974. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr, Thomas Buckingham ,g 5025 Ripley Lane , Renton , asked when the applicant had made the request for continuance and was advised by the Planning Director that the request was made June 25 . SPECIAL PERMIT: C, SCARSELLA BROS . , INC . ; Appl . No . SP-760-74 ; special permit to allow filling and grading in G (M/P) zone ; property located approximately 1200 ' north of S . W. 43rd on West Valley Highway. Chairman Mola invited staff comment from the Planning Director. Mr . Ericksen reiterated his comments previously stated that the environmental assessment had been received June 25th and would require additional time for staff review . The Chairman asked for any comments from the applicant . Mr . Allan Austin , attorney reviewed the position of the applicant. He noted the convenient location between a railroad right-of-way and the West Valley Highway for industrial use . He cited human uses in the area : trans- portation facilities , a new sewer line , and availability of water. Commissioner Scholes , chairman o.f the Community Services Committee , reported that the Committee had met but recom- mended continuance , since they had not had an opportunity to review the environmental assessment . Discussion followed regarding formal notification to the applicant as to the requirement for an environmental assessment. Commissioner Ross , chairman of the Zoning Renton Planning Commission Meeting June 26 , 1974 Page Four Committee , stated that at its meeting of April 17 the Com- mittee recommended that the special permit to fill and grade be granted , inasmuch as it was their opinion that the area was unsuited for the location of a wildlife sanctuary due to the proximity of a railroad right-of-way and highway. Discussion ensued regarding desirable locality for a wildlife sanctuary and whether or not an EIS is appropriate . It was then MOVED BY SEYMOUR, SECONDED BY SCHOLES , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 24, 1974. A roll call vote was requested with the following result : Humble - No Gibson - No Morrison - No Ross - No Scholes - Aye Seymour - Aye Mola - No MOTION DEFEATED. The Planning Director again stated that continuance was recom- mended to allow sufficient time for staff review of the environ- mental assessment . ACTION: MOVED BY SCHOLES, SECONDED BY SEYMOUR, THAT THE ITEM BE REFERRED ' TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND REPORT BACK AT THE JULY 10, 1974, MEETING . Discussion followed regarding whether or not the matter was al - ready in committee, the preogative of the Planning Commission to grant or not grant permits to fill , and the suggestion by Commis- , sioner Morrison to give the staff authority to act after their environmental review. On the question , a roll call vote was called with the following result: Humble - No Gibson - No Morrison- No Ross - No Scholes - Aye Seymour - Aye Mola - No MOTION DEFEATED . ACTION: MOVED BY HUMBLE, SECONDED BY ROSS, THAT THE APPLICATION BE CONTIN- UED UNTIL THE JULY 10, 1974, MEETING, WHEN A STAFF REPORT AND COM- MUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT IS ANTICIPATED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. D, MERLINO , GARY ; Appl . SP-768-74; special permit to allow fill - ing and grading in L-1 zone; property located at 3000 East Valley Road . . Staff comments were requested by the Chairman . Mr . Ericksen stated that it was the staff ' s opinion that an envi - ronmental assessment was not necessary based on present use of MEMORANDUM TO . Files DATE June 26 . 1974 FROM Michael L. Smith SUBJECT , Citizens Service Corporation:REZONE I talked today with De En Lang of Clark Coleman and Rupeiks , consultants for the applicant. He asked that the subject proposal be taken off this month' s agenda and placed on the July public hearing agenda . He said that this was due to delays in negotiations on the options of the properties involved. Negotiations with a realtor that has been involved in the project had also caused some delay. • tITIZENg FEDERAL SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATION • 201 WILLIAMS AVE.SO.1 P.O.BOX 239 RENTON,WASH. 980551BA 8-1800 • • :r¢, •f. J,�—D/V/ June 25, 1974 Wit -411_30 Mr. Mike Smith 200 Mill Ave S Renton City Hall • Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mike: This letter is to confirm our phone call requesting that we be removed from the Planning Commission' s meeting agenda June 26, 1974. • Resnctfu ly Submitted, `\ OSS E. WOODWARD, JR. Executive Vice President anager Citizens Service Corp. REW:wb o eNED JUN �.R1974 o � G DE? • MEMORANDUM ' • • - June' 2 1 TO Files FROM Michael. L. Smith' • SUBJECT ; Citizens' Service 'Corp oration oREZONE• • I talked today , with' De' En ;L ag •of Clark ,Coleman' and"Rup• eiks;:;<,4:-.:,t°,-.;, consultants for,.the'�applicant'. ' He. asked. that proposal; be.:taken• off• this m�onthos •agenda and.placed:'on ,the July public 'hearin'g. 'agenda. , He' said. that this' ` was..due;,'..'to'.;��'�4.��.'.,..,.::_�;'.�:�. . delays in negotiations,-on • the options.. of the. properties, • involved...; Negotiations..with,. a realtor that. has beef; :inv ..'.1 ,. �'"' in the project had a so .caused.. some 'delay • • • • • .. .11;!•' ''-.,'': ,fin"'..,,c.: r1+.4 d' ,. • ." .. _ ._... .., ..,.. .. � .e.- �..i.r.._.�..+�•s.ual.:tr"..-':.A!"F1:4`....Ni4.w:]S:..L��......,a...e_.........,_v'. • • • • • • • C) 0% a4 Z PLANNING- DEPARTMENT ® RENTON,WASHINGTON ^, ha 3 ° MUNICIPAL BUILDING ® RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 • )0(90(3)(0)( 9 ~'• � 235-2550 sAo,„ CA PIT AI•OE�a'y June 3 , 1974 David P . Thompson , President Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. 1409 Fifth Avenue Seattle , Washington 98101 RE : Citizens Service Corp . Rezone G-6000 to R-3 R-756-74 Dear Mr. Thompson : We have enlisted the comments of our city attorney with respect to the legality of the rezone procedures which you presented at the May 22 , 1974 Planning Commission Hearing . It is his opinion that although use of contract zoning appears to be perfectly legal given certain parameters , it is difficult , if not impossible , for the City to agree to a rezoning prior to the receipt of an Environmental Impact Statement , its review by other governmental agencies , and the subsequent evaluation by the responsible public official , when such a statement has been determined to be necessary . The Planning Commission therefore cannot make any deci - sion on the rezone request until these items have been accom- plished . Our department has been working with your consul - tants and will continue to do so . If you have any further questions or would like to meet with me to discuss any element of your request , please do not hesitate to contact this department. Very truly yours , GORDON Y . ERICKSEN Plannin Director sip? Michael L . Smith Assistant Planner MLS : kh cc : V . Rupeiks • • tt, Y. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Q RE Rri,piT. INGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626, 100 2ND AVENUE BUILDING, RENTO AS IN �D NE 5.8678 (�• Gi<�AI2H9 ?�. S&#EI!AN, CITY ATTORNEY �Q- JOHN BR. PAIN, J ., ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY `) 47-FasEptti,b0 May '29 , .1974 MAY: g1 .1974 Mr. Michael L. Smith � ---.:...r.-------..... �� Assistant Planner 9,L .� Municipal Building //VG DEpP� Renton, Washi&ton Re : Citizen' s Service Corporation, Rezone G-6000 to R-3 Dear Mike: This is to acknowledge receipt of your Memo on May 28 , 1974 regarding the abovecaptioned matter. You ask the opinion of our office on five different issues ,as contained in your Memo, and based on. a plan submitted by Citizen's Service Corporation,as attached to your Memo. The principal issue raised is the legality of the proposed "Contract Zoning" method. We had previously issued opinions on the general subject matter of "conditional or contract zoning" and also forwarded to the Planning Department copies of legal opinions thereon. We are not certain whether these opinions are being indexed and have been made available to you or not. To give you some general background on this subject matter we are enclosing herewith another copy of "Conditional Zoning" as same appeared inN:IMLO (The Municipal Attorney) in its May 1972 issue. Until about 1967 the courts , with few exceptions , have struck down, as illegal, any attempt, to rezone whether 'on a "conditional" or if contract" method. "Contract zoning" has generally been defined as .a situation in which a municipal zoning authority reclassifies, that is , rezones , the land to a less restricted use.,. while the applicant for rezoning agrees to special limitations on the use of the rezoned property which are not i e e - ssificatioi. Therefore, a question arises whether in the case you submitted to us the requested action by the property owner would fall within the above definition, since no special limitations appear to be spelled out over and above those required by existing laws and which would not also apply to other parcels of property similarly situated.. However, you mentioned in " subparagraph 5 of your Memo the possibility that other conditions may be imposed assuming the applicant agrees. The birth of"contract .zoning" occurred in the case of State ex .rel. Myhre v. Spokane , 70 Wn. 2d 207 (1967) when our Supreme Court for the First time validated "contract zoning" T1/e had heretofore forwarded • • Page. Two -- Mr.. Michael L. Smith May 29 , 1974 - to the Planning Department a copy of that opinion but are enclosing another set just in case the prior copy had been misplaced. In that case our Supreme Court simply held that an amendment to a zoning ordinance , that is a rezoning of a certain parcel of property, together with a concomitant agreement , should be declared invalid only if it can be shown that there was no valid reason for change and that they are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable , and have no substantial relation to the public-health, safety, morals and general welfare , or if the City is using the concomitant agreement for bargaining and sale to the highest bidder or solely for the benefit of private speculators . Therefore , on a limited basis , the Myhre case serves as adequate authority to allow "contract or conditional zoning" provided the above guidelines , as declared by the court, are met. Therefore the zoning authority should not be inhibited from insisting upon certain "conditions" to be met before rezoning and such conditions can be set out in a separate agreement between the authority and the property owner or developer.. Regardless of the term applied, whether"contract zoning;"conditional zoning; "condition to be met before rezoning" , "conditions precedent; they all emanate from the zoning authority's attempt to extract from the proposed developer an enforceable promise that the land in question will either be used in a particular manner, or that certain improvements will be made , or that the owner would dedicate a .cer.tain portion of the premises for street purposes , etc. Whatever these conditions may be , they should be fair and equitable and within the jurisdiction of the zoning authority. . One note of caution should be added to the aboveoutlined general principles . . From time .to time the Planning Commission, or some other governmental authority, may desire to limit the use of certain property as a condition precedent to rezone an area to a less restrictive zone , and this is sometimes enforced by' means of a restrictive covenant. Such factors would be highly questionable. ,,To restrict or limit the use in a given zone , when such uses would ordinarily be allowed within a given zoning district , may be a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution. Another recent case decided by our Court of Appeals is The City of Redmond vs 'Kener , -decided in December of 1973 , and we are enclosing a copy of that opinion for further background information of your Department. . To invoke the reasoning of the Myhre case (contract zoning) you must first determine whether the landowner in this case is asked to, or agrees , to perform conditions not imposed on others in the same zoning • • Page Three Mr. Michael L. Smith May 29 , 1974 classification, or is the developer in this casesimply proposing that he will comply with all the applicable rules and ordinances of all governmental agencies having jurisdiction over his proposed development? It would be our opinion that there is nothing illegal on the part of the zoning authority and the developer to agree as to the steps to be taken by the developer, as outlined by it, leading. . to the eventual rezone of his property as long as such rezone is not in violation of the City' s Comprehensive Plan. However, one word of caution should be added and that relates to the requested environmental impact. statement. It is difficult, if not impossible , for the City to agree to a rezoning prior to receipt of such a . Statement , the circulation thereof among other governmental agencies , and the ' evaluation by the responsible public official of any such Statement. Just suppose that all of the provisions of the law have been met by the developer and, absent the requirements of the Environmental Impact Law, it most likely would be granted such a rezone; if, however , for some reason or other , the EIS discloses a very substantial and extremely serious impact on the environment which can not be overcome by any remedial action, then, as we had previously explained in our opinions to you, the City may be justified in denying such a rezone ! Absent the effect of the EIS , which apparently is still an"unknown quantity" at this time , and assuming that no additional conditions are imposed not otherwise required of other property owners in said zone , then the City certainly would be within its rights to advise the developer that once he has complied with all of the legal require- ments of all applicable laws , then such rezoning would be recommended and approved. Any such agreement, however , would have to be subject to the outcome of the EIS since the City is no position to make any commitment or promise or enter into any contractual arrangement whatever without having considered and evaluated the findings contained in any such Statement. Furthermore , if the City wishes to impose additional conditions (but not to limit the use of the property) as set forth in the Myhre case , as a concomitant agreement , then this can also be accomplished in the same manner as outlined above , subject, of .course , again, to the proper evaluation of the Environmental Impact Statement. You realize , of course , that the primary responsibility for making such statement rests upon the responsible public official and not the developer. As we have explained so frequently before , the EIS is merely one of the elements to be considered in the rezoning. process and was never meant to pre-empt or overshadow all the others. In the last analysis , it comes to a matter of balancing the interest of the private developer vs . the public in general and the City must be impartial , fair and objective in evaluating and. deciding these issues . e � Page Four Mr. Michael L. Smith May 29 , 1974 Finally , if a"contract rezone" action is pursued similar to the Myhre case in this instance, the City may reasonably require certain safeguards to assure compliance. This may include the posting of a bond, or similar written commitments . Since you are dealing with an extremely responsible party in this instance , a definitive, unequivocal written commitment should suffice. We have attempted by the foregoing to give you some background on this general subject matter of "conditional or contract zoning" and wish to emphasize that this is a fairly new field of the law, and except for the Ityhre. case decided by our .Supreme " Court seven years ago , no other, pronouncements have been made by our highest court in this regard. We also invite you again to look at the opinion given to you in connection with the"Honeydew Apartments"case last month and my report to Gary Kruger of May 8. relating to the Federal Court.deciAions on environmental impacts . If we can be of any further assis ance to you please let us know. We remain, S % Very truly iirs, rard M. Shellan City Attorney GMS :ds Enc. . O ?�, PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON,WASHINGTON a MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 • XXXXXXD C .�1 235-2550 �'yspOR)CAPITAL 0. May 27, 1974 Clark, Coleman, Rupeiks, Inc. 3233 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Attention: Mr. De En Long RE: Citizen's Service Corporation Rezone Request to Renton Planning Commission G-6000 to R-3; #R-756-74 Gentlemen: This is a summary of both our meeting with representatives of your Company on May 17, 1974 and the Planning Commission Public Hearing on May 22, 1974. As you recall Joan Lankford, Gary Kruger and myself of the Planning Department staff met with De En Long, David West, and Jerry Olmstead of your Company on May 17, 1974. We informed you that an Environmental Impact Statement would be required prior to a Planning Commission decision on the rezone,request due to the fragile nature of the site in question. The majority of the two hour session was spent reviewing various staff comments to the environmental assessment. These questions were to be more thoroughly discussed as part of the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Some .of the major points of concern are; 1. Page 1. Special Permit for fill and grading must be added to the list of permits required. 2. Page 4. The Wright rezone proposal for a marina in an R-3 Zone should be mentioned as part of the history of the property. 3. Page 5. The covered walk areas should be included as part of the lot coverage area. This should bring the proposed development very near the maximum 35% lot coverage. 4. Page 8. We suggested using November 1973 King County Soil Survey. Clark, Coleman, Rupieks, Inc. May 27, 1974 Page Two 5. Page 9. The locations of various ground water depth findings should be indicated on a map. This - would include the marshy area where the ground water table is at the surface. 6. Page 10. The data gathered on Flora should be more precise. This must include an inventory in. • map form. Your site plan should show the trees and shrubs that will be retained as part of the development. 7. . Page 12. Canada geese should be added to list of water- fowl on site. Also add natural nesting areas of birds or waterfowl that would be displaced. 8. Page 13. More recent traffic data should be used. 9. Page 13. What would be a normal dB level that humans can tolerate? 10. Page 15. When mentioning the noise level at the airport, the engine testing period noise levels should be included. 11. Page 15. Clearly state existing noise level at site so that a comparison can be made to the expected construction period noise level and that of the fully occupied development. 12. Page 17. Since we have not seen definite plans for the Quendal Terminals site it would be pure speculation as to the form that any further development would take on that site. Please delete. 13. Page 19. State existing water quality of site area so that it can be compared with eventual estimated water quality and construction phase water quality.. 14. Page 20. Does this Table consist of average figures for the whole Lake? Explain Table. 15. Page 22. Various on-site and off-site uses were not mention- ed. These include; a. The various docks, boat houses and boat launching ramp on site. Clark, Coleman, Rupeiks, Inc. May 27, 1974 Page Three b. The street end directly to the north of the site with its boardwalk, dock, and boathouse. 16. Page 25. The extension of Lake Washington Beach Park is presently undeveloped. 17. Page 25. Reference to Quendal Terminals is unnecessary. 18. Page 28. What is the total area of .PSGC Activity Allocation Model District 4000? 19. Page 36. Explain any future intentions for construction on or over the water and the shoreline edge. There seems to be a conflict between your state- ment on page 36 proposing no shoreline alter- ations and page 38 where you list some construction over the water as part of your proposal. Please expand. 20. Page 37. Explain more thoroughly fill and excavation plans. 21. Page 37. Expand on earthquake section. The location in an earthquake zone should be mentioned. Size of quake that proposed building on that type of soil • and substrata could withstand. 22. Page 38. The statements about the Red Alders are erroneous and should be deleted. 23. Page 38. The word will should be used instead of should if you are making an effort to mitigate certain pacts by retaining existing trees and shrubs. As mentioned before these must be inventoried. 24. Page 38. Construction of a bulkhead or any other construction on the water will require a Corps permit. Anticipated future uses on the water should be mentioned. 25. Page 38. Expand more on removal of flora that supports fish life. Also delete the statement about impeding malaria control. 26. Page 39. Are the plans to discharge all runoff into the Lake? If so, will it meet all water quality standards? The addition of an oil-water separator for the run- off from the paved areas may be necessary. Clark, Coleman, Rupeiks, Inc. May 27, 1974 Page Four 27. Page 40. Ten o'clock P.M. is too late for construction time limit. A more reasonable construction time, given the impact to surrounding residents, would be 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. 28. Page 40. Construction noise will have an impact upon the apartment residents to the south and should be so . mentioned. Reference any mitigating measures taken. 29. Page 41. Table III-1. Again there should be an average _ human toleration level or some way of making comparisons. 30. Page 46. Explain the statements on the heating systems. Are these used during construction? 31. Page 46. Traffic noise should be broken down into several sections; existing noise levels, anticipated con- struction levels, and eventual anticipated levels when project is inhabited. 32. Page 47. Noise levels should be based on more recent traffic data. 33. Page 47. Be more specific as to the plans for the existing drainage ditch. What would "dressing up" entail? 34. Page 48. Will the construction of any utilities not already provided to the site cause any problems(i.e., traffic, mud, dust, etc.?) 35. Page 48. You should, investigate the aspect of public safety on and near the site during construction. 36. Page 49. The Table should include D.U. 's per acre and total population derived from each of the land uses. This will have an effect on your summary statement at the bottom of the page. It should be more objective. Also if you count all the covered walk- ways your lot coverage is t 35%. 37. Page 50. Mention the removal of vegetation. 38. Page 51. Mention public access along the Lake. This should be explored.. Clark, Coleman, Rupeiks, Inc. May 27, 1974 Page Five 39. Page 56. You should revise the Comprehensive Plan figures of Table III-5. It must be assumed that R-3 zoning would be the vehicle used in implementing the maximum allowable density of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, given the fact that the proposed project is very near the maximum allowable lot coverage limit of the R-3 zone, the maximum allow- able density under the Comprehensive Plan would be very close to that of the proposed project if it consisted of all three-story buildings (i.e. ± 24 more units.) However, this would be almost impossible given the extra parking requirement. Also, is the square feet per D.U. figure you used, square feet of lot area? If so, the maximum allowable for 2+ bedroom dwelling units in an R-3 zone is 1250 square feet of lot area. These changes could cause some revisions in your synopsis of the Table. 40. Page 61. When stating mitigating measures to be taken you should use the term will instead of should. This applies throughout the statement. 41. Page 63. The statement about future commercial areas relieving impact upon freeway traffic is very dubious. It should be alleviated. 42. Page 63. Expand on vegetation removal; impacts and mitigating measures. 43. Page 65. None of your alternatives consider designs and or land uses consisting of a lower density multi- family development. This should be included. 44. Page 67. High-density multi-family uses are not allowed by the Comprehensive Plan in this area and should be eliminated from the alternatives section. 45. Page 69. Some of the reasons for rejecting the low-density multiple alternative are debatable. In reason (b.) the natural character may be preserved with the alteration of the two existing single family residences to duplex dwellings. Also there may be less excavation with this type of development. In (c.) there was no mention of apartments by Special Permit in the R-2 zone. Also, in what way is the open space less useable? Clark, Coleman, Rupeiks, Inc. May 27, 1974 Page Six In (d) there would be private recreation facilities just as in the proposed develop- ment. In (f) greater land coverage would not be allowed because of the 35% limit. In (g) a wider spread of structures would facilitate open space. There would also be the flexibility desired under the Special Permit method. 46. Page 70. If this is a previously plotted piece of land• all the lots are buildable if the proper yard requirements are met. 47. Page 71. If the access limitation mentioned does not restrict the site's usefulness as a multi- family development it will also not restrict its use as a public facility. Statement should be explained or deleted. The placement of the buildings for the proposed project, phasing, filling required, and eventual facilities anticipated on the water were also discussed at the May 17, 1974 meeting. The Planning Department is in the process of receiving an indication from the City Attorney concerning various aspects of the Conditional Rezone proposed at the May 22, 1974 Planning Commission Public Hearing. We will contact you when we have received and reviewed that information. The above 47 items were the areas of major concern that should be given further attention in the E.I.S. We will be happy to meet with you if there are any further questions. Otherwise we will be awaiting receipt of your draft Environmental Impact Statement as per the Planning Commission decision on May 22, 1974. Very truly yours, GORDON Y. ERICKSEN P1 nning Director _,(///, Michael L. Smith Assistant Planner MLS/ms 1 , 'fit 1 • 1 4' �!: ! ♦ Renton`Kin Cou t yf 'Wosh' to 91er Y Fifteen ts..?,_... JL J f¢}1A ':� !:f • ..: n,.Y, : �,.�:.. '4'. Y "K Y I �i' t n it!' { :'fit.;. W f {, .F' .J..:f'+, .J. '33 J»i,. .il:. �'. ,1` _ ,1. (?� .J,Y t�.l.r 1: .t a pprr a -fie ,,.,+ ,. .�,�'i'°. .;t f. r:) .l,d'� 55 t.. ,;r +u r ,rr1`i,.t.;r B'•..1. ., 1,<d '�� ,ryl�'d., F�'4;. . +.� aY�j,"}'( '1>S l,a`I':,'r, +,Y ,4y o.. �'fif, t i.,. �': 9Y d , "l:•^ '�?rl A{^ erf., r[� >,» .,d..a�Y��q a#•^ t. a'+st. ...+);i.��7slii' ,:lX�',({ i�ilt' �y}�j(b� 1� 'e : sp,..i '..„ ,, ,, '.;,:y, t..; Y''1hrw, 77 'cit a rj ,r;,':;;CSw;' '- ' l; ;'{mil' .; ��p,',Flip L'1. ,,pp ,r. y�:i.�IFA♦y.( x!' :'.. e'� 1::;1 ,3� IY+ :').eçr 11.,F, 5^^S Fr+ .L, r aA, �i }^q N" � .1 t t•1'. ,p- .v. 'i� 'aii t ..p;1 arr �ixs a' "r. �k 'i r ',) ^'i' -t Cv :.5, ,r,r't:kr.•� t}�tt'"''' �,`.•t 1'",of li. .i' .i.' >�' •.� ..•Y's•. •'a4., ',- .r�.! ? aJ s•1. '}„ }�i`� :r:� `.k.,';?%,."`ryt::.: ".a,qa,.� f• 'a�:,�' �. �,:� � �":bi�,�i,, 's� xAy f.r '4, a�a,, .,,�_.,;'.-',+�`. .' 'v`,.,•;:.: ,,_�,' �,t�r c' s ' .a, `." s. .t,t S, �+.'„ • ti`�' jjjj�p,, f! ,. a `X 1 ��`� 'S n. ,i•,3N<: ..J.'•••.':L.... ,vN.,: .A'�.' �"�.,�':;i ,3... 7 `a.$S b� `,vyt.�1•e r. •',i.��.i:�. iS' �;.r. .�� „�'". � .'k;a .I�i =S �.a! ,!. .:�.� a .�'r',�. . 'f-.;�zxeaY' � ',�.. f., , . f . - �. -� (:; '�:�, .. • ' • Ri. ia�.�igrr � � i:. 'f o.ridt' '' y', 1 3: 5+ ;i ;.,aa r y�x• cx •I• ( '} 1 ,I n sy^r C "� '1 r ,1 '4 h '"t w'.��1'',1 r'1,' 1. ,I. '•I�,ff. SH INLw ..�,�.k.�i.•+:i' }'a{,.r +i., Jlr r., ,i:..�1, ',t, p uA ':.g.�� .e,;p.l',;1,q.�-'.ls'�.',�G,. ,�•::f' ,�, ..�Si,.,t'i'.•,n,,i. , ,t� ..j.,. .i-. .a,sT' .,r: v y , Sy ' •a ,r-'t si' +;r E I C' R'Y E.'1 a:' ��,.��, .i',Js. ,11':a�r',a,i-��, ,�<li+..i� _ �r.I:.,r.,�.''s<raA::. fi .,i�' �,"e:� ,:S;.t'='i�?`71 .In.J.,.f: - 'V.a' 1. - :�i., l�. �. t F. f.. :� e:s.a. . y J?: �� p Yi r a' _ • r' i`" ec:=.densit'r:coni��l'ex. °Hanson` Renton,Pla•nnin Director' ••• d'on''i',,'r ', h ' • g •„a, �.�:i�Mi.�• y��`?14,j�! U,S'�''�F'"7''i <,'i''ct:s.�'{I, r �I :tr • `e, �,7, x',�'�;�i"t,t,.afssk"kf�„fr{{��:Yi"v,4n,. ggf.a?�v;�!'S`i'i ".•r +f'; •1\:',IY;:; �: ."'f' r,, ,: ....1;. .,,�, -rr e.a.•, (j. 5..�a;".,t."{li:•T,4:.•6',:q' t31G�t:..�'.'� iC�iY�, ''';-rf I"" 1�J Ericksen' has.decided •o re ire ;� 0.,..:-Iii- i .6' 4 ,�1 s !,':iJ ..51'I iC `:�•� :'Y �:�' S„"'• .4 Jir .lNr��•f enviro nt c s „ ==`.i.,., .:t 4 '�,-;�'1 ,rx•yx..,.:,.,1 t,,;,< id•;{;:Cr: '.hom.s n" itt•'ens:. h n11�E al:`11 • a.t. .t t exit .:r,. s:.r.�a��(3 .,.,>, a,,,a s.5>,..s.. .;�:f(y.._1`: X .t„ P Q r 1;, � .. irt''•a pro osal 't build?: f 1 3. l'�p t.Y t;., r. ;J.i;'y;,..;...,,, $ � `�. ,p., P•, `a<�;�1�►#�'Y �f w ,;'Jr�, ,, , � �� ,f: �. k��`,�� ,rFo�era}p�osd•nt,�,says his„co,�ripany,, '-,::�,- piidominium' `complex`',on•`Y!Lake }iti�" ri • x 4' f ,,4. „ ,+, .„,; �k;�',4+�, i`�doesn't plan to do anythtng.cheap,'} .y r "`,c F W,=3 Y, ,',1 lashington`nortti o!.Rentiydalc', ar?; tp %u,e,"', r ,1i' u ., ,>-;r s°,:'',';A. ,, `are, ince•re`in•`our;•efforts•to' : {'u '„ . . , ', ,• r d, ;(r• .. - «� /r}i,.; T S� tia-i,J�,..a da eA. r�{ a 9 �•,+ In`,view'of'its;location''on<'tjcet 4;A 4 .'fi�{At. 'a ,�' ' 7' `.� �w3 a d,9':.s ? etiiiiii:ot:`credit f pr'the'come rashin'ton and,•th c er"tof a J:j i ,. b i JI/,. a ''' ,, ;V.s� t k►e,t, 1 .the la, .: Q g ,.,�� h�' �'� �'i• r�'it�h' <i� �f��,.,.,,,�'�. 9,.d', • �, �nin�;C In- ie area, we feel.an=environmental `f 4` 'J t 'fi'�,.;,,nussion•Wednesda i'-' - ?•r,: ';. r;, ' 1 't' Y� ppact.statement is;necessary,'? l r=i .Mni '_, : ?i' ., �a= ss ,: �' y(s .';Thompsoi-';and ,-,\la1•1'aRupeiks,",-a "1 , ksen°.told the^city's planning eon="�e ,,, iii, ,,.:N (. r` r, 1, eopsiiltant`for the project, asked the ,i L ' f3[rrtl,. ,. tfl, ( r • {e �o .� ?�s1 'i�, ' •t' f1 iA .5, !, i;ssion.Wedi esday.", ; ...:+'a" ''` .f rr`,, vacf. r- '"t. pt k •fcommission�;for":a colld4 iona1 re i` .' , 1:' `�'. ,y ' 1 p'w t �' �A"3'd i£3" a ! di..�r.,. :,, .. .1:J," „, Citizens:federal Savings;$ Loan'.,,F, ; .. , > ,r )c41',1, r'1, .r� � �� ,na� 4N �t �afi': �o 4ef ;i• h L'.�.�: i =1��? , �'• ssociation'° f Seat has•proppsedr,fr , Fa s ' ,>i, I . , :.4(E04lrUn, Y r..''0• o t1e�T �r r.+ .-� �, ` �" a , t less i our,;ca issiQn;i will, :• .:n unstruct• ion•s;of';'the`.'Z (p=stoxy/ 56-rpoj r ;j .,� ,war,xo,.`ing',to';give, us a'••r•easo•nbleiindica�' ,..' ..� t'complex liear,:the no?rthe iin 4 t+° ' ; trir,?;a!, //��iiiii0�'1� r l"i)i=-0'R 040. 9-k Af,;::eunditio;1 .1,,rezgning,,`,'WO,..';...:,,,.,..',.....;:,..r 'truer ^ , .,.r .t. d ,.. x•,", •• /S ./,..etCx. .'!!� YR •9 9.e. r.a '#^.d.v, - r truer‘of:.-Ren on. S9merresident,� ff,'p:(1�41•(.10•4'F r}; .4.i,4 is f,# 'oaii eejQ;�y�tliitfi hii•tik=,k�y',41; PAilf F,0#uy don t';ihave•? i`:project.fii'r!,T? -,;':t- :,F: n, t. : A, •-• •-- s�7 -.•,:I. .q-i,,11 ' 'J: r .J;.ne!'V!_f_;•'YC..v..t 'IF ,.,,4,'.r.t„'.B SI,. [, �,., .1-..,',. ^-;•,Il,; ,P:/ j-- ;1 '-''' wt.a; "1 ,ors•.•;i x �$.e'. ,'1,. .^r. �§;'.:+ �4.r l4. . •',a"1,,� s ;n , �1♦ n 3 • �i" `eiiCS.said;! `'?i;.- ;t; .:,'::'r',i �;,.. f'.:,.,,; ,,. ipley Lane,ju t to.tbe._nartkO the k. se4.ya_'ve:°,o t;,: I aRes<-Co A; ;::,:., - ;,��e'''ly'!;`'r'.n•`t,�.ir'.<?;.,..'FY"'S]d';�'r lt�,'�f:f ,?T.'[w+;•1#;.. �'�'�.'E'''v s'`•� I �•A'j"' :•� roposed complex, are:;fightm•�',the,,f.N, r a ` f -4.1,I^~•:�,. ••co nii 'i on;'.chaii an Clark`.:r' , r, ',.;�' �utult _'i;lup;boa,,d„.s,..9..s�:the.�.t� ,j �t1t:�.• m. s�i ?, ; evelo ment. . . .xr„ �',", `-� yy,, p� de aid',the cit attorne `has 1`' ' p .{,_ ;,Lake,W,. .hiii i --ori,;Sh/'}+e :i$` e: ait' lN';T^gg ' W I s„1 Y. Y• :'' +.'sell' ;1-`r`�.t.: r .!•!1,.. O� .'7�t..�'...,��,..f.�,. • .A g t. 1 • J'�Y''1� Y'at Citizens Federal.plans'to:,:sell'the=:;; e ' ` _ '" ,?i-rtiled"•conditional.'rezones;'cant be its for .remainingh,,wildlif a`,`re,uge,,,,:,on;;the"< .. • n o at least $60,00,0 But Ri, i_• =<<: granted ;•The commission;voted to' eastern,shore.,of tt Q:lake;,' •` -,:,,,''r;,`,:•ley-Lane residents'are worried'the • 'I'r'' '' 't111''rponti iue, its'public.hgarin =o *,the flue .of'their property mi ht dro 'Hanson.isi,:also`eoncerned`:'abQutR,=c;,: ro osal until,June 26.,;,; "Y` '` ' Citizens 'Federal changing..its',•plans?, .1,...' e.Ripley Laneresident,:Thom iiey're'also'concerned•about•;wver-; �'°,'- n �,:,. .p y ,` ` �. ow parkingfrom Lake Washin n: '',titter the land is rezo ed;, 1 ;,a' 4' 'as`:Bu cldn �Q ,. . `�tnfi c gham;;spoke;-in 'fayor`of•'::':.:.' :, cores blocking their narrow.lane, .•S i1t,'`:..What's'i'to' 'keep•'.''him;,from'; '..5:t the proposal at •'Wednesday's meet-' : ' _ Carl Hanson Lane's''irepre`:•.: .`ch'anging.,his:'plans.;,and:building':,a`'-::,1 'ing,:4'; • „�! :j , ?r: ..,r:.-.lu-:� .,..',-�;/4..i416v �' ,�_•. """�'p'a{.d�t":..;�}... _.+....cx i•: ^yf_4. „•.'1.,,. / ::1 44reietiaF.::..ath:;.,y.;.:r.o_:._„ .... ,s_.,:twrr:,yl•;•+i^•iak,�fiJ+;ht.'•:jw':Ni.�':,,::.ti:.e�>SQ..L'r.l a'':i�:i1t:P;".e-n:,I rti4i+Fs'?:� 4 4 OF R •?) U ~L+ PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON,WASHINGTON "MR O „� MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 • 235-2550 CO' 4rfO SEP'o-. MEMORANDUM May 23, 1974 TO: Gerard M. Shellan, City Attorney FROM: Michael L. Smith, Assistant Planner RE: Citizen's Service Corporation, Rezone G-6000 to R-3 The Planning Commission at present has a request for zoning reclassification from G-6000 to R-3. The property is located between the Misty Cove Apartments and North 52nd Street, west of the railroad tracks and Ripley Lane, on Lake Washington. It has been determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is required, and it is in the process of being compiled. Citizen's Service Corporation has in essence requested contract zoning subject to a number of conditions including the preparation and review of the Environmental Impact State- ment. A copy of their complete proposal is attached. The Planning Commission has asked that we attain your opinion as to; 1. The legality of the proposed rezone method. 2. The possibility of conflicting with the State Environmental Policy Act. 3. The various ways that this type of rezone could be accomplished legally. 4. The safeguards to the City if such a rezone were granted. 5. The addition of other conditions if the applicant agrees, (i.e., Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission. Attachment MLS/cis .67 ' i} I& J ..f` q i FEDERAL SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATION 1409 FIFTH AVENUE I SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 1 623-6900 :Fri ''-7 .4.:s :x "_ May 22, 1974 LAKE WASHINGTON SHORES - Proposed Change of Zone Procedures he Planning Commission of the City of Renton is asked to recommend approval of the R-3 oning subject to the conditions outlined below. The applicant, Citizens Service Corp- ration, is willing to comply with all of the state and local regulations and do the equired work, but must first have assurance that the change of zone request will be ranted. Practical economics do not allow heavy front end expenditures unless such ssurance is granted. The approach listed below will provide the City of Renton with he complete assurance that the property will be developed as proposed. With the assur- nce of an R-3 zone the applicant will move ahead and develop a time table to meet the equirements of the conditional rezone approval outlined below. 1. The city staff with the assistance of the applicant shall prepare and circulate the EIS based on the submitted draft. 2. The applicant shall submit a final site plan within one year from the date of Council action, complying with the recommendations of the Planning Department _ and the State's Shoreline Hearing Board. 3. The applicant shall receive an access permit from the Burlington Northern Rail- road essentially in accord with the site plan and the detailed drawings that have been submitted. 4. The applicant shall prepare and submit the Shoreline Management Substantial Develop- ment Permit Application. This permit when granted, will insure the City that the development will be done according 'to the approved site, building, landscape, drainage, and grading plans. 5. The applicant, at the time of filing the final site plan, shall apply for "Mining, Excavation and Grading Permit." 6. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan of the entire site, including significant existing vegetation to be retained. Any fencing shall also be included on the final landscape plan. 7. A copy of the Homeowner's Association agreement shall be submitted for approval by the City Attorney. 8. A copy of the Covenants shall be submitted to the City Attorney. 1Respectfully Submitted, CITIZENS SERVICE CORPOR4TION, a wholly owned subsidiary of Citizens Fe4xal,S/pvings & Loan Association 7 / / DAVID P. THOMPSON, President .\ 1 Wednesday,May 22, 1974 Record-Chronicle Page 23 • • r k rive on a ane 4S � ( • • can befrighteni, n . , ---Driving up Ripley Lane in the northernmost corner peeted to sell for at least$60,000 apiece. ; of Renton can be a little frightening. "How can a luxury complex like this hurt ly eiaty The street is situated between the eastern shore of - values?" Rupeiks says. "If anything, it will' e Lake Washington and the Burlington Northern railroad them. 1t ,.c tracks, north of Kennydale.It doesn't go anywhere.It's "We want to create a project Renton can be proud • a dead end, feeding about 35 homes along the shore of of. the lake.And it wasn't built for modern cars. - Rupeiks also disagrees with Hanson on the existence - At some points the lane is barely wide enough for of wildlife at the site. two compacts. Wider vehicles have to practice a kind "There is no wildlife," he says. "Sure, there are of automobile etiquette - one car pulling to the side to , ducks,but there are ducks everywhere." let another by. Hanson says muskrats live on the land. He says a "This is a blind, narrow road," says Carl Hanson, stream through the property serves as a spawning Ripley Lane's representative on the Lake Lanes Com- ground for salmon. munity Club board. "The developer says it's a drainage ditch," Hanson 'Hanson and,some of his neighbors are worried traf- - says. "But it used to be a spawning ground before they fic problems on Ripley Lane could get even worse if a got a hold of it." proposed 56-unit luxury condominium complex is built The developer needs a rezone from the City of Ren- on the shore at the south end of the street. That's one ton before it can build Lake Washington Shores. The of the reasons they're fighting the proposal, known as . planning commission has scheduled a public hearing at Lake Washington Shores. 8:00 tonight to discuss the proposal. The complex is being developed by Citizens Service Mike Smith is the planning department staffer han- Corporation. A consultant to the developer;Val Rupeiks dung the rezone application. of Seattle, says Lake Washington,Shores won't use Ri- "We've always maintained it's not a suitable site for pley Lane as an access road. • a high-density complex," he says. "We think possibly "We have an easement to build our own entrance that whole area should be maintained in its natural under the railroad trestle," Rupeiks.says. But Hanson state." -and some of the'other people who live on Ripley Lane "We're worried about the character of our neighbor- aren't satisfied. hood," says Hanson. "That's why we're concerned "We can't stop them from using their land,"Hanson about this complex. says. "But on nice summer days, what's to keep the "Once the developer gets his rezone,what's to keep guests of the people in the condominiums from parking • him from changing his plans and building a higher all over the lane and clogging it?" density complex?" , Access isn't Hanson's only concern. He says the site r;. 1 of the proposed complex is the last remaining wildlife Irefuge on the east shore of Lake Washington.He's wor- ried about the value of his property decreasing. And04 many of his neighbors agree with him. + As of Monday night, 32 Ripley Lane residents had OPEN SATURDAYS signed a petition opposing Lake Washington Shores. yy� They suggest the land be used for single-family rest- 10 �] yy� to 6p111 deuces. U in ` Shores. Consultant Rupeiks says the 2-story complex 1 will cost $3.5 million to build. Condominiums are ex- of e PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RF,NTON,WASIIINGTON' • biLLO MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 • )(Egx*%3,1g 235-2550 • °,I CA PI T m.OF May 22, 1974 Mr. and Mrs. Carl Hanson 6615 Ripley Lane North Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Citizen's Service Corporation Environmental Assessment Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hanson: Enclosed is a copy of the environmental assessment for the proposed condominium development north of the Misty Cove Apartments. We, have required a full Environmental Impact Statement, which you will receive a copy when it is ready for distribution. If you have any further questions, please contact this Department. • Very trul yours, Michael L. Smith • Assistant Planner Enclosure MLS/ms • 0/7iz P/!S RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MAY 22, 1974 MINUTES COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Humble , Larry Gibson , Anthone Mola , Norman Ross , Arthur Scholes , Patricia Sey- mour, Clark Teegarden , Bylund Wik. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Y . Ericksen , Planning Director; Gary R. Kruger, Associate Planner; Michael Smith , Assistant Planner; Mounir H . Touma , Public Works Department; Willis Roberts , Recording Secretary. • The May 1974 public hearing meeting of the Renton Planning Commission was called to order at 8 : 05 p. m. by Chairman Tee- garden . 1 • ROLL CALL was taken by Commissioner Mola , inasmuch as Secretary Wik had previously reported he would be arriv- ing late . All members responded present with the excep- tion of Wik , who arrived at 8 : 30 p . m. 2• APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Chairman called for additions or corrections to the minutes of the meeting of April 10 , 1974. Inasmuch as none were offered , the minutes were declared approved as. written . The Chairman called for additions or corrections to the minutes of the meeting of April 24 , 1974 . Commissioner Scholes requested that the record indicate that Ross voted in opposition to the motion continuing the Chicago , . Milwaukee , St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co . special per- mit request indefinitely subject to completion of an environmental impact assessment and referring the appli - cation to the Community Services Committee for study. ACTION : MOVED BY SCHOLES, SECONDED BY SEYMOUR, THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1974, BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. - 3• CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS : REZONE: A. CITIZENS SERVICE CORP . ; Appl . R-756-74 ; rezone from G6000 to R-3 ; property located on Lake Washington , south of and adjacent to N . E . 52nd St . The Chairman reminded the Commission that the Citizens Service Corporation application had been continued in order to review the environmental impact. He asked the Planning Director to bring the Commission up-to-date on the rezone request. . - Mr. Ericksen advised that the staff had completed its review of the environmental impact assessment , and it was determined that in view of the site ' s location on Renton Planning Commission Meeting May 22 , 1974 Page Two Lake Washington and the characteristics of the area that an environmental impact statement is necessary. The appli- cant has been informed of the decision . The Planning Director also noted receipt of petitions . from adjacent property owners and area residents express- ing opposition to the request and indicating their concerns . Mr. Ericksen stated that it was the staff recommendation that the item be continued , pending development of the EIS and allowance for appropriate review. Noting the staff recommendation for continuance , the Chair- man invited comments from the audience . Mr. David P . Thompson , President , Citizens Service Corpora- tion , distributed a proposal to the Commission outlining conditions the applicant would meet , should the Commission recommend approval of rezone to R-3 . Mr. Val Rupeiks of Clark , Coleman and Rupeiks , consultants for Citizens , reviewed plans for density , parking , height and land coverage and contrasted them with requirements for R-2 and R- 1 zoning . He estimated that finalization of the EIS will require forty-five days . Mr. Rupeiks asked support of the Commission for a conditional rezone proposal . Mr. Thomas Buckingham , 5025 Ripley Lane , Renton , a neighbor , spoke in support of the proposal . Mr. Louis A. Bergan , 5029 Ripley Lane , Renton , indicated his support of the proposed development. Mr. Leonard Steiner , Conservation Chairman , Seattle Audubon Society , spoke in opposition . Discussion followed regarding the request for a conditional rezone . The Planning Director stated that he would check with the City Attorney to determine if such a rezone would be acceptable . Mr. Rupeiks requested that they be notified regarding the Attorney ' s opinion . Mr . Ericksen stated that the staff would set up a meeting with them to review ques- tions raised . • Mr. Harlan Lewis , 9909 N . E . 1st , Bellevue , asked if a mobile home park is allowable in an R-3 zone and was advised that it was subject to approval of the Planning Commission . ACTION : MOVED BY HUMBLE, SECONDED BY ROSS, THAT THE CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION REZONE APPLICATION BE CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 26 PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SPECIAL PERMIT: B, SHELL OIL CO . ; Appl . No . SP-734-73 ; special permit to construct a petroleum marketing plant in H-1 zone ; High- way , midway between Olympic Pipeline - Mobile Oil site and Longacres Race Track . Reminding the Commission that the Shell application had been continued from the February public hearing , the Chairman asked the Planning Director to review the status of the request . .___ ----^-24 .aNd7 / e 0YY II CY �7.-�- -7 � 4 o % - c N -A �NVr ,Arid bag% r, --D--" N ----,0-A-- -D-„,,,, ,r-f-7-r.!4^d/ 4/14 9 __ )40-77y, ).0._//10_, ./ -:-7/?Y.7 ,c-:776"/," z/7' .2 ..1------,-,--7-- 711/74-7V, . / r/4, 2:41-72--v--acif --) ,--tA-77/, --,4, c} ---7-7, , di --a - e"--drpi-- 2 /'"''d) ''"Ale 41:4_ C' 7 , ,I. e'''' ',,:fzcz 11 '-i --'' ' -"t7. . - - /9 ? ffis1-174 "g/ Z6G- 'i° , _S7 P91 ' -1'44.-v-► A/ d-wp . --)--c-17/1-7-2-1, --e3.7v 4/7.-4 /71IIIN #.1",/ t.. :1/72,tier/9 .71/ 72 e ,t �"TIO - 1 ° "yip --, ' ° -1421;'X'i ;4- "' 77. ' 1161 r 007y 7,IPIVfr 6", rileP 2' ' ne-?:417,74.0444/ -tom .moo / zr•etla 't " E.I., ,71( ;1=-Al.vj ,r--p C-wr.A-,t.04v 7"-1447-" (74- ' ram - - / 1 / 144,..7gX -yam4iry ;0��, , 5- ., t.. � �h � /, o �- 4 �-It" c-- ° `Tyres . , . . ' • •-4/----)762 ''''--;'', z-i tf).0-1-7-/7/17 /-1 4-/r---,-cs-1-•----,,.,,,,/--r'i fe/..•.-3-)?.,,%--7 / ,1/. , (2/ (7..--Y...--*',._,,:IS_./, /:.,....•.'.,.,.':, u6',/1e././ ..,, ,./. 1 , ) • ( /) / ./ .--"-- • --• 7-::';',. , i• 111141/1 '/ I -C 2 ..'.:,,' .' , / • ' / V r_.> .-e14--r-u_7_.,,,_cif ..._5/3 i . ••'a. ,-7721-•//.).2 ----; - ----?,-,-P9e , 7 _c; ,"%-' / (/ ,...-- / / , i • •-- --7 --/-0. 7- d-74.-vy /.gV . / - ... _--,--7 -,)?;-/-,-i . , . 7,74, I C7 I ? 17"1-77.57')1.1-FLIZ i . • i- .. • . , ., 1 ' --- . \ 1(( r I 1,-, d ': / —271•--.2 ''' .2 / / x.-4,7—),--.--- ,--w..—,2-7-->f-71/1 "-x---u------1-7 2-'77,4 "j7) • E--E 3 . • , , (.._ 4 c 9 2,. - "---'— ' / /-*--,7•TX 4- 7- 7 /,0/C)t-,y z.....K g9---,,t)?•74- )4,- 2;I: • r.'14.- --)--'6-c - ,1-•-' // q9 --r1(9-7- 17 • "-7-,1---al->-, cl/ / / , -r-12 - p ,.7 -- 2v., , .--)7.- -#77‘4-7;(7" '‘.'<• ?--"'.7 ' ''',,,'2"4L-f. ..,5 i>41' )C 1 1 9 .:1(r4 .. . 4rLee..,d1 I , ) 1/1... I l -,,- ,-1,4_4-7,-,./.--. V ---)""'4-7-7 ' i ?..) • . ----LIg-vv' . j 717,:•-) 1716s-:y1 ----/--- --•1,-2-:),./ ')-Y ,-):71-) --K;)74)? 4,0 9,.7 ... c2 .••••• •••••••m........... • .?.";1:11frlf, .t- 4444,AX,V4 - 7; 2/1,-x*tirA-4- 1 th.' 4.-&-, (1P7-4-11-$4-L1 I ChZes, 1444-4a-'' /L"1"--1414- 1 Z-- ..e.-1,1a4.,..4 ..47;ee,0 . e ' etr-201.. 0 e 1 4-X a.•,0"&el i 2:6,07 4 4•0 0 1 11 `-e1Z.,/la`441,144 eg#1. 2Z4.fi 1,yr.0 0 V.4,4.440,74-444-7 5,10i rAPI 411'4y .441 o elF-3 t /0 6.4.0 je-4241 . 4.4V6-di .4-e4424 1 'Ae‘ff ea-1/•••.„( p.47.44,14,414...) 19407 .e, djmedipe4.4 a 7/9 f _..L24-e4A--14'),tstri,"1.02..40..a4.‘-del 1 /1011104 t.41 ,e110t,014...e. /144 . ta,li---V .27L41 '''.444-4,011•4 Loier,47,e. ..2:6ef- A Ziole,Z/*- .•°e%.e 04"Prit‘i' ,K vAld.a144,,e4L, j / i .,4fte&t.4 PArtilfri: ,,,,,,,z1144,6 ep,r } , # /2/44:44-40444-4_ • ' • /ft. 7.4, 16444A- A t ,, i • k 1— 50 8 — 7° v Ce?"0 t/Clee Loci:4 pic— 6--?I( :6, ,V i?e7L-eps I ( / 1 ..- , , • , :. (D/2- S t— ) `&4•A(J'°-, •:•. - ).._A- „li-ret- , 6.."-? Y --. . 4 Ipr.,.i.- --7.-L., 6- 21, /7,—„,_2_,,,r. ,,ci .7, /,/,;E=F---- —,—",. .---2_, Z----? • ', ,_2---.4—F _Z-,-,,-0-E.--7 ' Y1.1 c. i / ' • , , ilLt L, Li/ (>// 3 4dec) -(4 ,eut -, , )\.L f _.-, / ei- .4 R ,, o _ / 2/1z_ez ‘6 qAA , . ,, Lc / 1 7 ,1* .•• •• . ^ . . • • • tL7 ( -‘4-727L/71?7,-7/2,42/270P-r-74971y Z.: 9 ---, A s d-D v 2 „, 7,_,/({ 97/ " -77. 0 tc7,7 v72 yr.,,,,),)7/ 7-72_. :?-' ( • G PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 RENTON,WASHINGTON tti ,..I nMUNICIPAL BUILDING 0 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 0 235-2550 0 tD• ® ' SECC-46 May 17 , 1974 TO : Files FROM : Michael Smith Assistant Planner RE : Meeting with representatives of Citizen ' s Service Corporation Attendance : Joan Lankford , Gary Kruger , Mike Smith - Planning Dept . DeEn Lang , David West , Jerry Olmstead - Clark , Coleman & Rupeiks , Inc . Joan Lankford, Gary Kruger, and I met today with the abovementioned consultants for Citizen ' s Service Corporation . We told them that an EIS would be required due to the fragile natural areas of the site . We spent the .majority of the 2 hour session reviewing various staff comments to the environmental assessment . We reviewed the steps and procedures involved prior to commencement of construction if the rezone is approved . This included : 1 . Submittal distribution and review of the EIS 2 . Approval of rezone 3 . Site approval (if required as a result of rezone approval) 4 . Special Permit (fill) or fill and grading permit (depending upon extent of fill and grading) 5 . Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit 6 . Army Corps permit (if necessary) 7 . Building permit . MLS : ad e/1/z er's /e e..J Renton Planntnc; ommission Meeting May 8 , Y�74 Page Seven 3. ZONING COMMITTEE Commissioner Ross , chairman , presented the committee ' s recommendation regarding PARKING IN THE CBD and noted that it eliminates the requirement for parking by pro- viding an exemption district . Discussion followed re- garding the committee ' s rationale . Responding to Scholes , the Planning Director stated that the parking and loading ordinance requires that if there is a change of use , an occupant would be required to meet the park- ing requirements for the new use . He indicated that a number of alternatives to the parking problem in the CBD were considered , and it was decided that what is proposed is probably the most logical solution . ACTION: FOLLOWING DISCUSSION, IT WAS MOVED BY SCHOLES, SECONDED BY ROSS, TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL THE MAY 22ND PUBLIC HEARING AND TO PLACE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR RESPONSE. MOTION .CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Seymour left the meeting at this time . Ross reported that the committee met to consider the SCARSELLA BROTHERS REZONE APPLICATION and indicated that their recommendation was available . Scholes , chairman of the Community Services Committee , to which the item was also referred , requested that an opinion from the City Attorney regarding Shoreline Management jurisdiction , inasmuch as the master pro- gram has yet to be adopted , be provided before the Committee can respond. Discussion followed regarding timing for rehearing the request. ACTION: MOVED BY ROSS, SECONDED BY MOLA, THAT THE JOINT COM- MITTEE REPORTS BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR ACTION AT THE MEETING OF JUNE 12 . A roll call vote was requested with the following re- sults : Humble - No Gibson - No Mola - Aye Ross - Aye Scholes - No Teegarden - Abstained MOTION DEFEATED . ACTION: MOVED BY ROSS, SECONDED BY HUMBLE, THAT THE SCARSELLA BROTHERS APPLICATION BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF JUNE 26, 1974 . MOTION CARRIED UNANI- MOUSLY. Ross stated that the Zoning Committee had met on the CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION REZONE REQUEST and was ready to present its recommendation . Discussion fol - lowed regarding the timeliness of the draft environ- mental impact statement which was distributed by the applicant ' s consultant to the Planning Commission Chair- man and the Zoning Committee . Mr . _Ericksen indicated Renton Plannini, omission Meeting May 8, IY74 Page Eight that the staff is determining if an EIS is re- quired at this time . Ross called for a committee meeting for 7 : 30 P. M. , May 22 , to consider the findings of the staff. Ross advised that the committee had met on the .. i ORDINANCE ON STORAGE OF TRAILERS , BOATS , CAMPERS AND SIMILAR VEHICLES with a concerned citizen but that it was determined that in view of the heavy workload , study on the item would be held in abey ance . B, AIP - PAW A detailed agenda of the forthcoming AIP-PAW joint con- ' ference in Spokane was distributed and discussed . C, RESIGNATION - LYMAN HOUK The Chairman recognized Public Works representative Lyman Houk , who was attending his last Planning Commis- sion meeting . Mr. Houk recounted highlights from his eight years of attending Planning Commission meetings and indicated his appreciation for the cooperation and courtesies extended to him by its members . Chairman Teegarden stated that the Commission appreciated his services , was sorry to see him leave and wished him good luck in his new position . As there was no further business before the Commission , it was MOVED BY GIBSON , SECONDED BY SC�HOLES , THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . The meeting was adjourned at 12 : 00 A.M . I � Byl V . Wi k ,\ Secretary Clark Teegarden , Chairman eil Z ei7s' ti ~ 4:✓ ° ) PLANNING COMMISSION ®' RENTON, WASHINGTON a. ., MUNICIPAL BUILDING 5) RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 Y BA 8-3310 yy,2QORT CAPITAL OE,a� 'ZONING COMMITTEE MINUTES - MAY 1 , 1974 ATTENDING : Norm Ross , Tony Mola , Jim Magstadt , Harold Lee RE : ORDINANCE ON STORAGE OF TRAILERS , BOATS , CAMPERS AND SIMILAR VEHICLES The Committee invited Harold Lee to their meeting to discuss R. V . legislation . Mr . Lee ' s position is to eliminate the existing ordinance on trailer location or enforce it. Staff and commissioners noted time and effort already expended in research and drafting of a model ordinance . Comments by the public to additional R . V . legislation were discussed and reviewed . Committee informed Mr . Lee that this was one of many items they have been discussing and presently it has a low priority . They would contact him when Planning Commission reviews this item again . RE : ' NESHEIM , BITNEY & GROUWS ; Appl . R-764-74 ; REZONE FROM GS- 1 TO L-1 ; PROPERTY LOCATED ON S . W . 16TH ST . BETWEEN OAKSDALE AND PACIFIC AVE . S .W . Recommended L- 1 zone with restrictive covenants similar to those of the Austin Co . Members felt that the L-1 would be consistent with other recent zoning south of FAI-405 and north of S . W. 16th . (Check landscape clause in Austin Co . restrictive covenants . ) Commissioners noted the available building envelope com- pared to adjacent facilities and determined that the cove- nants would not be unduly restrictive . Property owner shall maintain the following setbacks : 20 ' setback from the westerly property line and if adjacent to the proposed P-1 Channel then not closer than 20 ° from said proposed channel easterly R/W line , 60 ' setback from southerly property line , 30 ' from easterly property line and 60 ' setback from F . A. I . 405 R/W line + landscape pro- . visions . . ZONING COMMITTEE MINUTES - May 1 , 19 /4 Page T w o RE : CITIZENS SERVICE CORP . ; Appl . R-756-74 ; REZONE FROM G6000 TO R-3 ; PROPERTY LOCATED ON LAKE WASHINGTON , SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO N . E . 52ND ST . Zoning Committee reviewed site plan for Citizen Service , discussed access and received copies of the E . I . S . assess- ment statement. Requested staff summarize the statement for Commission review May 22 and to determine whether statement would have an effect on the potential rezoning of the property. Would like to have a pre-meeting at 7 : 30 p .m . , May 22 , to discuss this item. Other pending items referred to the committee were reviewed with a determination that current zoning questions require immediate attention and other items would be reviewed when time permits . Meeting adjourned 11 : 15 p .m. allIAL11 L. F r 3233 [ASII1IKL AYI ,E. SEATTLE,WASHINCTON,9810� PHONE 1.206.325 9729Ra,r :fats.i*.. • L., • a. *v.•.gina[eNi•sq.* April 30, 1974 Clark Teegarden , Chairman Renton Planning Commission City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Teegarden: Included herewith are twelve copies of the rough draft Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Lake Washington Shores development .by Citizens Service Corporation, as promised at the Public Hearing on April 24, 1974. On page 58 of, this document , we indicate that there is no permit for the existing grade crossing in the vicinity of the Misty Cove Apartment. Subsequent to completing the draft , we received additional information that the J. H. Baxter Company ,has permit number 86859 (NP) authorizing use of the overcrossing. In our review of the history of the subject property, we note that a change of zone to R-3 was approved by both the Planning Commision and City Council in 1968. The latter action was contingent on the waiver of, or payment of the $100 easement fee to Northern Pacific Railroad Company by the benefiting property owners. 'It is apparent that this 'was never consummated as the city's file is still open on this case. After a complete review of the above case history, i.t is our observa- tion that the current proposal before the Commission more than meets all of the requirements set forth by city officials during the pre- vious consideration. We are sympathetic to the Commissioners' hesitancy to accept site plans and so on at face value. The proposal of our client is not "eye wash." They have every intent of complying with the final site plan approved by the city. -Inasmuch as the city does not have a vehicle to process planned developments , we are authorized by Citizens Service Corporation to work with the city to accomplish a mutually acceptable approach , be it Restrictive Covenants and/or Bylaws, or some other form. It is essential that timely progress is made during the consideration of this change of zone request. We are available to meet with the Commission and/or the Planning staff to work out any necessary details. • Respec ly �mitted, 1 Vale s Rupeiks VR:em O ' ':,' 11 1�� Enclosures "f %‘* \ ,��9 x, Renton Planning Commission Meeting April 24 , 1974 Page Three Humble - No Gibson - No Mola - No Ross - No Scholes - Yes Seymour • Yes Wik - Yes Teegarden - No MOTION FAILED . ACTION: MOVED BY MOLA, SECONDED BY GIBSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEAR- ING UNTIL THE MAY 8, 1974 , ADMINISTRATIVE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3- NEW PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS : REZONES .4e A, CITIZENS SERVICE CORP . ; Appl . R-756-74 ; rezone from G6000 to R-3 ; property located on Lake Washington , south of and adjacent to N . E . 52nd St . The Chairman requested a briefing from the Planning Director. Mr. Ericksen pointed out the location on the map and pointed out significant development in the vicin- ity. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan. indicates medium density multi -family use . A draft environmental impact statement was received on April 23rd . The staff recom- mended continuance to allow for review of the EIS . The Chairman invited comment from the applicant. Mr. Val Rupeiks of Clark , Coleman and Rupeiks , intro- duced people involved in the project : Mr. Thompson , President of Citizens Federal Savings and Loan ; Mr . Parr , architect ; and Mr. De En Lang , project planner. He des- cribed the 56 unit condominium development plan proposed for the 5 . 8 acre site . Access will be via one-way streets under the Burlington/Northern railroad trestle . He stated that they plan to observe the thirty-five foot height limitations and are trying not to infringe on the views . Mr. Carl Hanson , 6615 Ripley Lane N . , Renton , representing the Lake Lanes Community Group , stated they are interested in the proposal in view of serious concerns regarding prev- ious development plans and noted access as a primary con- - cern . He stated that any development in this area would have an environmental impact , stating that it is the last wildlife refuge on the east side of the lake . Mr. Rupeiks , responding to the Chairman , indicated that environmental questions were addressed in the environmental impact statement. Discussion followed regarding the time required for review and public hearing . Consideration of the application as a rezone only was discussed ; however, it was decided that an environmental impact assessment should be made prior to making any decision . Renton Planning Commission Meeting April 24 , 1974 Page Four ACTION: IT WAS MOVED BY SCHOLES, SECONDED BY WIK, THAT THE APPLICA- TION BY CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE MAY 22, 1974, PUBLIC HEARING AND REFERRED TO THE STAFF AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND REPORT BACK ON THAT DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. $, LIVING MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION OF KENNYDALE ; Appl . R-761-74 ; rezone from P-1 to G-7200 ; property located on N . E . 27th St. between Edmonds Ave . N . E . and Aberdeen Ave . N . E . Comments were requested from the Planning Director by the Chairman . Mr. Ericksen described the site . The purpose of rezoning is to sell the property for single family residential development. Potentially there are four building sites , de- velopment of which would be subject to the Subdivision Ordi - nance . The request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan . The Chairman invited comment from the applicant . Mr. Sturman , 2624 N . E . 20th St . , Renton , President of the Kennydale Memor- ial Association , read a resolution passed by their Board of Trustees to sell the property to provide revenue for needed improvements of the meeting hall . Mr . Martinson , 1105 Vashon Ct . N . E. , Renton , stated he plans to build a home on the site and that his inlaws may also want a portion of the land for a building site . Following discussion , it was MOVED BY MOLA , SECONDED BY ROSS , THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ACTION: MOVED BY MOLA, SECONDED BY HUMBLE, THAT APPROVAL OF THE LIV- ING MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION OF KENNYDALE APPLICATION FOR REZONE FROM P-2 TO G-7200 BE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AS THE REQUEST AGREES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. Discussion followed regarding public right-of-way and utility dedication for development of the site . It was noted this possibility would be reviewed , should future development re- quire it. On the question , MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. It was MOVED BY HUMBLE , SECONDED BY MOLA , THAT A FIVE MINUTE RECESS BE DECLARED. MOTION CARRIED . The meeting was recessed at 10 : 15 p .m . and resumed at 10 : 25 p .m. with all members noted as being present . C. HAROLD W . HILL & LOUIS B . ROWLEY ; Appl . R-762-74 ; rezone from G to M-P ; property located on West Valley Highway south of Ralph Leber Co . The Chairman asked for a presentation by the Planning Director . Mr. Ericksen pointed out the site on the map and noted signi - ficant landmarks in the vicinity . Proposed use is a warehouse and office structure . Applicants have indicated they will comply with M-P standards and the Soil Conservation Service requirement regarding preservation of 2% of the natural area . The property will require fill subject to the Mining , Exca- vation and Grading Ordinance and also jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act will apply . The requested rezone is in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan . • �?yf�}}` r �•`s t. `/�fI1Q 0 14•k�.t • Syr �Y.��•a k,. ,°;}� u. 3233 EASTLAKE ALE.*SEATTLE,1 ASHINCTON,98102 * PHONE[206.325°9729 cz.re: ces * 9i...s.vs••*al.*Nueaw.'ac es (O E./1fT 23, 1974 ckg\\lb rRAPril 19?4 Gordon Erickson, Planning Director APR City of Renton _.� ,...�•---�" Renton, Washington 9 Dear Gordon: ,, � 1j11G DC-QQ This submittal is a follow-up of the earlier, April 3rd, application for a rezone of the property controlled by Citizens Service Corpora- tion. We are herewith submitting to your office the following material : 1 . An aerial photograph outlining the property and all existing uses in the vicinity. 2. Site plan of the proposed Planned Unit Development. 3. Cross sections and locations of the proposed entrance way to the property. • 4. A draft Environmental Impact Assessment of the Project. As you know, we are unable to complete an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the proposed development unless we have secured a rezone of the property by the City of Renton. Detailed architectural , drainage, grading and landscaping plans are being prepared for submis- sion. A postponement of a decision on a rezone or a continuation of the Hearing will impose an unreasonable financial burden on our client, Citizens Service Corporation. Time is of the essence, and before our client makes a final financial commitment to the Project , we must have the City of Renton's approval of the requested rezone. Should your office have reservations on some of the items contained in our request and the site plan details, we would suggest that you make a recommendation to the Planning Commission •to approve our request , subject to reasonable conditions that your office may impose on the Project. . I am looking forward to seeing you at the meeting scheduled for April • 25th at 8 o'clock p.m. Respeyt-FuT yu i tted, J /` Valen,t)/fts upeiks VR:em Enclosures .. .. I. i• 1.', 7 ,'I l ' 1 fldf' 1i1.{1 ' v Ij { I KING .b'�UNT! I ' ' Jto t. �iii:�;,y t ,,;' '((`�. WATER DISTRICT n, ,•::.I: . .��,'� �,:., NUMBER 101e 2/57,/a ' , 5806A- 119TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE,WASH. 98006 •'.PH.746-0751 4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPLY TO Henry F.McCullough President ' , 74-4-53—W • Paul C.Patterson l Secretary 1 ' April 22, 1974 , ' Robert D. De Lappe Member MANAGER , I , , ';,,Sam Macri , '0'', 1 ^I,�' a •', •L' •. ' ,,p,r :• 'Citizen's Federal Savings &' Loan Association ' , 1409; 5th Avenue , Seattle, Washington 98101 , , ,'' Subject: Citizen's Service` orporatlon " • Lake Washington" Shores ,;I•', ! A Planned Unit Development, 6 Attention: C. E. McAllister, Vice President , Gentlemen. The District is responding to the above subject related to , capacity of existing water facilities for service. The District, at present, has three (3) 6" Main lines under' highway 405 that service residents on Ripley Lane at the South, ' L, • ' to Bagley Lane to the North. These three (3) )6" Main lines are ,;„,.' under reduced pressure at the following locations: ;,.' ( 1 ) S. E. 73rd (2) S. E. 64th r' (3) S. E. 59th. The Main line pressure on the 6" Main; line that services all the residents on the Lanes has a static pressure of 90 P.S. I . The last residual taken by the District was when the Misty Cove Apartments was constructed. The residual at that time was 80 P.S. 1 . The Fire Flow showed 1 , 100 G.P.M. if we can be of further service,, please do not hesitate to call or write. Very truly yours, 1mL ,,' .; Sam Macri , Manager tll SM:sh i l ,,, 1 , 9A i 1 I 19� V , ..1 , -.bit So i// v PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 620 SOU I N G RAINY WAY - (206) 255-2464 6 1/6! RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 April 22, 1974 Mr. Ross Woodward Citizens Service Corporation 201 Williams Avenue, South P. 0. Box 239 Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Ross: With regard to your letter dated April 16, 1974, inquiring as to capability to serve your proposed planned unit development, Lake Washington Shores, Puget Power can make a generalized statement that service and capacity to serve is available to your proposed construction site. However, without specific load information, no estimate of cost for service can be made. At your earliest convenience, please indicate the expected nature of your heating source. If it is to be done via electricity, please indicate in KW the total load. Also, please indicate the energy source for heating the proposed swimming pool , as well as the voltage desired. Should you need further information from Puget Power, please contact Mr. Russ Van Buren in Renton at AL5-2464, Extension 207. Yours very truly, D. R. Trafford Division Sales Manager h C.) f ;# PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON,WASHINGTON 44 0 MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 • 235-2550 0AlTEDSEPZ�� MEMORANDUM April 22 , 1974 TO : Files FROM: Mike Smith RE : Citizens Service Corp . Rezone • I talked today with De En Lang , the project planner for the proposed condominium development. I told him that he and his associates would be •free to make a presentation at the Public Hearing , although a final decision would be delayed until the proper EIS procedures are carried out. I also talked of some of the potential problems and adjustments in the site plan as proposed (i . e . heights , setbacks , • screening , landscaping , maintenance , etc . ) . I said that there may be other adjustments as a result of the Planning Commission and EIS review processes . He indicated concurrence with this and stated that he would be submitting a preliminary dxaft, EIS on Tuesday , April 23 , for our review. I said that it would be practically impossibl'e to thoroughly review it prior to the hearing and that the hearing would more than likely be continued until the neces- sary review periods have elapsed . MLS :wr cc : G . Ericksen Pall :„. .. 2 , ,,,,, 1.4. Irc ]]: ,,e' c- WzY ‘,..; .,;,, .. . , , t N.3 FEDERAL SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATION t 3 1'l 1409 FIFTH AVENUE I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 I MA 3.6900 0 v-i P April 17, 1974 . Renton School District #403 434 Main Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Citizens Service Corporation Lake Washington Shores A Planned Unit Development Gentlemen: We are in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Assess- ment of Lake Washington Shores, a 3.57 acre residential Planned Unit Development, located south of North 52nd Street, west of Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, and north of a 50-unit __ apartment known as Misty Cove, on the shores of Lake Washington. The proposed development consists of 50 to 60 multiple-family dwelling units, a private club house and one semi-public swimming pool. Your comments on the capacity of existing facilities to meet the increased demand by this development will be appreciated. Very truly yours, CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION" .mac "� � e.‹?e ,, `r— C. E. McAllister Vice President CEM/j m enclosure .3: Renton Planning Commission Meeting April 10 , 1974 Page Six After further discussion of the direction to pursue , the following action occurred . ACTION: MOVED BY ROSS, SECONDED BY HUMBLE, THAT THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT BE REFERRED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMIT- TEE FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE NEXT ACTION TO BE TAKEN. ACTION: MOVED BY SCHOLES, SECONDED BY SEYMOUR, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE PUTTING THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR APRIL 24 , 1974 , TO ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT. Regarding the question on the amendment , a roll call vote was taken with the following result : • Humble - No Gibson - Yes Nola - No Ross - No Scholes - Yes Seymour - Yes Wik - Yes Teegarden - No The motion failed . Regarding the question , MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . The Chairman invited comments from the audience . ACTION : MOVED BY SEYMOUR , SECONDED BY SCHOLES , THAT NO PUBLIC INPUT BE PERMITTED AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED. 5. NEW PUBLIC ITEMS : The Chairman requested a brief review of items to be con - sidered at the April 24th public hearing . Comments and ques- tions were reserved for the field trip . Michael Smith , Assis- tant Planner, presented the applications as follows : REZONES -. A. CITIZENS SERVICE CORP .. ; Appl . R-756-74 ; rezone from G6000 to R-3 ; property located on Lake Washington , south of and adjacent to N . E . 52nd St . Mr. Smith pointed out the location of the property on the map and identified significant developments in the vicinity . He noted that adjacent zoning to the north is G6000 and R-4 multi - family residential to the south . He described the planned condominium development. He cited the following items to be considered : access , density , height and location of buildings , and environmental impact. The applicant is applying for a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit. is Renton Planning Commission Meeting April 10 , 1974 Page Five He presented a map depicting the proposed circulation plan adopted by the Committee. Responding to a ques- tion by Ross , if the proposed plan agreed with the City comprehensive street and arterial plan , Scholes indica- ted that the Public Works Director and Planning Director had supplied staff assistance but that the plan had not been submitted to the Public Works Department. The Chairman declared a recess at 9 : 30 p .m. t.o .accomodate the City Council . The meeting was resumed at 9 :45 p .m. with all members noted as being present. Scholes continued his report and stated that the Commit- tee agreed to the report unanimously. He advised , however , that if the Commission , does not agree with their report , then it is the Committee 's recommendation that Whitman Court N . E. should be vacated. Chairman Teegarden noted that the Council Transportation Committee report dated January 24 , 1974, recommended re- view of land use in the area affecting vacation of Whit- man Court. • • George Perry, Chairman of the Council Transportation Com- mittee , stated that their Committee had met on the subject , held one or two public hearings , and established a recom- mendation to the Council that they hold a public hearing on the vacation of Whitman Court. An ordinance to vacate a small portion of Whitman Court N . E. adjacent to Honey- dew Estates has been passed and has had its first reading . It was the Transportation Committee ' s request that the Commission determine , if the street is sufficient to handle proposed development and if this is proper planning. In the meantime the matter is held in the Council Legis- lative Committeelpending recommendation of the Planning Commission . Discussion ensued regarding the definition of the Council request and the response of the Commission to the Commit- tee ' s report. Seymour indicated her support. Ross brought up the ques- tion of the appropriate time to consider Comprehensive Land Use Plan changes . Responding to questioning by the Chairman , Perry stated that the vacation of Whitman Court N . E . had not been finalized because there was a possibility that one property may not have access , if the street is vacated. Discussion followed on further appropriate action by the Commission . Consideration was given to holding a public hearing , referring the matter to the Comprehensive Plan Committee and also portions of it to the Zoning Committee . James Magstadt , Assistant Planning Director, stated that the Commission could consider the following possible action , noting that the Council Transportation Committee is primarily concerned about the vacation of Whitman Court N. E. and that the ordinance has had its first reading . The Commission may decide to recommend either the vacation of Whitman Court N . E. or leaving it as it is , based on the Committee ' s study. The Commission does not have to hold a public hearing , as the Council is conducting one . The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan can be studied by appropriate committees as time permits . TELL-. ."DONE MAIN 4-3946 , 4 e.." (/ VEIL H. TWELKER & ASSOCIATES r ZS. / r.i.. , CONSULTING SOILS ENGINEERS ALASKA TRADE BUILDING ' SEATTLE. WASH. 98101 April 4 , 1974 : • Citizens Service Corp 201 Williams :Ave South Henton, Washington Attention : Mr. Ross - Woodward Re : Soils and Foundation Investigation For Proposed Condominiums , near Ripley Lane North, Renton, 'W'ashingtc,n L . Gentlemen : . At your request we have conducted a soils and foundation 'investiga-- tion for a proposed condominium project .to be located near Ripley Lane, on Lake Washington, Renton, Washington. We submit herewith . a report oF our Findings, conclusions and recommendations. ' • Site Description The proposed site is a relatively level , irregularly shaped tract oF land , bounded on the east by the Burlington Northern Railway right-oF-way, . on the west by Lake Washington', on the south by the Misty Cove Apartments, and the north by the N 52nd St [Renton] right-oF-way. Three occupied houses and two abandoned structures are located on the southern portion oF the property , and one abandoned shack on the north . The site is open, covered with grass, and has a few stands of alder in the northwest corner. A drainage ditch crosses the ' northern portion of the site to the lake. Soil exposures' are • oF brown organic silt in most areas, and imported fill [.sandy gravelly silt] along 'the east boundary where a City oF Renton sanitary sewer was, recently installed. SubsurFace' Exjiloration In order to ascertain the soil condi- ' tions at the site , Four test borings were made using a track-, mounted hollow stem polder auger . Locations oF 'borings are shown in Fig. 1 , attached. Samples were :taken at 5-Foot• intervals' . using the Standard Penetration Test, in whibh a 2-inch 00 split spoon sampler is driven into the formation by repeated blows of • a 140-lb pin-guided hammer Falling 30 inches. The number oF blows required to drive the sampler a given distance is a measure • oF the soil consistency . Subsurface Conditions Five principal soil units were encountered ' at the site, these are described briefly as follows : r r t' y Citizens Service Corp April 4, 1974 Page 2 1 . An upper unit oF tan to gray soft silt containing organic matter' covers most of the site to ' a depth of 4 to 6 Ft . 2. Beneath the silt unit ( and exposed at the surface near the lake at the north end oF the site) is a unit of red--brown soft Fibrous peat . It varies in thickness from 18% feet in the north to less then a foot in the southwest . 3 . Beneath the peat in the easterly part of the site is a unit of gray moderately loose silty sand and silt , 6 feet in • thickness. • ' 4 . In the southwest corner oF the site , the peat unit and silty sand unit appear to interfinger, with a unit of very • • soft gray to brown organic silt .whose thickness varies from • 23% feet in the southwest to 12% Feet toward the north. 5. The lowermost unit encountered is a dense gray, silty sand • and gravel with hard silt layers. It was encountered at a depth of 15 to 20 feet in the easterly part of the site and 30 to 35 ' Feet in the westerly part . • Logs of the test borings were combined with logs from previous • borings in the vicinity and topographic information to construct three geologic sections through the site; these are shown in Figs. 1 through 3 , attached . • Groundwater was encountered at a depth oF 2% to 9% feet below ground surface, approximately et the level of Lake Washington. Groundwater would be encountered in excavations to or below the level of the lake and would [on the basis of present information] be encountered either within the soft peat horizon or within the • soft silt . In either case an excavation could be made perhaps 2 to 3 Feet below the groundwater table with only moderate inflow, after which the inflow of water into the excavation [or the stability of the excavation] would make further progress difficult or impossible. Construction at the ground surface (graded areas, parking lots, driveways,' roads, and light buildings] will have no • effect on either the level of groundwater nor upon its movement to and from the lake nor will the introduction of piling into the subsurface soil units. Site Geology The site is located at the north end of a delta which May Creek had built into Lake Washington prior to ' the lowering of the level of the lake early in the present century. The soils in this distal portion of the delta consist primarily • of Fine-grained alluvium and peat , as opposed to the primarily granular. alluvium oF the southern portion of the May Creek delta, near the present stream channel .. Man-made improvements ( e. g. , railway , Freeway, sewers, etc) now confine May Creek to or near • the area of its present channel , this ending the natural meander- ing channel shifts which occl.irred prior to the advent of civilize- tion in this area. The project site is located a sufficient ' 1 1 Citizen, Service Corp April 4, 1974 Page 4 compression oF the thick unit oF soFt peat are such that this area could better be used more economically as an open space. 4 . Settlement oF parking areas and driveways can be con- trolled by preloading accomplished in conjunction with Filling oF the site. The details oF the earthwork pro- cedure will be dependent on variations in thickness oF the grossly compressible soil units. We recommend that a detailed exploration oF the upper soil horizons be made prior to undertaking this phase of the project . 5. Care must be exercised during the site preparation phase oF the project to prevent erosion oF Fill and siltation oF the adjacent lake waters . We anticipate , however , that with Final paving and landcaping oF the project , no Furture exposure to siltation would exist . Concentrated discharge oF storm water into Lake Washington should , oF course , be provided with closed conduit or lined ditches to avoid erosion. • • R. Recommendations Fur ace ism is design oF proposed structures will be provided at a later date, when structure types and loadings are known . The site itself presents no natural hazards [e. g. , landslide or liquefaction potential ] From seismic activity. We shall be pleased to provide such additional assistance and consultation as you might need in Formulating Further plans For this project . Very truly yours, NEIL H. TWELKER ASSOCIATES • • Neil H. Twelker NHT : acm F k• FEDERAL SAVINGS&LOAN ASSOCIATION 201ly.1LL1A SS.l p,IQQ1j P,"e8,� 6R Q$, 6V-1800 April 3, 1974 Gordon Erickson, Planning Director City of Renton Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: Citizens Service Corporation submits herewith our Rezone Application, Environmental Impact Worksheet, and support- ing exhibits for our proposed residential condominium development for property located on Lake Washington, south of and adjacent to N.E. 52nd Street. We are proceeding with the preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment, Shoreline Management Substantial Devel- opment Permit, soils analysis, grading permit data, and architectural plans. Our consultants are trying to have these data available to the City several days prior to the Public Hearing on April 24, 1974. If there are any questions, please call the undersigned. Respec fully submi ted, , R SS E. WOODWARD, JR. ice President/Manager itizens Service Corporation REW:wb Enclosures 1 ) U '� O• PLANNIN(, DEPARTMENT ® l' I NTON, WVASIHIN(:'1`ON' of MUNICIPAL BUILDING di RENTON.WASHINGTON 9H055 • 235-2550 0 (O. TFD SEP1 " MEMORANDUM March 29 , 1974 TO : Files FROM: Michael Smith Assistant Planner Re : Rupeik ' s Condominium Proposal North of Misty Cove Aprtments Today I telephoned De-En Lang of Clark , Coleman and Rupeiks , who is the project planner on the sub- ject proposal . I informed him that we had reviewed. the two (2) alternatives which he presented to us and found them to be unsatisfactory in terms of height, placement of buildings , and density . I said that the Comprehensive Plan indicates medium density multi- family and recreation in that area. This would pre- clude petitioning for any higher use than R- 3. I also told him the height limit in an R- 3 Zone was three (3) stories or forty (40) feet, and he could possibly have an extra half story for partial under- grounding of some parking . I also informed him that the heights should graduate down to R-2 requirements toward the north property line . I concluded by telling him that a proposal incor- porating these elements would be more suitable for the rezone petition than the alternatives he has pre- sented. Also , any other site plan details or further problems can be handled during the course of the rezone review process . MLS/ms • OFF U PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON,WASHINGTON O o � MUNICIPAL BUILDING ® RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 • 235-2550 tp A°g' ' �f�v MEMORANDUM D SEP� March 28 , 1974 TO : Files / FROM : Mike Smith SUBJECT : Meeting with Val Rupeiks and Associates re . Condominiums north of Misty Cove Apartments I met today with Val Rupeiks and Associates regard- ing the subject proposal . They asked if we could review the two alternatives so that they would have a better feeling of what to submit to the Planning Commission . I said that we would but that we may not have the time to review it by. Monday , as they asked . I also said that a reasonable request would be for an R-3 zone with R-3 requirements at the south end of the property graduating down to R-2 type restrictions at the north end near the single family residential area . I told them that this had been discussed at previous meetings . We discussed the possibility of restrictive cove- nants restricting the various heights , setbacks , and landscaping . They agreed that this might be a logical way to further define the parameters of . the proposed development. cc : G . Y . Ericksen MLS :wr 9 - REVIEW Br OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of. Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Comments : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date r DRAFT. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CITIZENS SERVICE CORP. FILE R-756-74 . 1 t I I ,t !I 1 1 T ROUGH DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) FOR LAKE WASHINGTON SHORES A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1971 PREPARED BY CLARK, COLEMAN & RUPEIKS, INC. APRIL 1974 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Page No. I THE PROPOSED ACTION A. INTRODUCTION 1 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .5 C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES 6 D. PROJECT COST AND TIMING 7 II EXISTING CONDITION 8 A. NATURAL ELEMENTS 8 Topography 8 Geology and Soils 8 Ground Water 9 Biological and Botanical Characteristics 10 Noise Level 13 Air Quality 17 Water Quality of Lake Washington 18 B. MAN-MADE ELEMENTS 22 Zoning 22 Land Use 22 Cultural Features 24 Population Density 28 Transportation System 29 Utilities 33 Community Services 33 C. CONSTRAINTS 34 Legal 34 Related Policies 34 . Action/Decisions Remaining for Implementation 35 SECTION Page No. III ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION 36 A. CHANGES IN NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS 36 Topography 36 Geology and Soils 36 Erosion by Runoff 37 Biological Alteration 38 Noise 39 Air Quality 46 Water Quality 47 B. CHANGES IN HUMAN USES 49 Zoning 39 Land Use 50 Change In Land Value 50 Cultural Features : 51 . Population Density 55 Transportation System 56 Utilities 59 IV UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 60 A. SHORT-TERM . 60. Construction Noise 60 Dust 61 Construction Traffic 61 Soil Siltation 62 B. LONG-TERM '. 63 Vegetation Removal 63 . Increase in Traffic Volume . 63 ._ Increased Demand on Utilities and Other . . Public Facilities 63 View Impairment 64 ii SECTION Page No. • V ALTERNATIVE TO PROPOSED ACTION 65 A. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 66 B. ALTERNATIVE USE OF LAND . 67 . High Density Multi -Family 67 Medium Density Multi -Family 68 Low Density, Multi -Family • 69 Single-Family 70 Open Space and Park Land 71 C. NO ACTION 71 VI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 73 VII . IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 74 REFERENCES 76 APPENDIXES A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN & TROPOGRAPHIC MAP B. SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR LAKE WASHINGTON. SHORES C. ENDANGERED SPECIES D. AIR QUALITY E. VIEW IMPAIRMENT STUDY F. UTILITY LETTERS III LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO. Page_ No. I - 1 VICINITY MAP 3 II - 1 PLOT OF L50 FOR AUTOMOBILES AS FUNCTION OF VOLUME FLOW AND AVERAGE SPEED 14 II - 2 TRAFFIC PATTERNS RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 16 II - 3 CHANGE IN LAKE WASHINGTON 21 II - 4 ZONING MAP, RENTON, WASHINGTON 23 II - 5 DISTRICT MAP, RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403. 26 II - 6 1-405 EXIT 7 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC COUNT 30 II - 7 LOCAL TRAFFIC - AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC COUNT 32 III - 1 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE RANGES . 42 . iv. LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO. Page No. II-1 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LAKE WASHINGTO.N WATER 20 III-1 TYPICAL RANGES OF NOISE LEVELS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE WITH A 70 dB(A) AMBIENT TYPICAL OF URBAN AREAS 41 III-2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS THAT COULD BE EXPECTED IN CONSTRUCTION AREAS SUCH AS THE PROJECT SITE 43 III-3 IMMEDIATE ABATEMENT POTENTIAL OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 45. III-4 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403, PROJECT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENTS FOR 1974 THRU .1978 53 III -5 POPULATION DENSITY IMPACT 56 V. SECTION I THE PROPOSED ACTION A. INTRODUCTION 1 . The type of action requested is the administrative and legis- lative approvals by the City of Renton to permit the construc- tion. of a proposed residential development on the shore of Lake Washington. 2. Official Action - Permits to be Issued: a. Change of Zone . b. Shoreline Management Substantial. Development Permit, in accordance with the State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 3. Project Name: Lake Washington Shores , a Planned Unit Develop- ment proposed by Citizens Service Corporation, a subsidiary of Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Association , located at 201 • Williams Avenue South, Renton , Washington, 98055• 4. Site Location: The project site is located south of North 52nd Street, west of Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and Interstate 405, north of Misty Cove Apartments and along Lake Washington to the west. The 5.80 + acre site is legally described as follows : 1 . That portion of Government Lots 3 and 4, in Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East , W.M. , King County, Washington , and of Block "D" of C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addi - tion to Seattle, Division No. 3 , according to Plat recorded in Vol- ume 11 of Plats , page 81 , records of King County, Washington , des- cribed as follows : Commencing at the south quarter corner of said Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , said corner lying North 88°46'.57" West of the Southeast Corner of said Section 29; thence North 0°57'43" East 2077.48 feet to a point on a Mutual Boundary Agreement Line as delineated under Auditor's File No. 6502051 ; thence South 57°12'55" East along said line 64.52 feet more or less to a point on the westerly margin of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, and the True Point of Beginning; thence North 57°12.'55" West along said Agreement Line 641 .99 feet to the Inner Harbor Line of Lake Washington; thence. North 45°28'30" East along said Inner Harbor Line 353.25 feet to the southerly margin of North 52nd Street; thence South 88°44' 10" East along said margin 432.89 feet more or less to the westerly margin of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of- way, said margin being on a curve with, a radius of 1382.68 feet; thence southerly along said railroad margi.n an arc length of 570.40 feet to a point of compound curvature, the center of which bears North 65°04'07" West; thence continue along said curving railroad margin an arc length of 37.93 feet , more or less to the True Point of Beginning. 5. Project History: The site as described above, less the south parcel known as "Buckingham property and Robbins property", was the subject of a Change of Zone application submitted by Ted Moser (the original owner) and J .' N. Waters on May 4, 1967. The May 24 , 1967 Planning Commission Public. Hearing moved the rezone (from G-6000 to R-4) application Hearing. be continued until • June 28, 1967 , due to questions of extremely poor access , the Park Department 's interest in the then 72nd Street, and the screening of abutting property. . Hearings continued , no action was taken until the July 12 , 1967 Hearing when the Commission recommended granting R-3 to that portion lying 310 feet west- erly of and parallel to the east property line, subject to 2. ' . • II rig4-1 7 54 . ,,& - • .- . -. i ,,,,;,-,$-•.' Tti_2.ii_v_r,„- __INI,,,,,,,....-i Pe ii--,e-C-----‘, "'- --•\5600- ---ZA. 7--- .... • • Elem 'T"____g_ITgf---',.i- Skim • Bk.1.\,V/ -.4••-,• , . • 1317.46 \-.IL ,....-... ., 3,,,,,• (,e i''',. is t iii> d' • \bop, .. \ , .../1 , •.-7*. . g A?, :.s-Ersz . i-:,„$,,,, • -.6//,#,,,16.". r ,. - v• lts Err set+ zit cy41 ka.,....... *--23, / I :. • 1 II! , ,.. • ,104.0i.i.:101;it .,' irs =:,..„„,, ...• Boeght.z-in.gdoll ,.,,. ,,i, ... 4 . 7: 7... r \N ---;_...,......-n, i • w - I Jr HiNSch - +.if•i.i..... jpee i OS . , \ v, is000 . :•...-roct in SE 59 Sr 16_0 st„, i@'• . S 1 1 •, ;.,......w .,II T - 4-- ; ••61 '11,—13_7 (.2 , (... 1 k;‘21.,.• ',OS gi? St 6i T ?. ,.r, . i ,7,-, A ' • .,ST 3 s 6, MCI , „..1 • . . . V l • i = • , e i 9 rg ,\ I • '. 0-s.1;iige 4 .. l' ;. '••' - . 7,40 iti.i6ch - LANE Al . , _\_ _ ,. 1 . S2 L' 'ST • Harlit d -4 - T 2 u"' • ': SE 63 0 ST g .; •-t's, -t, , am :NI . . •---.5E ••••41,11r115,-..,,. -- -- •,.4.7 - : ,.,r7"n•nr;+,,t...:,••••••:. ••••,1 • - 29 • •CO?? I . ' k'i• •Pigrifi-“••Alk5 * •:•••tj ''ce • :6.32, . .4•?:-•.'`'....' ..-'31 ••Aal . .5::...:••••••..r.:.:.;,. . i. Cr IS ::. •11 w 69 T - . . 2 .*' • -, • ; Vs 1 • . E •: ST \ _4,,43,4P 7(11: ,„, -,, . i,„ , _....- , • I. : -' .. %.,.4!sio- A,, ab!-. , I ,/ i.'",— - La • " SE 7d T 1,9 T , 7 v . !, . col if N,.. . , g ,....,..;::,• ' ':::1. u. 11 ,.: . Y . - i, .„,,,, A FEiFezrrlivsT•gdscs•E?R;.. ii*z ('.; : •3-s,',•,,4"? i 1 N_f.? .New .-.. :.-0,.....:•,..........:•-• > . • r• •••.;:) - - • Project S il...e...a !,4fr, _al 28,- lg. 1--I -- 720o 27- .4.•..:3 .,14,4,:..*3. .; 1.4 lin.e.L.1-1).Iv_ . , . 7 ., I a PL .„,a, 4 . • k 5209 /RIPLEY:1 .?!,..!;,•el, iii,L, ,Le.-'.1.,„,1 Bm . •;, '1' .4 i.'111%-.C‘3,. . • ''559 .s SE 73 44104.'`•• "'• , "Ze4 1 ' 'I 1 iwi:A, ... , ' . ' . 4 •., s • !,,x, ,'''' '', 7/ 41 1 ' .. . ''-‘ ' e.• .ST . . . .. .14y .... 7600 . .„, , • ( •br .'"'‘.,' •k'„;, ork Efeaeh.Assogri•\, - /i 4,1, .( ;15E '. > ,._,. ,,, '..9./...:,..1,•,/Park ,. .'. . , • Azi,,/ •: e .. . Is ii • EIS...AND, TS: 4'1,21.7? • T/ . (, A.4 4`%' i 0 S s'. '. 1 a 04A ,.., //, ' •S • -• ,IT - . . ' ' CEMIIIN , ,,_•, . . • , .• ( ....4 T . +01 : !awl bk.•"At„::;94;.• ' I, .•'-.- ,er/ 7Mo", -qr'.'r -., _r, :. .,A: #' .,'.44.' It(.4;/.' I 4400.--,7,:p:)% f o,q,//• Infer,) , ,- : • w 1 , ' I - - i lt 6,110.6. • •„62- 6 42-lic51,9 r•-, 5,!!1'r.,,, 70 1,, "' !*. ,L1 i . -.: //— .• • 1, • . A 0-14 .,,,,••••• '' ' - • °r!;;:; p, \\//\ \ > , Bpd. , A 4 • 4 „ •„1••,;:•••• u; • , •• N..... . \SE' 7 : sf.6° - ' . • fr.**. : ; '. „if: •--•-• . 1 a 8400 ../ !e- i.*,-• May ,N 4. T I ...‘„5., „ 1 , . ,..; >111 4000! ,' $ E i : it' : I ,/ • .3(1 i •/ J n1,. , 4V . 1 • ....„,,„.. .:,,'' 2 4:4',":eh SE 67ST AiC '.44 cj t '9'r '•.I • - - Illr... .3, ' , cy:,,, -'.ei3T:io---al- ' gZt) Sot:ih,Poibi 31 • 3600/ ," •/N.436 3? 3 N ''..*.''/ • SE :• ST .,. .Kenn.ydoeB7c..ti,rinzirr. ,'A ,4 1 • 0 st..0 ' ...d; • • I .... -- • • •1. , . •••-"4 • riji„, . ,41.;,. ,Kennydake N. 3= ‘. : :..'‘' 1, • , .. , .sE.---* 91 ST i it\ nv. i, ___, ..... .‘.,I ma' • . 1..• ' • - 4 Tr A. ..•••• i'li F! • 11) \ — --. • I .I I' • '• I-L-.W ..: 33 ST't , i ) .1 '•12.;,.,... , k. • . . •,•,/ 51 .. T - I ' I. `... '' • ,...../1". '''Lw .-q•L'4P-1311 '• I ' . '1' . 0 0)9' ..' G01.„/`, ,4. --k geOli7 i • 1 44.., - '. el.p. Colem'on Poin.;i:1.-1,', %I - •r N 30 STsT 171;;°111. -'.. El-,:'1.L.—.. —s -,% .0LD 1141k' •-V1 11, •• ',,I. 9 .--- I ' ,.,'' • N 8.P x / -T-. . C I .-kr--- i .- 4. - ,sz<,. •19, .. .\-_,-..., L \\\ SI,‘/.. .. . MEW -t g WI • „ •NE 28 T. ..J. Sg__9_§_iir 519 S 94,Pl . •1'. . ,..„. So '", 9600 '----- - VI• , • . •2eod• ss. a‘ - • A L 27 C7 . kv14 rilAIIIII14, ii' '/4.,.../;• „A:-44 59 I .4•1,,\•..As.t • )•. u•'. il..'",'?i,;.." • 6". ; . „,‘ •/ ,,,k , .• „ .a M 303 ... 1,, g • s . f:' \ v); •.' ' . . .• .. ' s's. s. , • .' /V:'1. 7 -'. ° 'Kean dole ,--, Re.ST ' • • . . l'' NE 2 il E. 14? 'Sierra FitS• . 9 S• .• . \ • . ..- 4' ' ark 1.. 1 .- li-:.;\ . . • - : .. ' .. . ‘‘ V, \ 4 , .-ii •• V NE it/ . i_J • a .• •• ai_•pd:t, . • 1..,.. 'Pc EleTi.Scho i- ...),.‘ :,.. .i.. ..i': . k_s , -,,,,.. '• .• . . , • . -. : . . .240d, , ,.\ . . ••:\- I ii- - -- iorpri • v, .\\• . . • .., •1 .s.E.1 STEti.„si.By .1 E e.,,Sgio, I 15: L.6 , • , :'' 1, ?'i Lk E 102 aLST. LO2,32 ' ,30 •sse ' I • . , ''. .3 '%, t :- i :•• .: • •6 -1- 22 STILI-1,N42.1S.T•.\ . ' .163 S r 0 . 1 435 ' • ....is\ .• , • !, '. ' 0 •"'• • 111 f: - I . . - r ,a,. _._... ___„.11 4.. ._„A,,,. _ , 4.,....i2sr. ,___SE '04°,4511_ . " • .. : ,,'.•\, "441 4.). NE . 20 . iC•e• •r v•• int /moo> ., 2006\ \ . •,1 • - u, NE . i P'"?• illT7 ','.../„.7,....SE tof,P '4 T.1 ' -IN 5.> -.° 41 • 1 .seATTLE.CORP LIMIT ' ',..6 - . • ..• . ., , ... .- ,ti . ; . 19 ST a... NI West /'_'..ce.I -• .. . , , 1,•,/ i •riSE• t,:' NE ' • -- ST \ E•i06'ST,/ E4- .4f4i- 7 A lEle 4hA; I I: \ '4 -.I •••7/'. '-J. 4'.-a: .s. //AN co I • • • • • • • , • • ... • ,. la 1 .ti 141 is Lt• 4 11 r, 1: ,,,..1404 :.:,r '',./ 1,. • 1 - 1 * 0".,,A,,,,,, , . ...., : NE la 1 5ST lei 11 "I" .sE r 7.L • 1 . , 0 Va, i ifi 4 4.ta NE 81 \,.. . . . . 4S,.•'' - NE nr77114-. SU ':6,17///"YA . ,e - • - ‘;- 1600 • •4- •' • 1 .ci 91111 tij• .t .4 NE i•PL. i 1. . ”, :, . ' '.....:.:• N1/4 . 1 41 ell°'II: , . ... • ' ' ite•.:,Lake Wow. • •• . 1 , .(2 . Mc.Knit t ... NS , NE TI4 r ••• . or., -- v , .1- .. . Bryn Mawr -• ,....-':::., • ..... .. \ ,..,•:,.......:•:•.) i ••••!W;i." ,,,,,..,..NE ST , I IR,itije.•r^/4" ..0 . 4 lg. '4' IZI • 0 ... . ,sr ' ,•,:,-..022___ 2, ss , •., -,. ... , ..--• i riiiii • •-.,... •.,. ,,..,.i..,.. : . . .. 120,,O, / .,_,...;_.,..,. 1 . ',,, .Ren.,t)it‘ , , .... .1 nri,7 yr ., 17 II si. 412000 .Hal458 I 'I iltd T kil, •'•A I i • 0 II 'IrigT, scIfIk •-1 cm,4 471` .•,•.. ....• .... . '. --.7.--. '''',' , si//16.' I•\'...------1.--- :I'''` 1 N • 1 ip• ' E.., % w l• INERFE ID ;••;:-'-.-7 , . z,;/ . . In char?,• • I-2, ...,.47 \ ,ct7,. 1 ••••,,t6r.. s A t.,,, . 1 •,..r . : • \r/1_ ,mvitszt. ri,SE 116 1___§... ,t, ,:.. •STG:5:2),.."4, :4 4 ,N .,,,,,„ ) lobo 0 ,‘ ,,, • t ',NI' ..1. 1E ' . ,t , • Of MIEN! V! ..:,- '......' 1;.. • . q. - t• •:-,• A ••.? - '--' 1 - - >.5E1'11 • 0? 1, Is .24 .., awe .,.„Ill ,, i . .•p 141 ,.1, ' • • 9. sr .,mi..• fg,. .ideti Ark , ' •. - 4 . , 4 . OEM, .•:.. ,,.. - •1 . - . - Nali; --'1'",.1•'- , 1 I 'Bo g -1, ctigi,,,.•, ,Ho . ._ Sch 4 v, ., .mynry.„. 6.4.3ii:.„.:',.. 'f.:::::.:". •_..... .;',11(1.-.... .• "'.' .• .1 • f-n. .nit..._ .ii: .0."...' ., --i ..„..,, ,,..x__. ...:_. _,/,/, S 120 1 nS.LT.4 _ MYfra / •-'7 I.',Ii.'a 1 .'8 •ST 61.617 rif ,..littl • ,k-,.- a——NE ' 7111"2 /1,, •12000 slt.,a;-:T .. • EritIM '..,...i. ','•:::,' ti6:i.i .00 If 1'.'. .'. ' • . . Intlift, 1 41 'ail 14 • ie . , . . .. - .ST z., a- rim„ >PlEllV;. tA t.44:,,. •..• • 1 '. .• .N z vs&1r40) ti..00 1 . i,, a.._j?.... 3 iir . . . ,.- ! - - pins, -Tam' a, i, • ., . ,; . „: 11%14: ,, ....11,46‘ VI 6 _ag uk -IE :,---e, ".. • , • rem, "1: tfiti\ '" I. s lif. N ":' - ' ..‘I'l `r.11 Riltottperin • jilt I irk.' - 'VEI• 12.4 ,ST • 1Di ' . . 1 'il .: . . " '' - . ' •-• . i ••,1 '1( / V.,.: ,E40 , i ‘i ' . :' ...'''' • -.4 * Oki,t, . .., _. I O4 ', ...., . .,• :.,..1. ,0g..: • IPPDX 1 ar al,,zZ . f \,.... ii I., ,, I, r.11 . • sorz,i; .. a ,,,,,:•,-,,, ,• , ., ,.....1.,...:1,..ik„. : x ., IR rr .• ,... , ' .•. . .. .... . . • VICINITY MAP, - . .. . . - • . . .FIGURE ' . • • access improvement. On July. 24,. 1967., in the City Council meeting,- a motion was made to approve the rezone, but was not voted on. At the April 15, 1968 City. Council meeting, City Engineer Wilson submitted. a. Non-revocable Easement from the Northern Pacific Railroad for crossing under the. tracks and the matter was referred to the City Attorney and the Streets and Alley Committee for review and recommendation. The City Attorney and said Committee recommended the accept- ance -of the Easement and the Mayor and City Clerk to be autho- rized to execute if the $100 fee is waived or paid by benefit- ing property owners. (May 6, 1968 Council meeting.) A memo from the City Engineering Department, dated May 22, 1968 , states that the access problem has been resolved due to the - acceptance Of the Easement and applicant's commitments. . A Planning. Department in-house memorandum, dated November 19, 1968, states that the Department had not been able to contact either Moser nor Waters through repeated attempts. The case was then assumed closed. . On April 3 , 1974, Citizens Service Corporation submitted an application for Change of Zone. • 4. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION' Area Percent of Percent of 1 . Area of the Project in Acres land area total area a. 56 multiple-family units 0.97 27. 17 16.75 b. Covered parking 0.24 6.72 • 4. 15 c. : Sub-total .(coverage) 1 .21 33.89 20.90 d. .Open parking & circulation 0.83 . 10.64. 14.34 e. Landscaping & open space 1 .53 • 42.86 26.42 f. Total area of Land ' 3.57 100.00 61 .66 • g. Total area of Water 2.22 38.34 • h. Total Project Area 5.79 100.00 2. Density Calculation (Total Land Area 3.57 Ac.) Total DU' s a: Allowable Density DU/Acre Allowed G'-6000 7.26 26 R=2 15,.24 (2 bedrm.) . 54 R-3 36..60 (2 bedrm.) ' . 130 R-4 • 117.60 (2 bedrm.) 420 . Med. Density Multi -family (Comprehensive Plan) , 73.00 • 260 b. Proposed Density . 15.69 56 3. Breakdown Of Housing Units a. : 5 Units - 1 story buildings • b . 7 Units - .1 -1/2 story. buildings c. 44 Units - 3 story' buildings . • 56 Units Total . 4. Total Number of Anticipated Residents A multiplying factor of. 2.5 persons times proposed 56 multiple- : • • • . family units = 140 persons. 5. C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES In compliance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and. other government regulations and policies , the project is intended to achieve the following objectives : 1 . To produce a development which would be better than that result- ing from the traditional lot by lot development. 2. Provide a desirable and stable environment in harmony with that of the surrounding area. 3. Take a more creative approach in the development of land, which will result in a more efficient , aesthetic and desirable use of open areas. 4. Optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines , consistent with private .property rights . 5. Encourage water-related recreational activities . 6. Take advantage of the flexibility in design , placement of buildings , use of open space , circulation facilities., off-street parking area, and to best utilize the potentials of the site, characterized by special features of water orientation , view, geography, size, shape and surrounding environment. . 7. Provide a motive fo.r. a reasonable profit. 6. D. PROJECT COST AND TIMING An estimated $1 .8 million for planning , designing and construction is to be spent over the next twelve to eighteen months on the project. The whole development will be constructed in one phase. 7. SECTION II EXISTING CONDITIONS A. NATURAL ELEMENTS 1 . Topography The site consists of two major topographic elements . a. Low Land. The southeast two-thirds of the site slopes gently from a high point of 28 feet above sea level at the southeast corner of the site in a northwesterly direction to the shore of Lake Washington. (Water level is 14 feet + above sea level .) The majority of the slopes are six percent or less. b. Lake Washington. The northwest one-third of the site, bound by the shoreline and Inner Harbor Line, is below the water level of Lake Washington. 2. Geology and Soils The United States Department of Agriculture classified the soil types of the site as Undulating Kitsap Silt Loam and . Rifle Peat. The Kitsap soil occurs in association with the Alderwood, Everett , and Barneston. soils, mainly on terraces in. the deeply entrenched valleys of larger streams and . glacial lakes . The Rifle Peat is widely distributed in depressions throughout both the uplands and stream valleys , but the larger areas occur in flat back bottom positions or swampy areas of stream bottoms and marginal to the larger lake.s. ( l ) Field investigation generally confirms such des- criptions. Seven test borings on and near the site indicated ( 1 )"Soil Survey , King County, Washington ," U.S.D.A. Series 1938, No. 31 . (1952) 8. that an upper unit of tan to gray soft silt containing organic matter covers most of the site to a depth of four to six feet. Beneath the silt units (and exposed at the surface near the `lake at the north end of the site) is a unit of red-brown soft fibrous peat. It varies in thickness from 18-1/2 feet to less than a foot. Beneath the peat are gray, moderately loose silty sand and silt in the westerly part of the site, and very soft gray to brown organic silt interfingers with peat and silty sand units in the southwest corner of the site. The lowermost unit encountered is a dense gray, silty sand and gravel with silt layers. The Geotechnical Consultant suggested that all major structural loads must be transferred directly to the dense sand/gravel unit which. underlies the site at a depth of 15 to 35 feet. This can, be best accomplished by means of driven piling, preferably of displacement type. . The upper silt unit in the southern portion of the site may used to support light weight non-settlement critical structures. Parking areas and driveways may be con- structed on fills placed over existing surface soils where these are of inorganic or partly organic composition. 3. Ground Water During the soil tests , ground water was encountered at a depth of 2-1/2 to 9-1/2 feet below ground surface, approximately at the water level of Lake Washington. 9. 4. Biological and Botanical Characteristics a. Flora The native vegetation in King County was dominated by a dense growth of conifers which matured to huge size, with a few small intervening open park-like, occasional prairie, or marshy areas . Most of the merchantable timber has been removed in the area. surveyed by U.S.D.A. in 1952. A second growth of similar coni - fers is becoming established, though slowly, in many places . (1 ) The proposed project site can be considered as typically having "small intervening open park-like and marshy areas" where conifers are nearly nonexistent. Vegetation, which exists on the site, is as follows : Trees Botanical Name Size Douglas Fir Pseudo-tsuga taxifolia 6" Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata 6" Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum 6" - 12" Vine Maple Acer circinatum 2" - 6" Weeping Willow Salix babylonica 6" - 24" Red Alder Alnus vubra 2!'_ - 14" Shrubs Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 2' - 5' Ht. Spiraea Spiraea douglasii 3 ' = 6 ' Ht. Swamp Laurel Kalmia polifolia 1 ' - 2 ' Ht. Ground Covers Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum Var. pubescens Lady Fern Athyrium filix-femina. Sedges Aquatics Cattail Typha latifolia 2' 5 ' Ht. Rush Juncus Spp. . 1 ' - 3 ' Ht. (1 )U.S. D.A. Series 1938, No: 31 , "Soil Survey ,of King County, Washington,".1952 10. Conifers ; numbering less than ten, are mostly around the two existing homes near the south property line. Willows , spiraeas and swamp laurels are mostly along the water edge. Alders, maples and most shrubs are scatterecj in the center part of the site. Cattails and other water-tolerant plants thrive along the lake shore and the northwest part of the site. In addition, to the above mentioned plants , numerous types of shrubs and fruit trees have been planted around the existing homes .. b. Fauna . (l.) . Mamma.ls A vast part of the Puget Sound Region is in the Humid Transition Zone, a Washington zone where mammals such as the Common Deer Mouse, Mountain Beaver, Red-backed Mouse, Pacific Jumping Mouse, • Marsh shrew, Coast and Townsend 's Moles , Townsend 's Chipmunk, . Douglas 's Squirrel and the Oregon Meadow Mouse are common. (2) Due. to development in the surrounding area and the earlier devel - opment of the site, game animals can not be found in the general. vicinity. The lack of conifers precludes the ,existence of chip- munks and similar small mammals. On-site inspection found no evidence of the existence of other mammals. (2) Birds Birds common in the Humid Transition Zone are the Ruffed Grouse, . Band-tailed Pigeon, Hairy and Downy, Woodpeckers , Pileated Wood- peckers , Trai l l 's and Western Flycatchers , Steller's Jay, Screech Owl , Brown Creeper, Black-capped and Chestnut-backed Chickadees , Bewick's Wren, Orange-crowned Warbler, Yellow Warbler, Black- throated(Gay Warbler, Robin , Swainson 's Thrush, and the Song Sparrow: ' Earl J. Larri's,on ; "Washington Mammals", The Audubon Society, 1970. (3)Earl J:.• Lamson , Klaus G. Sonnenberg, "Washington Birds", The Seattle Audubon `Society, 1968. 11 . In and around Lake Washington, the following Land birds and water fowls are commonly observed year around residents : Virginia Rail (Rallus Limicola) Long-billed Marsh Wren (Telmatodytes Palustris) Barn Owl (Tyto Alba) Red Tailed Hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis) • Great Blue Herons (Ardea Herodias) Mallard (Anas Platyrhynchos) SeaSonal residents such as American Bittern (Botaurus Lentigihosus) , Ring-necked Duck (Aythya Collaris) , are also commonly observed. . Other land birds and water fowls occasionally observed are . Hooded Mergansers (Lophodytes Cucullatus) , Northern Shrike (Lanius Excubitor) and Green Heron (Butorides Virescens) . (4) (3). Fishes Nineteen and one-half miles long by one to four miles wide , Lake Washington is one of the most popular and quite heavily, yet still underfished ; lakes in the Northwest_. Cutthroat , rainbow, steelhead , eastern brook, silver , mackinaw trout , large and small-mouthed bass , perch, crappie and catfish are found in the lake. In late summer a salmon run travels up both the Sammamish River at the north end and the Cedar River three miles south of the Project site, thus providing good fishing at the mouth of both streams for sea-run cutthroat. There is also a sizable sockeye run during the summer.. There is trout fishing throughout the year, but 'it is best, :in. Octo- ber., 'November, March and April . Bass fishing is best from May to August, also very good in late March and April , and fishing for silvers is best in May and June. (S) (4)Terence R. Wahl & Dennis R. Paulson, "A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington", Whatcom Museum Press , 1973. (5)Gord i e Freer, "Northwest Fishing Guide and Hunting Guide", Northwest Buides Publishing Company, Inc. , . 1972. 12. ' None of the above mentioned mammals , birds and fishes are listed as endangered species. (Appendix- C) . 5. Noise Level a. Freeway Most of the ambient noise environment in the area is caused by vehicular traffic on Interstate Highway 405, two hundred feet east of the project site. The freeway has an Average Daily Traffic count of 24,400 ADT northbound and' 25,300 ADT south- bound. Assign 11 percent of the total. ADT (5 ,467 VPH) as the hourly traffic flow. (6 ) Then the average noise level at 100 feet from this hourly volume, traveling at an average speed. of 5.5 :mph:, is estimated as 71 dB. (See Figure 11-1 .) Since noise from a line source decreases 4.5 dB per doubling of dis- tance, (7 )' a L50 level (represents the noise levels occurring 50% of the time) of 67, dB is expected at the far east side of the project area. , b. Railroad The project site is abutting the Burlington Northern..Railroad right-of-way to the east The railroad tracks , 50 feet from the property line , are being used by freight trains twice a day, . once in the morning and once in the afternoon. At 50 feet from a freight train in full speed , the noise level is about 76 dB: ( 8 ) Since the railroad tracks are used by slow moving trains only , a much lower ,noise level is expected..• C6 )"Highway Capacity Manual ", Highway .Research Board , Special, Report 87, 1965. ( 7 )"HUD. Noise Assessment Guidelines-Technical .Background", Report HUD TE/NA 172 (1971 ) . ( 8 )"Noise Pollution Now Hear This", U.S. EPA, 1972• 13, • 80 7— • 50 'd t 40 71 dB-- AUTQMOBIL_E_ , 30 70 S =----- - -----=---- ----- --r---- 20 1 AVERAGE SPEED Q 60 ' (MPH) Q I C , 71 J rn W z . , j 0 Z 40 Z 'Q38d8 -_4.-- 1 <to , 2 4. - 1 1 1 30 ' r 20 3 4 5 6 7 8 100 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1000 2 3 4 516 7 810,000 2 3 HOURLY AUTO VOLUME, VA.- vph o PLOT OF L50 FOR AUTOMOBILES AS FUNCTION OF VOLUME FLOW AND AVERAGE SPEED c. Airport The project site is located three miles northeast of. the Renton Municipal Airport. The airport, operated by FAA, is a Class I airport (less than 170,000 plane movements per year) , and has an average traffic volume of 155,000 PMY. The airport has a 5,400 foot runway and a top Plane Movement Per Hour of_ 150 PMH (including both VFR and 1FR) . (9) - The airport zone includes "all of the land within two (2) miles south and one (1 ). mile east and west of, or that part of the area that is within the city limits of Renton, Washington, whichever is nearest the boundaries of the airport, .- - - 1(10) The project site is not within the zone, and is two miles north of the normal flight pattern. Figure 11 -2 , Traffic Patterns , Renton Municipal Airport) The normal operation of the airport effects the noice level very little, if any, at the site. However, the Renton Municipal Airport is also utilized by The Boeing Company for transporting new planes from its Renton Plant to Boeing Field. The frequency of jet plane transport from the airport is one to two flights a week, depending on production volume at the Plant: These flights are using a take-off pattern of north northeast over the East Channel , and this puts the project site within one-half miles , from the flight path. Noise level of 105 dB(8 ) is expected ' at the site at a frequency of once or twice a week: (9) FAA Tower, ' Renton Municipal Airport, February, 1974 (10)Ciity of Renton , "Code of General Ordinance'; Title IV, Chapter 7., ( 8) "Noise Pollution - Now Hear This", U.S. EPA, 1972 15 • • TRAFFIC - PATTERNS RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT • EFFECTIVE. JULY'15 1970 ; CANCELS PATTERNS: KAY 1, 1969 - • • FIELD ELEVATION 29. APPROVED: is/J..B. DANS:KY CHIEF, RENTCH TUNER - - TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE 1000 EUSL FEDERAL AIIATION ADMINISTRATION. r ..' ! . 4.13 ,..§A-,r,'.7114....::• p( _ - .4,144• DER ��; HT14 ,y, c � yr 1� I c , 5 -_. --41 ,aaJ S1--- a r: ill. 1' L; Ai• \‘)• it E A �"s li tl ay M41 -:1--A .st-t;". 4:10r, 1 i ... .4-1,--;.;.=- rj __ .1: ,,, IL,....:„.........H.:___ _ ,li,__ ......--- i 1 .! N. t .,. • �, V_..... , .. ,0 • i I 1! 1: - --si `=:_ii\ ir,frxi ''. , - ' r , .:,.1, k ;-;'/- \_ • - r"-°- \ ‘ ' - -..-- -. ; ,.-t,:, \ •i( .1K• ' i -‘1-' ! 1 ‘,, \ rif )- ‘.\\ .in j =___1,\ • ,....x, CI -1 , • .‘ \ y ,: ,,, ----".:LL\ G .'' \ -0, -.. ,1\ 1 1 \ , v . ! 0 )-. %,\ tif-, -----: . a i 49,7,., ©� �� 1e. N I tar .I 1 ',./ E PM . 1 \ \ 4 \ I; !i . I \ . . Lfni . _T. - 1 ; ----. "I 1 "Tli I: I )4 /))\-7 il'h,:-_1. �� 1 WI_.\ . . l' r:I j! --a.... . I AsiLi _. urc cam ;/I I1; �' T \ ` i. ; I. • r� i. , 1\1, r-”r 1fw i .Own. r/ pi t 11 I I \� ; ,1• :,y; �� 'G•� UL.�t_L��.. L�L-r i. I. , 1 r--� ,.1��u�;`. ..[rrK�.. 1 lrli.4- �` -' \ r I, In3gy r't a �] O_ - - • �I I 1 j ` 1 142_,f"\f�•-�--■�1, li //�/• .// v PI ��U' i f© U��` D\ '/�, .i% JLt\11 I `l=/ laid -li M1 maim* /�I J�� , - i.. Cipill i "A4 -3-!" - [Jrila0 Lt.) fijOij -1(21W/ • 1 2.iii [if) 1.-"--.,..__. . , c_,1 L,_ :' ,. I 't • ii: a /i, ) 1 .._.-. lik ‘'elc-ic 1r6.-.P.,,,,Adp c,.,_ 7 wi . '14, \kfr---1 rj iH <r AffrW '✓ J - - OBIT/ C ,J�.. 1I\ (1 �rl , / / 111),,j(i---1 ,r OVA• ,, Aft C�NTE , I ffl 1l rll '1�sy ® • .x. ' ' -. .;..‘ 41110 A ii i i\I _ - - ---t.... _ , ---• .. t_L-.__, - i ,. il .- .N., :--,- ' POND CgITITgli. .H..1-€11-"IjE7r lil IE 111.. / li, --r•Nib..._ PATTERN FOR RUNWAY is: PATTERN FOR RUNWAY 33.- - SOUTH. WIND RIGHT TRAFFIC 6. Air Quality The closest air monitoring station is the S.E. Public Health Center Station located three and one-half miles from the project site at 3001 N. E. 4th Street, Renton. Another station is four miles from the site at Renton Municipal Building. These stations , manned by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, are the only air monitoring stations in the Renton area. (11 ) The stations are monitoring suspended particulate concentration and the sulfation rate generated in the nearby industrial area. Data collected from January to December of 1973 shows that the monthly 24-hour average Suspended Particulate Concentration at S.E. Health Center (now called Southeast. District Health Office-Seattle-King County Public Health Department) was between 19.0 and 56.7 .ug/m3. At the Munici - pal Building it was between 29.5 and 59.8 ug/m3, which is below the National and the Puget Sound Region Standard of 60 ug/m3. The maximum 24-hour average during the data period is 129.0 ug/m3 at the Health Center and 78.0 ug/m3 at the Municipal Building (Standard is 150 ug/m3) . The monthly average Sulfation Rate was between 0 .28 and 0.59 mg S03/100 cm2 (data not available after August) at the Health Center Station. (Appendix D) . Air quality index in Renton has never reached the alert level .. (ll ) In the immediate vicinity of the project site, the one possible pollution source is the J. H. Baxter & Company, a lumber treating plant and the abutting Barbee Mill Company, Inc. , According to Puget Sound Air. Pollution Control Agency officials , there is no air pollution problem created by these plants with the exception of a creosote odor, however , the Agency has not received any complaints from nearby residents. A long-term program to convert the Plants to a residential complex has, been proposed by Quendall Terminal . Thus , this would preclude any possible future industrial air pollutant increases. (11 )Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, February , 1974. 17. 7. Water Quality of Lake Washington Lake Washington is a nineteen and one-half mile long by one to four mile wide fresh water lake served by the Cedar and Sam- mamish Rivers and other smaller inlets . The 21 ,138 acre lake, with its 71 .5mile shoreline, has always been used extensively by surrounding residents for swimming, fishing and boating. It was also used as a source of drinking water for some com- munities and this continued to a small degree as late as. 1965. Starting in 1941 , a series of ten secondary sewage treatment plants were built with outfalls entering the lake directly. At that time sewage from 10,000 people in several communities was entering the lake. By 1957, the population served by treatment plants was 64,300, exclusive of septic tank drainage. By '1958, the lake had become so polluted that it was declared unsafe for swimming, and other recreational activities were almost prohibited. The major changes imposed on the nutrient income of Lake Washington since 1940 have been predominantly in the inorganic materials , not 'organic, and phosphorous was affected, in proportion , more. than nitrogen or carbon. (See Table ( I-l . ) . In. 1957,. concerned citizens persuaded the Washington State Legislature to pass an enabling act which permitted the estab- lishment of a metropolitan government with specific functions, and voters approved the establishment of METRO. Although the public vote to divert the sewage from Lake Washington took place in 1958, the first diversion did not occur until March 1963, and it took five years more to complete the system. By that time the lake had changed considerably, reaching its maximum enrichment early in 1963.. . After the first diversion , which removed about 28 percent of the effluent, the lake 18. . stopped deteriorating as indicated by the transparency and phosphorous content. (Figure 11-3) During the diversion period (1963-1968) the lake showed signs of recovery, and it changed sharply between 1967 and 1968. The phosphorous content of the surface water decreased to about a fourth of its maximum value , phytoplankton decreased, and trans- parency increased. Nitrate and carbon dioxide did not decrease as much as phosphorous. (12 ) "The waters of Lake Washington are now clean. Damaging dis- charges have been eliminated. Beaches are open and fully used." (13) (12)W. T. Edmondson , 1972 (13 )U. S. E.P.A. "The Metro Story: How Citizens Cleaned Up .Lake Washington," August 1972 19; TABLE ll-1 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LAKE WASHINGTON WATER 1921 . 1948 1961 1964 1969 Ca 7.3 10.9 16. 1 8.5 8.8 Mg 3.3 3.0 1 .31 3.5 3.3 Na 31 .6 1 .23 1 . 1 1 . 1 H CO3 33.3 31 .3 27.4 38 40 SO4 . 4.2 8.6 7.4 8.4 8.2 Cl 0.7 4.8 7.4 6.5 3. 1 Si 02 6 5.9 7.0 6.4 8.6 Dissolved Solids 53 60 62 54 Conductance 91 109 97 Notes : 1 . Measurement taken at central and south end of the lake by various agencies. 2. Concentrations as Milligrams per liter. Conductance as Microhms at 25°c. 3. Source: W. T. Edmondson , "Nutrients and Phytoplankton in . Lake Washington", Symposium on Nutrients and Eutrophication; American Society of Limnology and. Oceanography, 1972 (Excerpt) 20. 40 • • 30 . . . • } = 4) • • 20 __ • - O \ O _ • • •. • • • 10 — • • 0.. • 4 - ; • 3_ - 2 • • • • • • • • w a). . • N • • • • • 1 • • • •:_ 0 I I I I I I I 1 I ' I 1 I 70 — (J.) 60 -- • 40 — • o rn 30 20 • • • • • 1 • 1 1 1 1 1. 1 100 — • — w.— % 50 --1 w > I 101 I I I I �I I I I I Di 1. I I I U11 I I I I01 I rn uA ' u� •o .O rn CHANGE IN LAKE WASHINGTON Source: W.T. Edmondson , "Nutrients And Phytoplankton in Lake Washington", 1972 FIGURE 11 -3 2.1 , . . •. .. . . . . .. . ZONING MAP . . . • RENTON WASHINGTON - • . • •.. . . • . , . . I .. • -• . . . . . . • . • . MAP SYMBOL DISTRICT USE MIN. LOT SIZE IN SQ. FT. .- • '\ TT'; 'a , . • Z 'U- ....; 1 '-',L• • . R-I .RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY 5000 • 4 • ' -- .'11111\ ; ''' '' ' 1--1 • . SR-I II 'II, II 7500 7 ,"4,444, /, .,_:4 1 • . . • . 0 . is • eo li 35000 - / 'R-• /A... .. . . ,,,.. . • . • ,. .1 II 8000 . S. . 0-7200 • .. • 11 11 - 7200 • • ''. . . . if,,,,I • G-6400 .., • • 11 . li 6400 . ..,/ 1 -! •1 iq,..'..C.t. •• • ,) • § , g • 0-9800 I. II .. 9600 ., . 08-1 .. .. 11 . 35000 7. H-I /, ki, , . S-I . .. II N. 40000 , _,. ( " +.i•11.•.4y . . 1, / R-2 ' - RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY • • 5000. . ! • SR-2 10000 . • I • • •.• . ,. •, ..., „ . . . . . . . •II II ' I . 0-3 • . RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY 5000 . . + i R-4 I' II 5000 I . .... . .. ' P-I PUBLIC USE . 1 16 II. . .; - 1 1 •' • - '.• - + • .G.qaoo .• • . • a-I .BUSINESS USE //° • . ., i . • . . . . . .. . . . . B-P BUSINESS PARKING . , , . . , / L-I LIGHT INDUSTRY • . ' ' •v.'''.; *••: '.-,: 11 4 ;t,' '** e.; , " ''''''-I .,' , • .* • ' . H-I HEAVY INDUSTRY ,, ' • , T . TRAILER PARK M-P MANUFACTURING PARK ' I '' '''• . •• „. .•. R-4 .. G-96QQ i . ,. . ••.1•.•..; , • .. . i l'A'ANN111"1f/7, _ .., . ., /ig.41.7., .;.". ."I If . • • • ' .4? i ...."Winn 1:'. ' • ' •• • . . • . . , , • • , • .,V r R ...:-.2. ; .1 I. . ' - • - • . • • . .' ...aitillIIIIiiil IiiiiIIIIIiii..... ,• • '' ( 4,, \r•.E.:-.;:,Fiv.c!"-. ('1! 7C12. .s. :'GS-.. r'•-• .•" 1 • •• • •, .. . - • • • .. . , • . , NORTH • '. • ..'7-1 4N+t, ' • • up'1 i ,.,‘ ..• 7-,•,-...:_.----. 4•\GS'I. '1...7- , . . , - '. \$!.:•"---Z•;..:71'.'." a •..J. •••.' •• •• - , .. • .. • .800 ,0 • 1000 2000 ' 3000 - • • • SCALE IN FEET, .•• . \ .. .G.-600g , .'„ 2. , 7,, . .. .".. . ,. . t . . ' .. • • ...... • . .. . .. . . • \ ." \•: ; : 1.. • '' .. •• ...1 .- .•. - 1 .".."...1.• • . . '1/41.-";61 • • . . . • • . . . . . \ Ar•'. • • i . 1 , i . ....• .. .. • ,. •;,.."'"';' :.'.•...:- :• • ' ;',.!Yri! , ._ . .-.... . • .,.• • . \ .\ ... ' li G-7200 '"..I --; . ; . . 1 • \ A. • . . • . 4\ \ I. . . . . .'. .. • i ; it '"11.e-1-. 7r20 • : - 7i \ PI• -•-•• . '" •'''.... '1. i•--.'; (7'. ...': ;-1 G-. °-•*'''. . .. 1 '•'•`.!ot..?...•,.v•;',.'••••`..47ik.,S .,.,w,.... . , \ ,,..•, ,• ,,,•,„ ,....,..;..':.i0 . .,,...,'• , ,.,• - ..' • .• ,.1/ ••'''•'''..',.....41:,.:‘•:";•'..•:•\•'-4: . . . -" •. - • . .' • ,, e.,,T. , ..1'1i>. , ----- " , r17,?.';,'..,',.'1,..., ..,,Zt),:f..i,,,.\\.• • .: ' . . , ',', . \ i 'I i 1.1.. ,; ' ..0.4 ii.. • G •• I ''.... • •' V•••.":•••::1••••,..11..."•. ...ti•'41.....``..).....i. . • .1" )i-2 WI'• . A •••‘.1.'.tr;'''.:.;:..:t;...'•?,,.'.•'.,!',.......::•::,..,•+,...1 .... ' ..' • . . ' GSi" - 1"'•-;11--''•"' " ''•-tll''' • • • *, * \cf,\,k.',.... .••••'*•••,''.•'!..1•••••fe•`••'•ft:••••°71.'' .\*.‘,.... '-'• • . "• •J. ':: ;.;"ci:•-•do..' ,n 6., 'n ; '• .; .' "•' 3 .i. i , .5.11kila , I • ,.....,:,...,......-....„..,.. ,...:.' ,•• •••••,„ .„ , -,.. .., •• ' , ..,, ..- •• - p,;;': '...' ' MI '1. '- ,'. r,•....• ‘''''...." • I . • .,-i"..,:*"..!%';e4"', ' 1 Fi .°,:,11-,,"1111111 I n' '. . ;.• . . . •11II.y 1,?i i,(j i(i.,1h', •,:0i..,;i,. 4!.:,..ii.i,.!i,,•,.,.,,',.,'.,i-..i,,..,.,:1.•..,.\.1\,1:..,,..-,...,..i1.,\,.,.„,•.:,1.....,.•...-,,;'.:.,•.,•'',1,''•.t,•e:,,',1',,.,1,,•,•,i::.•'",.;5"1..:;.:,,..,.:.:.:. •,.,;.;,,ti;,i,.,..,,"...:y...f..•.,.:•..;..-."11 n7:•.,.;".,.!71!-...„-,.•:k:.,•t::,i:-:.,..t...'1;•;.i.,,..t,,i.11.i11i.4.1.,,.,:i.i,0i:i..i,i•.,.!11m;,.l11.,q:1i,.t0.,,'0,;.,!,:,:..;.,C,-,...,;,.;.14'7,,.,1".,.,,1,.,.?.•,,;!',,I',-',-.'1:1..I1::.'!:,..1;,„i,11,l.1.c..1.l1;11,...',1fi'I11.i:'.• 1I1.v,-.11I.,;)i..,k.!1..i•..1-,,,,'.'4 fi,11,?gk•--.,1..•;;,'''\,,,,1:,I;'.i.H'.1 1•,_. ,•,n 1 1 ;1 ''t;.....h.._•..'..''•/..e'. ..: ,,.;'• /H''•Y-Ij-.,.''..•',I,,:Rd,°;'ir',1••,.ry.r'\'.y•1..'.t:'...'.'.:'n;t.i•.l,-%,...•.‘1.\;.;."..•...•.•'.;,,.;•$'.''Rn'•L-:_-.\11•;3.-r7••g!;r7':,.N,y.h*'.A'-,';.l'..1;.l.;.:+44'Li'',L.,•...i•;'.,,a..•.'.•n,H.'.:.,':.f..,,,t.•.1,,,';1..,,;In,,,''0.,',.:,"1.:'•.'I.1 1•i•1T.'.- .2n;P'4i;'t!'":,..;i•...3'1,..•-.•,• 11 il4, 1 t ,. . : I( 0m1i , \ H.1 B1 ;;,•.•..„.••.••.,;...1,.•,.,1.1,i4,A2,.,+,'.ci.'4g4i;;)...::';,„,1,:.i::.'•.r.P'k'..••i„"eM;.-4,,,,...'*..,.4'''..,.•tm..*i..*:'e•.,.,:..:,'i.'1,'..,..,i'i.- .i11':--..4,'1.i,:.1..•.-4 ,t0••.0•-.--,.•.:• , , ,. i. ,_,, .. . ..:• ..1:'NIff:::‘... '••,,-.. • ':'.1.•' ..412tit.711..4V1v , ,k ) •s,,,1!IL....•',.,i::,r,i..fr. • ,'1:.t-4ri:.:1z...:1-i.C:3111,1D,13 I i' .:s', • , , 1 ' 1 i . . ,. . .. :.c•......k.NV,!.,:,‘...,/,.... 'R. ..,, y j•-___.;.10,-.1,ii, 1.;,'.h‘.!Nii. ;.;ti.; '.:.,.if , ''': '7 I ir': - . •".1•1 "•.#••,.....r.:".),,Ii Till,..1 I 1 1s ! 11 '. . •-1 . II \i .2N,'..- ...)f...i.; •".N.,•:i10,..%1i ..... ,t"' 1.. •;."'."-...,..,..i.,r- I ,71.•.!'." ...;1,.." '. •....,..'.', - • •,-; : ,'TO. .,'',:!. '" 11•••'IV! ' .1 . I. . . III v•I ' • ‘'. ,' yi) • ",.. .. 1 ... .1 1 •‘''''.1'''?.,':',?-::;;;.4.‘'' '.... •.;• l'•"2''4;;;;; I; .1.-'-''' ;;•;7\''''' ; \ni ; ; • • • ; ; ! ',0';,i •:,.,i,. . i .,.r . . ..... \ • • i . :Z:1.7. : 1, 'e),A7,•;',1,;• ' . " 1/4'..'?":.a --- ; „\,i\,i. ,'';• ', ., . : \1217..., • ."... . i .•-`441.. t 1 , 1 A ii 1, .; ; R44 .. / ',% '. . ' .•SR-I' ;'' .''/ ''.•. 'I.. T r. ,.; .\..,,41r,r, co a' •• " 0 .1: po i • f• ___ ,3 li •,•H. ,..,; ,,tt,» • . . ,i,i,rdotocto. .4,,It I, ,ft,I •1 jr, ra, Ill. .._ 61-iii,oz.... . ,,lr'.e. •• )'• ..:,;,..14...,,Ii.,.. .• 1. ',- •••••• .: • ".•.:.:.-""-.=.1 -min ..,r4- , ,- 0- .. \ 1.it t ? „ ir:olvf......,,,::r.,:- • 1. . cr. 1.:1 . '' 1“.1.,,.1: 1 -1, ' ...:":;* !'' .•'..; •,4.1.'h..f.....1'... 1r..1.,°9...,. ":;:. . 40 ." ' GS-1 ,• . 14,, • . 4 ‘....J.... 10.. ;,... ...',,, .1„ 1, , ; ;1 ' , !",,..;'11' • ;IiiiLtb," ' , • 1!. iir,r4.!•7 .':„ :,i1.! • , ,.. . . .,....cs. .44,.•' ...,.- , , :,.. , ; .., i , ,A•• • ,..,.,, . .,•, „:• „ ., • . . :,•.,,, . rr ; 4-,,,,.,o,,... • . ..,. ..,,f;';, - ,,., , '.; ,:, ,, IN ,, ;Ile: . / R.-;4. ,. ,. : ..• L-I .;.• •b. ' ' • - • . ' ' '1' ..I" -•'....11'4 '•4. ' ' '" 1,1 • ; ,,..v , . •.., ' I I,' • . •• •• . :,!‘6 • - ,,,,•,,.1 . • .....' .. " ; ?.1...rtir.s."4911 \FIll 4 . ip 1 - ",., . : • r' -•' - '-'-• --•0‘'---,--''-'--'--------"r: . ' ' , "`.• " . : .••• ''i l'' .; '.'....1.4. • ., .• ..;"...1„11,4 i.1 ' '' a-1, .,. ':I "I LI'N . .;4` 16.1 ..'i 1:'•,..I. , i . ;; 1 : , , •I•; .. ... ...... .... .•.i,.....-----li‘•,J•1'0.7'6' ' ..•"A'' - .4 rilliWZI1• I' 1 N ''`Ii '.: ' It• . • iil..4.' GS-1 'i • • ' • . .. ,.. . . ' . • .;I' .' ' .".1....'..•b'Mk)..„; 1 ':II...!!',,,...:r4-' 41:q , \..."'.; 1'1-;.;. y ..,4,. B-1 , tt'l I - t .' '. . . ,• . , - . . . . . . , . , • . • • , ,. • . . , . • . ... . . , . . . . .,... .. . . , . , . . • . . 23. • -. . , . • ' . . .. . ., . • • • . . .'• ' FIGURE I 174 . •• ' , ... . . . •.. , , • . . • • . • • . • : . : .• ,, ., . . . , ., . , , . • . . . . , . . • .. . . . . . . • . . . . , .. . ., .• .• . • ' . , . . ' . .., . . • . ., . . . . . . . . . ... . . . • • . . , . . . ._.... . . . ,• • .. • . 3. Cultural Features The Project site is located near the northern boundary of the City of Renton where heavy industry is the predominant land use. This setting indicates that cultural features in the immediate area are rare. Most schools , churches, entertain- ment establishments and open spaces are beyond walking dis- tance from the site, however, they are within a reasonable driving distance. a. Public Open Spaces The most notable public open spaces in the area are the two green belt systems proposed by King County. May Creek trail , one-half mile south of the proposed site, is a two-mile long green belt with an urban trail system along May Creek. One and one-half miles northeast of the Project is the Coal Creek trail . In addition to the two creek trails , King County is also proposing a bicycle-pedestrian trail along and near the east shore of Lake Washington. . The trail is to upgrade existing water front avenues , provide a safe bicycle route between Bellevue and. Renton , utilizing the railroad right- of-way and unused street ends . Another bridle-pedestrian trail one and one-half miles east and parallel to' 1 -405 will follow a major transmission line right-of-way. This trail will provide a linear, bridle path connecting Renton , Bellevue, Kirkland , Redmond and Woodinville with access to numerous existing and proposed parks and riding areas. One of the proposed parks along the trail is the Lake Boren Park, one mile southeast of the Project site..(14) (14)"Urban Trail Plan", King County Planning Department , 1971 . 24. Kennydal.e Beach Park, one mile south of the project, is a city park with limited boat launching facilities . Lake Washington Beach Park, one and one-half miles from the site , is a one-mile long water front park with recreation .facili - ties ,, such as boat launching ramp, swimming beach, tennis courts , children's play area, picnic shelters , etc. ' In addition to the above mentioned parks and trails , play fields and play areas are also provided in conjunction with public schools in the area. b: Private Open Spaces There is no known large scale private open space in the area, except for the proposed Quendall Terminal development, which includes open space and recreation facilities in connection with May Creek trail . . The unimproved city street right-of- way of North 52nd Street is presently utilized by. the Renton Sailing Club for small sailboat launching. c. Schools The site is in Renton School District 403. Figure 11 -5 (1) Elementary Schools. Hazelwood Elementary School , with a current enrollment of 751 pupils.,, (15) is within a one-mile radius of the site. Within a radius of two miles , four more elementary schools exist, Ken- nydale and Sierra Heights of Renton School District 403 ,. and Newport Hills and Lake Heights of Bellevue Public Schools Elementary school age pupils in the area are currently bused to Hazelwood Elementary because of the hazard involved in crossing the freeway..(15 ). . " (15 )Renton School District 403 , October 1973. 25, . I - SE 60 ST •SE 6_St•• Imo WASHINGIDN BlV SL 8•ST `_ -__ • SF 69 SI I • A ZELWOGD ELlM s! R Sl J I' RENTON SCHOOLG! aDSY i-. DISTRICT 403 � � NE. ,T�-� � �-� - - - - I • / l S PI sr i E l�/ 'L SE tle ST I..1 \ I 1 a� KENNEWICK AV NE SE 9A �\ .�. NENIITDALE ELLN NE LF S1 9.� 1 q • II SIERRA HEIGHTS • 1 Ti. \ T Jl_ \ ELEN 1 A .I 4 N[2• ST lm SE ,71i1 YL NE aQ 20 D IND[9 AV NF • •r •_ I.AM! WASNINGI OM F. s \ :-YI I , • \9 '� I•HIIIIREST ram W LN RIDGE DR qT '�fN ++ f E • NE u II STW ♦AvIW ^ ISSPUUA I • -r.`\�\\ qA • / a MsNH19 SCINOOL ,,, pE115 oN p0, • t. O?9, 'I L—E.EMPIO s IIS]T �� `/ ,/ —\ -1 0 N0.ZEN HIGH I h % A _�L _ I q S I 51164f,. EL EM IR AWa + =0 NE IO ST • _ter v .... t11 IT W O • I _._ NL Z ST HIGHLANDS . ■[L ENYDFW___ \ CAMPPEII HILL b JOnN 0 n�_ - iaANSPUN IAI10N w' _ A•APOLLO FLEM • TNOYS 1 SCHOOL■ • c u • n1 tl MAINTC NANCF + I{I./ g NEfisT O MIDDLE SCHOOL •` • 41Z1 ST S IZI ST DIMNITT MIpDI C in — =I ' . 511E _ . . \I •` \ SCHOOL ` ' o \f� \ S IZP 5T 9f. \ RF Ni O N'AI117 I / N 1ST f NE.Sl ■VUCATIONAI TECHNICAL IX ST IF a ST • hrOh41 N AIRIUNI\\ /� RTONI PUNCMASINLNE I . ••SUPPLY/ S S5 • EARLINGTON FLEM f• ir s Ial rc 1 AINPONT WE I. //, 1 •�- SW 7--11, S ,. n WELLS AV S p•�+S i •MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS SUNSET STOA, R[NTDN N.IGN!SElT 4 / 4q _ ELEM I 0 SE T LPO ...5 SST ® ____ (F ISa S W • GREEN RIVER R MA qy MAPLEW000 GOLF COURSE _ ■Ap MIMI7TRAT10X IN::: p ICENTER• ce?'•''' 1 , .5 I . . • - .. --T IN YISINNS WY Sr • yW . _�.____��•��-f. MINION PII•� \•J� ` 5W IL S_ ,\K • CEDAR RIVEN \ • _ • 9� TIFFANY PACK CLEW . , •�• c , , a. - 140 Pl.SE • • • > ■TA19oT MI I ■HELIENSCHOOL tlIDDLf •■CASCADE FLEM �/ --_• _\ N F.IEM SCHOOL SE W4i •r/ ,S • 7 7T■SPRING OI FN_ SE WA ST _ sE Ifi1 �'9j.DU0• .. l\ \ W I . \ ., `1� .II,ME':Ay NE • _—-- l'...,' I W ' 1. . // rt. ' • S!,'Sa SI ■LINDel PUN NIUNrv� S. . ( `I RENTON PARR FILM■ I. r _I `/ 1H .. OVItSNY RD IS • ..7, I . ' ' SW AS'il J'.'SF 1/9 S1 i 'Ifr\_)) ' 4, . ':. 1 �F Iee x, 7i n. NENSON NM.•sE•I•e eI • • 11 u ' 11 _ • FIGURE. II-S 26. (2) Middle Schools The closest middle school or Junior High school is the Borghild Ringdall. Junior High one mile northeast of the site. However, due to the school district boundary, students in this area are attending McKnight Middle School (current enrollent 990)(15) two and one-half miles south- east of the site. Busing is also practiced. (3) High Schools The school district boundary is the determining factor of , which high school the students in the area will attend. Oliver .M. Hazen High School (current enrollment 1 ,710) , (15) three miles southeast of the site, is the closest high school within the district. Newport Hills High School of Bellevue is two miles north of the site. d. Churches. There are more than twenty churches of different denomina- tions within a distance of three and one-half miles. e.. Scenic Views and Vistas The setting of the project site provides the site with various types of views and. background. The prime asset of the property is the lake and distant view to the west and northwest. Low profile single-family structures domi - nate the view to the north. The railroad trestle and 1 -405 freeway form a uniform back drop:•to the east. Misty Cove,. the three.. to four story apartment building, blocks the view to the south , but at the same time, effectively screens the industrial area from the project site. The area east of the freeway is mostly steep hillside, served by Lake Washington Boulevard, where elevations are 30 to 50 feet above the project site.': (15) Renton School District 403 , October 1973 27. 4. Population Density . The proposed project site is within the boundary of. Activity Allocation Model District 4000 which is generally bounded by Renton-Issaquah Road to the east. Coak Creek and 160th Place S. E. to the north, S. • E. . Coalfield Road to the south and Lake Washington to the west. Present and projected population of the District is as follows : Percent Increase Year Population Households Persons/Household (Population) 1970 11 ,472 3 ,100 3.70 10.23 . 1980 12,646 . 3 ,669 3.44 —56. 16 41 .67 1990 17,915 5,360 3.34 Source: "Interim Regional Plan Forecast 1970-1990", Puget Sound Governmental Conference, November 1973. The above data is the most current information available, how- ever , AAM District 4000 covers an area of more than ten (10) square miles and no density figure can be derived from the data. Thus , out-of-date, yet more realistic. data , is pre- sen.ted here. The project is also within the boundary of Analysis Zone 4807 (1 .6 Square miles), bounded by S. E. 64th Street, 132nd Avenue S.E. , S. E. 80th. Street, and Lake Washington . The past , present and projected populations are as follows : Year Population Density Percent Increase Person/Sq.Mi . 1961 810 506 228:4o . 1970 2,66o 1 ,662 . 0.75* 1975 2,680 1 ,675 83.08 81 .72 1990 4,870 3 ,044 Source: "Interim. Population Projections", Puget Sound Governmental Conference. (Undated report) This reflects the recessional mood at the time when this report was prepared. 28. 5. Transportation System a. Public Transportation The project site and its immediate area is served by Metro Transit buses. Transit Route #240, running north-south on Lake Washington Boulevard 500 feet east of the site, connects Renton. with Bellevue, Kirkland and Bothell to the north , and Tukwila, Sea-Tac Airport and Burien to the southwest. Transit Route #242, running north-south on 1 -405 , with a pick up point at May Creek Interchange one-half mile south of the site, connects Renton with Seattle via the Mercer Island Floating Bridge. Transit Routes #42 and #107, terminating at Kennydale one mile south of the site, connect Renton with Seattle via Rainier Beach , Rainier Valley, Boeing Field and Georgetown. Other routes can be easily reached through trans- fer. As previously mentioned , all school age children from the area' are presently being bused to their respective school . b . Arterials and Highways The site is fronting North 52nd Street, an unimproved: street. • end , with access to Ripley Lane North which serves 30 or so single-family homes to the north,, and connects to Lake Wash- ington Boulevard and Interstate 405. The freeway, running north-south 100 feet east of the site, serves the area via the May Creek Interchange`'one-half mile south of the project . (See Figure II-6) Points of importance and their distance from the Interchange are as follows : Destination Direction Miles . Interstate 90 ' ' . North . 3-1/2 Interstate 5 Southwest 7, State Highway 900 ' (Sunset Blvd.) South '. 2 State Highway 169 (Maple' Valley ..Rd.) . South ' 3-1/2 State Highway 167 (East Valley Fwy.) South 5 y�Designated as Exit 7 29. 0 NQ0 /�CV/c cu ti a gaZ 0 1 Coa' N 3 a) m t NF 44th st. • I— • • • 0 CY • u, • Q c. FIGURE II-6 1- • o o . • • a a 0 0 r,l so o N `O UN N • I -405 EXIT 7 (MAY. CREEK INTERCHANGE) • Average Weekday Traffic Count Source: Washington State Highway Department , 1973 • 30. Destination Direction Miles Renton (downtown) South 3-1/2 Renton Shopping Center Southwest 4-1/2 Renton Village Southwest 5 Newport Hills Shopping Center Northeast 2 Southcenter Shopping Center Southwest 7, Cascade Center South 6 Renton Highlands Shopping Center Southeast 3 Spring Glen Plaza South 6 Eastgate Village Shopping Center Northeast 5 Renton City Hall South 3-1/2 Boeing Company (Transport) South 2-1/2 Renton Municipal Airport South 3-1/2 c. Local Access Presently, local access to the site is provided through the railroad underpass at the northeast corner and the grade crossing to the southeast. . The underpass , shared b.y residents to the north, has the capacity of one-way traffic with hard-to-negotiate corners . The grade cross- ing is shared with Baxter Company and the Misty Cove Apartment. (Figure . II -7) d. Bicycle-Pedestrian Trails Lake, Washington (Renton) Trail is being proposed by King County. This section of the trail is to be an eight-mile ' long bicycle-pedestrian trail along or parallel to the lake ' shore. The trail will be a major trail connecting Rainier Beach to the Mercer Slough and Bellevue. In the vicinity ' of the project site, the trail is to utilize the railroad right-of-way and provide access to Lake Washington through ' now unused street ends. The trail is to join Coal Creek and Cougar Mountain Trails at Newcastle Beach Park, 1-3/4 miles north of the project site. 31 . • • N , , c m . . • cG LAKE WASHINGTON I-40$ z m lNo. 52ndS , • • ,, ,� • / ( ' ii PROJECT SITE rr ' . < . / • ;II • . • i r1 L. ►— ii V . Mis . ,f - qp ;� a B t I, • i r C I. . i Average Weekday r Traffic Count •e • O 120 ADT • • • O 312 'ADT • ' O 546 ADT • • Z • • LOCAL TRAFFIC FIGURE 11 -7 . • Source: • Clark, Coleman .& Rupeiks ,. Inc. , March 1574 ' 6. Utilities The project site and its surrounding area are served by Water District #107, City of Renton Sewer, and City of Renton Fire Department. Electric power is provided by Puget Sound Power and Light Company. All above mentioned are connected to the site. Natural gas is available at Barbee Mill Company, one-quarter miles south of the site and provided by Washington Natural Gas Company. 7. Community Services In addition to the limited neighborhood shopping facilities located in Kennydale, large community and regional. shopping centers are within a range of two to seven miles from the May Creek Interchange. Civic Center is only three and one- half miles away. (See Transportation System section.) 33. C. . CONSTRAINTS l : Legal a. City of Renton Zoning Code. The proposed project requires a change of zone. This Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared pursuant to City requirement on .a change of zone. b. City of Renton Building Code. No variance from current Building Department policies or regulations is required by this project. 2. Related Policies . a. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is in compliance with the policies and provisions of the Com- prehensive Plan. In addition, the present Comprehensive Plan envisions the project site and its immediate vicinity to be a 'Medium Density Multi -family Area; "an area intended primarily for residential uses allowing a maximum of 73 dwelling units per gross_ acre, a maximum of 3.. stories , and a maximum of 45 percent of the land area developed." (City of Renton, "Comprehensive Land Use Plan", revised March 1972.) b.. State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 . This Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared to comply. with ' this statute.. c.. ' State Shoreline Management Act of..1971 , City of Renton Shore- line Master Program (1973 proposed) . This Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared to meet the requirements 'of these statutes. d. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This project is not under jurisdiction of this Act_ as it is a private devel - opment. 34. e. Clean Air Act of 1970. The Act authorized U.S. EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The State Air Pollution Control Board and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency adopted the National Standards , State-wide Standards , and the Puget Sound Region Standards between March 1968 and January 1972. (Appendix D) . All regulations and standards will be complied with. f. City of Renton, Ordinance No. 2820, "Renton Mining, Exca- vation and Grading Ordinance." This project is to comply. with this ordinance. 3. Action/Decisions Remaining for Implementation. a. Change of Zone - City of Renton Planning Department. b. Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit - City of Renton Planning Department. c. Grading Permit -. City of Renton Planning Department. d. Building Permit = City of Renton Building Department. 35 . SECTION III ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION A. CHANGE IN NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS 1 . Topography The development should not cause impact of any consequence to the topographic character of the site. No shoreline alterna- tion is proposed, thus , land configuration of the site will not be changed. Due to the level nature of the site , construc- tion of the Project would only require minimum grading, and , therefore, the topographic characteristics of the site will not be altered. 2. Geology and Soils . The construction of the Project may cause some minimum impact on the geology and soils on the site but no significant impact on those in the immediate vicinity. a. Excavation. As recommended by. the Soils Engineer, all major structural loads must be transferred directly to the dense sand/gravel unit. Thus ,: major excavation for footings would not be necessary. Gradings required for driveways and parking area construction are minimal, and no significant impact would be caused by excavation. b. Fill . . Construction of parking areas and driveways in areas where soils are of inorganic or partly organic composition will require imported fill. Settlement of parking areas and driveways can be controlled by preloading accomplished in 36. conjunction with filling of the site. The details of the earthwork procedure will be dependent on variations in the thickness of the grossly compressible soil units. A detailed exploration of the upper soil horizon is recommended prior to undertaking this phase of the Project. Portions of the Project site in which peat is exposed at ground surface could also receive fill , however , the precautions which must be invoked to offset the effects of compression of the thick unit of soft peat are such that this area could better be utilized more economically as open space and re- creation areas . (Appendix B.) c. Earthquake. Structural design of all buildings in the Project will be in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Renton Building Code and Uniform Building Code, thus , minimizing any possible earthquake damage. ' 3. Erosion by Runoff The existing drainage ditch at the 'northern portion of the site was the result of erosion caused by surface runoff ditched and piped to the site from the upper land area, freeway and the rail - road. The Project is proposing the "dressing up" of the ditch in conjunction with a retention system to control the discharge rate of the runoff and at the same time settle out silts before ' discharge.' Concentrated 'discharge.of storm water from paved areas should also be provided with closed conduit or lined ditches . Runoff from non-paved areas can be efficiently controlled by utilizing grassed areas and/or planter beds of decorative vegeta- tion. The organic topsoil now existing on the site .can effectively 37. absorb large quantities of precipitation and release it at a slow rate. These measures would , in fact, eliminate the limited erosion problem now existing and prevent further 'erosion by con- trolling the surface runoff. 4. Biological Alteration. a. Flora. The development , with its roads, buildings and landscaping, will inevitably remove some existing vegetation in areas where construction is to occur. The majority of the existing trees and shrubs are non-native growth , planted by past home owners for landscaping purposes. Plants removed will be more than compensated by the proposed landscaping. . The only native trees on the site are the 2" to 6" Red Alders. The removal of the Alders may, in fact , help eliminate the spread of cater- pillars without the use of pesticides. Efforts should be made to: retain as many desirable trees and shrubs as possible. The construction of the bulkhead and the cleaning up of the water front debris will also remove some of the ground cover and aquatic plants . Ground covers lost should be replaced by more desirable lawn and ground covers. Aquatics will most likely replace themselves. However, most of these plants are classified as "aquatic weeds that choke waterways, interfere with navigation, conflict with fish , wildlife, and recreational interest, and impede malaria control . " (18) ( 18artin, Alexander C. , "Weeds", Golden Press , N.Y. ; 1972 38. b. Fauna. The development should not cause any impact to the non- existing mammals on the. site. The majority of birds that exist on and near the site are offshore water fowls. No extensive water front development is proposed , so there would be no significant impact on these birds. However, the Project is proposing a drainage system which would include retention facilities to minimize siltation and ero- sion caused by existing, drainage way. Thus , the development would greatly effect the fish life .in the nearby water. If, and whenever, future water oriented development is to occur, all piers and docks should be built of open pile construction. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks should be encouraged. 5. Noise Two principal measures are used in evaluating the impact of noise caused by the Project on the environment. These are "intensity"' and "extent." Short-term construction activities would be the primary cause of noise impact with "intensity.," and noise from vehicular traffic sources would contribute the "extent" of noise impact. a. Construction Noise. Short-term construction activities would be the primary cause of noise impact associated with the proposed Project. The City of Renton presently has no noise ordinance, how- ever, the 'construction hours will be voluntarily limited from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. During these construction hours over the projected time span, the noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site will be altered'. In an urban setting, 39. based on the estimated ambient levels and a construction model , it is possible to project the average noise levels that could occur. (The site is in a suburban setting , how- ever, its ambient levels are that of an urban setting due to traffic noise from the freeway.) Table III-I and Figure III-1 show the relative noise levels that could be expected for construction of a residential development for each of five major construction phases . Table III -2 shows the typical noise levels during each phase of construction activity for a residential development in a setting such as the Project site at various distances from the area. Five assumptions were made: (1) The .existing daytime ambient L50 range is from about 60 to 70 dBA in the vicinity of the site since the noise from the freeway is the predominant source of ambient noise. (2) With no attenuating or abating measures , the projected noise levels would approximate those shown in. Table III -1 at .50 feet. (3) . All pertinent equipment would be present at the site during construction. (4) .The center of the site would be the referent noise source location. (5) Propagation., loss for indoor environments would average 20 dBA with windows closed. Within a radius of 400 feet, there are only three single family homes, to the north , one home to the east and one 50-unit apartment building to the south, thus , day time con- struction should not cause significant impact on the surround- ing residents. . 4o. TABLE III -1 TYPICAL RANGES OF NOISE LEVELS AT CONSTRUCTION SITES WITH A 70 dB(A) AMBIENT TYPICAL OF URBAN AREAS Construction Phase I. II Measurement Values 1.. Ground clearing 84 83 Energy Average dB(A) 6 8 Standard Deviation 100 103 NPL 2. Excavation 88 76 Energy Average dB(A) 7 5 Standard Deviation 106 88 NPL 3. Foundation 81 81 Energy Average dB(A) • 7 .7 Standard Deviation 99 100 NPL 4. Erection 82 71 Energy Average dB(A) 6 1 Standard Deviation 97 75 NPL 5. Finishing 88 74 Energy Average dB(A) 7 4 Standard Deviation 106 84 NPL I All pertinent equipment present at site. II — Minimum required equipment present at site. Source : EPA. "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations , Building Equipment and Home Appliances", NTID .300. 1 (1971) 41 . . t i i''' R NOISE I. LVEI. ((WA) AT 50 I T CO .70 B0 90 100 110 COMPACTERS (ROLLERS) H (n FRONT LOADERS I I w . Z C9 0 L BACKIIOEE; I . I 7 a TRACTORS I I 0 a f- , o (1: m ct w SCRAPERS, GRA.DLRS I j I -�, PIAVrr7 H f'- (9 J f 0 I o CONCRETE PUMPS H IU S I . L1 -7 CRANES (MOVABLE) I I W z a I CRANES(DEP.RICK) H 1 w " I I fL rc PUMPS H • w o GENERATORS • I ¢ c ii. o COMPRESSORS I I . TI .?, PNEUMATIC WRENCHES 1--- { ft U IIJ 14,, n 2„_ JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS I I ,• 4.. a I w. PILE DRIVERS- (PEAKS) t, e ..fi, 1 VIBRATOR I I z a; f_ . ;I.:SAWS I I { Note: Based'on Limited Available Data Samples . ,I FIG . III-1 .CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE 'RANGES . {; t ii • I1. 42. i,? i TABLE II1 -2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS THAT COULD BE EXPECTED IN CONSTRUCTION AREAS SUCH AS THE PROJECT SITE Estimated existing Projected Distance from daytime average Construction daytime average Increase Center of Site level (dBA) Phase level (dBA) (dBA) 50 feet 60 to 70 1 84 + 14 to + 24. (outside Bldg.) . 2 88 + 18 to + 28 3 81 + 11 to + 21 ' 4 82 +• 12 to + 22 5 88 + 18to. + 28 50 feet 40 to 50 1 64 + 14 to + 24 (inside Bldg.) 2 68 + 18 to +. 28 3 • 61 . + 11 to + 21 4 62 + 12 to +. 22 5 68 + .18 to + 28 100 feet 60 to 70 1 78 + 8 to + 18 (outside.Bldg..) 2 82 . + 12 to + 22 3 75 + 5. to + . 15 4 76 + 6 to + 16 5 82 + 12 to + 22 100 feet 40 to 50 1 58. + 8 to + 18 (inside Bldg.) 2 62 + 12, to + 22 3 55 + : 5 to + 15' 4. 56 + ` 6 to + 16 5. 62 + 12 to + 22 200 feet 60 to 70 1 72 + 2 to + 12 (outside Bldg.) 2 76 , + 6 to + 16 3 69 0 to + 9 4. 70 0 to + 10 5 76 . + 6to + 16 200 .feet 40 to 50. 1 52 + :. 2 to + 12 (inside .Bldg.) 2 56 + 6 to + 16 , . 3 49 . 0 to + .. .9 4 50 O to + .10 5 56 + 6to + 16 . 400 feet 60 to 70 1 66 0 to + 6 2 . 70 0 to + :10 3 63 0to + 3 4' 64 0 to + 4 5 70 0 to + 10 400 feet . 40 to 50 1 46 0 to + 6 (inside Bld.g) 2 50 0 to + 10 3 43 0 to + 3 4 44 0 to 0to + �.4. 43• 5 50 0 In addition to the above mentioned construction hourslimi - tation , the following measures should also be taken to mini - mize construction noise impact on the environment: (1) Replacement of individual operations and techniques by less noisy ones when possible. (2) Selecting quieter alternate items of equipment. ' . (3). Scheduling of equipment operation to keep average levels low; to have the noisiest operations coincide with times of highest ambient levels ; and to keep noise levels rela- tively uniform in time; also, turning off idling equip- ment. (4) Keeping noisy equipment as far as possible from site's south boundary. Table III-3 lists the present average noise level and noise reduction potential for the various types of construction equipment. 44,. TABLE III-3 IMMEDIATE ABATEMENT POTENTIAL OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A) Al 50 FEET Equipment Present With Feasible Noise Control (I) Usage(2) Earth moving , Front loader 79 75 .4 Backhoes ' 85. 75 . 16 Dozers 80 75 .4 Tractors '80 75 .4 Scrapers . 88 80 .4 Graders 85 75 .08 Truck 91 75 ' ' .4 Paver 89 8O . 1 Material Handling Concrete Mixer 85 75 . '' .4 Concrete Pump 82 '75 .4 Crane 83 75 . 16 Derrick . 88 75 .16 Stationary Pumps ' 76 75 1 .0 Generators 78 75 1 .0 Compressors 81 75 1 .0 Impact Pile Drivers . 101 95 .04 Jack Hammers . 88 • . 75 . . 1 Rock Drills . 98 80 .04 Pneumatic Tools ' 96 80 . 16 Other Saws 78 75 '. .04 Vibrator 76 • . 75 ,4 (1)Estimated levels obtainable by selecting quieter procedures or machines and implementing noise control features requiring no major redesign or extreme cost. ' (2)Percentage of time equipment is operating at noisiest mode in most used phase on site. Source: U.S. EPA, . NTID 300. 1 • 45. b. Traffic Noise Noise from vehicular traffic sources predominates the exist- ing noise level in the area of the proposed Project site. An estimated maximum traffic volume of 560 ADT (See Section Ill-B-5) at an average speed of 20 mph. or less would be gen- erated by the Project when fully occupied. The average noise level at 100 feet from an assigned hourly volume of 61 VPH (11% of Total ADT) at the speed of 20 mph is estimated as 38 dB, (Figure 11 -1 , Section II -A-5-a. Freeway) a noise level which is "acceptable" by HUD Standards. In proportion to the population increase of the area, the pro- posed Project would contribute 5.26 percent of the total pro- jected traffic volume increase of .83.08 per.cent(17.) in the area between 1970 and. 1990, and because noise level increases logarithmically , a 5.26 percent traffic increase would be normal in terms of a noise level increase. 6. Air Quality .. a. Construction Construction materials used for the proposed Project will be such that they will not conflict with the requirements . of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and the City of Renton Building Department. The heating system, which emits air pollutants , will not be used extensively due to current fuel shortages. Thus , the construction of the Project should not cause a significant impact on the air quality of the area. (17)"Interim Population Projections", Puget Sound Governmental Conference, (undated report) . 4.6. b. Traffic The impact on air quality caused by the proposed Project will be mainly due to automobile,emission. An estimated traffic volume of 560 ADT may be generated by the Project and assuming the average trip is 5 miles , an average of 2 ,800 miles of travel per weekday would be expected. Using the emission factors for gasoline powered motor vehicles for 1975(20) and assuming an average speed of 45 mph, the following emissions of various pollutants, per weekday is expected : CO 2800 miles x 35 g/mi = 98 Kg HC Exhaust 2800 miles x 4 g/mi = 11 .2 Kg HC Crankcase & Evap. 2800 miles x 1 .62 g/mi = 4.5 Kg 15•7 Kg NOx (as NO2) 2800 miles x 4.9 g/mi = 13.7 Kg Particulates 2800 miles x 0 .1 g/mi = 0.3 Kg These estimated emissions of pollutants are to be spread over an area of an average radius of five miles, and will decline in response to the stricter pollution control standards that are going to be applied to motor vehicles . 7. Water Quality As previously mentioned in Section II , "the water. of Lake Wash- ington are now clean," and the proposed development includes the "dressing up" of the existing drainage ditch in conjunction with a retention system to control the discharge rate of the runoff and , at the same time, settle silts and potential pollut- ants before discharge. This would improve the quality of the water in the Lake. 1-2o)EPA, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors", 1972 47. In addition to the diversion of sewer carried out by METRO, four new studies concerning the river basins of Lake Washington and Puget Sound are underway at the present time. The studies , which include Water Quality Management , Water Resources Manage- ment , Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage, and. Solid Waste Manage- ment, are sponsored by METRO through its River Basin Coordinating Committee (RISCO) . Implementation plans are to be completed by July 1 , 1974, which would further the clean-up effort and the control of water pollution in Lake Washington and Puget Sound. . 48. I ' B. CHANGE IN HUMAN USES 1 . Zoning The proposed Project will require a change of zone from G-6000 to R-3. The zoning change will provide the flexibility re- quired for the Project. The following are the zoning code ele- ments involved in the change: Proposed in G-6000 R-3 the Project Number of stories 2 3 ._3 Height 35 Ft . . 40 Ft. 35 Ft . Lot Coverage 35% 35% 32% Minimum Lot. Area 6,000 S.F. 5 ,000 S.F. 155 ,500 S. F. Square Feet of Lot Area required ( 2+ bedrooms) N.A. 1 ,250:' S.F. 1 ,350 S. F. Front Yard 20 Ft. 20 Ft. 20 Ft. Rear Yard 25 Ft. . . . 20 Ft. N.A. Side Yard 5-10 Ft. . 5-10 Ft. 10 Ft. Parking N.A. 2/D.U. 2.07/D.U. Apartment Not Allowed Yes Yes The above Table indicates the only changes proposed. by the Project would be the number of stories allowed., and the oppor- tunity for an apartment or condominium development. 49• 2. Land Use The proposed Project will change the existing, mostly vacant , site, to multiple-family use, and cause the relocation of the three existing occupied single-family homes and the demolition of the two other unoccupied structures . Site preparation of the Project will also remove the various kinds of household debris now scattered on the site. 3. Change in Land Value The development of the Project will increase the tax revenue of the site from its present assessed value of about $100,000 to $3.5 million. However, this will not be the cause of the increase i.n the assessed valuation of adjacent properties nor result in increased taxes , since the property south of the site is a developed apartment complex and the properties north of the site lack' development 'potentia,l due to site con- figuration and access limitations. The assessed., value of the properties south of the Apartment has been established by the ' development of the Apartment. Further change of the assessed valuation 'of ,these properties. will stand on their own merits and not be effected by the proposed Project. Properties east of the Freeway have limited potential due. to topographic re- strictions . 50. 4. Cultural Features The proposed Project is expected to have no impact on private open space (mostly proposed) in the vicinity since those pro- posed facilities , if ever developed, will be provided for the exclusive use of the residents in those developments. The pro- posed Project will provide certain private recreation facilities , open space system and water front for its own residents , thus, causing no load increase upon nearby public open spaces. How- ever, different degress of impact on views , local schools and churches may be expected. a. Schools Assuming the age distribution of the proposed Project. resi - dents is the same as that of King County (similar to the City of ,Renton) , then the projected number of school age children would be as follows : High School . 10 7.23% of total. population Middle School 5 3.88%_ of total population. Elementary School 19. 13..69% of total population.. Total. 34 24.29% of total population Three elementary, one middle and one high school in Renton School District 403 near the site will be the schools which , children from the Project may attend. The following are their current enrollmentsand capacities : 51 . Current School Capacity Enrollment Balance Hazen High 1 ,856 . .1.,710 + 146, McKnight Middle 1 ,140 990 + 150 Hazelwood Elem. 672 751 - 79 Kennydale Elem. 532 362 .+ 170 Sierra Heights Elem. 448 395 + 53 + 144. (15)Source: Renton School District 403 , October 1973 The above Table indicates a below capacity enrollment in most of the schools with the exception of Hazelwood Elementary School . This condition also exists in other schools of the district, caused by a continuing decline in total population. Enrollment projections for 1974 through 1978 also indicate a general declin- ing trend for almost all grades. (Table .III -4) With the exist- ing .low enrollment and a project declining future enrollment, the mostly new or recently remodeled schools of the District can easily absorb those 34 pupils from the Project. If the student to population ratio found in other condominium developments prevails in this Project , it is reasonable to assume that. the student ratio generated by this proposed development will , be lower than found in the Renton School District. The number of pupils from the Project could be substantially less than' 34 pupils. 52. TABLE III=4 • RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 PROJECT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENTS FOR 1974 THRU 1978 Current Pro j e ,c t e d Grades • 1973 1974 1975 1976 . 1977 1978 Kindergarten 1 ,111 1 ,102 1 ,071 1 ,041. 1 ,012 984 1st 1 ,137, 1 ,107 1 ,076 1 ,045 1 ,016 988 .2nd 1 ,087 1 ,121 .1 ,074 1 ,044 1 ,014 986 3rd 1 ,147 1 ,068 1 ,085 1 ,040 1 ,011 982 4th 1 ,221 1 ,130 • 1 ,041 1 ,058 1 ,014 986 5th 1 ,289 1 ,204 1 ,102 -1 ,015 1. ,032 989 6th 1 ,263 . ' 1 ,311 1 ,203 1 ,101 1 ,014 1 ,031 - 7th 1 ,238 1 ,240 1 ,274 1 ,169 ' 1 ,070 986 8th 1 ,268 1 ,257 1 ,242 1 ,277 . 1 ,171 . 1 ,072 .9th 1 ,261 1 ,305 1 ,272 1 ,257 1 ,292 1 ,185 10th 1 ,189 1 ,274 1 ,298 1 ,266 .1 ,251 1 ,286 11th ' • 1 ,061 1 ,112 1 ,177 1 ,199 1 ,170 1 ,156 . 12th • . 955 924 959 1 ,015 1 ,03'4 1 ,009 Totals 15,227 15,155 14,874 14,527 14,101 13 ,640 (15) • Source: Renton School District 403, February 14, 1974 • • • • • • • 53. • b. Churches Approximately sixty percent of the population may be expected to affiliate with local churches.. The proposed Project may produce 84 + church constituents. Since the Project is not religion-oriented, it is safe to assume that this group of church constituents will be absorbed by the twenty plus churches within the distance of three and one-half miles. c. Scenic. Views and Vistas Structures proposed in the Project will cause a certain degree of impact on the view availability of the five single-family homes on the slope east of the Freeway. A detailed study of the view condition was made with the assumptions that, (1) no consideration is given to natural vegetation now existing between: the homes and view sources; (2) no consideration is given to "territorial view," "mountain view" or "distance view,!' . for' they.are not effected by the. Project. Only the water surface of Lake Washington lying within the view sectors impacted by the Project is considered. (3) Due to the fact that no substantial view variation exists among the homes considered, an average view focal point, was used. . The study shows that the proposed structures with a.maximum building height of 35 feet will cause a potential 8.2 percent view impairment to the five homes . Under the same assumption, the existing structure of Misty Cove Apartments is causing a 14.4 percent impairment. The 8.2 percent view impairment is a maximum theoretical loss of view. In reality, the view loss to the homes' is' substantially less. . (Appendix E.) ' Using the above mentioned three assumptions , the total potential view angle is estimated at 118 degress , and the view angle effected 54, by the proposed Project is 24 degrees or 20.34 percent. of the total view angle. Therefore , an 8.2 percent view impairment to the 24 degree angle would constitute a 1 .67 percent view impairment on the total potential lake view now available to the five homes on the slope. 5. Population Density In order to evaluate the impact caused by the Project on the population density of the area, the household density (persons per dwelling unit) for the Project and its surrounding areas are compared. The 1970 Census reported the following household densities : King County 2 .89 persons per D.U. Renton 2.89 Bellevue 3.47 it II Census Tract 247 3 .52 " !' AAM District 4000 3.70 " 'I II The primary impact area is exclusively water front units, thus , household densities are assumed as follows : Proposed Project 2.5 persons per D.U. N. "Ripley Lane. (all S-F units) 3..2 II II II Misty Cove Apartment 2.5 ". II II Thus , a comparison of densities can be made as shown in Table III-5. The proposed Project would have a density of 39.21 per- sons per acre, which is 35.39 percent higher than existing, single family units to the north , 44.86 percent of that of the apartment to the south , and only 21 .48 percent of that allowed by the Com- prehensive Plan. This indicates a more gradual step down of population density from high density multiple-family district to medium density to low density single-family district. The . proposed Project would , in fact, provide a cushion between the two extreme densities. 55. TABLE III -5 POPULATION DENSITY IMPACT . Proposed Misty Comprehensive Plan Ripley Ln.N. Project Cove (allowable) . Household Density _ 3.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 (assumed) (Persons/DU) Number of Units 40* 56 50 260 Population 128 140 125 650 Area in Acres 4.42 3 .57 1 .43. 3.57 (Land only) Persons per Acre 28.96 39.21 87.41 182.07 Area' in Sq. Ft. 192,000 155 ,509 62,400 155,509 Sq. Ft. per D.U. 4,800 2,777 1 ,249 598 Sq. Ft. per Person 1 ,500 1 ,110 499 239 31 single-family dwelling units existing, and room for 9 + more D.U. 's 6. Transportation System a. Public Transportation The closest public transportation that could be utilized by the proposed Project residents is, Metro Transit Route #240 running. north-south on Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. 500. feet east of the site. However, due to Interstate 405, and its access limitation, the closest pick up point would have to be one-half miles south of the site at the May Creek Interchange., Provision for a freeway overpass connecting Lake. Washington Boulevard North and Lake Washington Boule- vard N.E. was made but the future of the proposed structure is uncertain . Utilization of public transportation by the residents of the proposed Project will be limited, thus , the Project causes no significant impact on the transit system. 56: b:. Arterials and Highways Traffic 'generated from the proposed Project will be mostly by private automobile and service vehicles due to the limited use of public transportation. Existing traffic volume generated from residents on Ripley Lane North and the Misty Cove Apartment indicates -an average weekday Trips per Dwelling Unit of 3 .87, Ripley Lane North, and 6.25 for Misty Cove. A maximum of ten trips per day per dwelling unit from the proposed Project is assumed . A maximum traffic volume of 560 ADT may be expected. Based on population projections , this traffic volume would con- stitute 5.26 percent of the 83.08 percent increase projected for the area by 1990, At the full occupancy of the proposed Project (1976) , a maximum hourly traffic volume of 61 VPH (11 percent of ADT) would be added to the freeway's 'present 5,635 VPH and constitute an increase of. 1 . 10 percent, . with a total of 5,697 VPH which is 28.79 percent below the capa- city (8,000 VPH) of the freeway under ideal conditions. (6) . c. Local Access In addition to the two existing local accesses, the Project is proposing a third access which will be a new underpass through the railroad trestle, providing one-way-in and one-way-out traffic pattern exclusively for the Project, and for emergency or service vehicles. The new access will not be interrupted by railroad trains marshalling on the tracks, and provides a better angle of approach and more overhead clearance. At the time of this Assessment , a permit from Burlington Northern for the underpass is pending. Accord- ing to Burlington Northern officials , the company's current 57. policy is that no easement be granted to public or private agencies for crossing purposes . The permit would carry a thirty-day revocable clause, the same as that given to the City of Renton for residents of 'Ripley Lane North . (Permit No. 98198) . However, an easement was granted to the City of Renton for the existing underpass in 1967, however, it is uncertain whether the City accepted it as there is no city official 's signature showing o�nr t//he easement agreement. Bur- lincton Northern' s records show nolpermit or easement of any kinf was granted for the existing grade crossing now serving. Baxter Company and Misty Cove Apartments. It seems that both existing accesses have set a precedent that by virtue of use or a crossing permit , access by the railroad crossing permit should be considered permanent. Furthermore, Burlington Northern officials indicated that the permit could be revoked and a new permit granted if reconstruction of the railroad' bridge is required, which is very unlikely for the bridge was reconstructed in 1968.. Another reason for revocation , accord- ing to railroad officials , would be the abuse of railroad pro- perty by the grantee. Thus , the proposed Project will have sufficient access and provide additional access for emergency and service vehicles to the residents of the immediate area . d. Bicycle-Pedestrian Trails The proposed Project will cause no impact on the proposed Lake Washington (Renton) Trails. The .proposed Trail is to utilize the railroad right-of-way and provide access to Lake Washington through a now unused street end. In the vicinity of the pro- posed Project , the Trail will utilize the pedestrian walkway along the track on the railroad bridge and the now unused street end of North 52nd Street (they will not be effected by the Project) . 58. '.7. Utilities The proposed development with its 56 two-three bedroom units would consume approximately 1.4,000 gallons of water per day- , 22,400 KW-HR per month of electricity, and, if available, 4,480_ Therms per month of natural gas. An estimated 19,600 gallons per day of sewage would also be produced by the devel - opment. As previously stated in Section II , all utilities are provided to or near the Project site. Average water consumption for residents in Water District No. 107 is 7,500 gallons per month per household or 250 .gal/mon/house: 59 . . SECTION IV UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The unavoidable adverse environmental impacts which have been identified would be of two types , short-term and long-term. Potential mitigation procedures which might lessen severity of these impacts also are dis- cussed. A. SHORT-TERM 1 . Construction Noise Noise from construction activities associated with the proposed action would create an unavoidable short-term impact. An esti mated noise level increase of 0 to 16 dBA would be felt by residents in the single-family homes to the north , and an in- crease ofll to 28 dBA would be felt by residents in the north half of the apartment complex (Misty Cove Apartment) south of the Project site for the duration of the construction period. (See Table III-2.) The temporary noise impact should be lessened by limiting the operation hours from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. and by' taking the follow- ing mitigation measures when possible: a. Replacement of individual operations and techniques by less noisy ones... b.. Selecting quieter alternate items of equipment. c: Scheduling of equipment operation. to keep average noise levels low; to have noisiest operations coincide with times of highest ambient levels , and to keep noise levels rela- tively uniform in time; also, turning off idling equipment. d. Keeping. noisy equipment as far as possible from site's south boundary.. 60. The above measures could result in noise level abatement of potentially 1 to 18 dBA, depending on the type of equipment. (See Table III-3.) 2. Dust Dust from construction activities will increase particulate concentration, particularly during site clearing and road grading phases. Control strategies and techniques should be employed to minimize these expected increases . The following strategies are expected to be utilized to reduce dust : a. Regulation of refuse burning. b. Watering of the area during potentially dusty phases . c. Soil stabilization and paving to prevent wind transport of soil particles. d. Utilizing on-site fill material to minimize transportation of dirt from and to the site. 3. Construction Traffic Construction related vehicles and, transporting of heavy equipment and materials •to the site would alter traffic flow in the area during the construction period. In mitigation scheduling the use of equipment should be done to minimize the unnecessary transportation of this equipment to and from the site. Slow moving or bulky vehicles should be scheduled to .avoid peak commuter hours . Temporary off-street parking should be pro- vided for construction crews before a permanent parking area is constructed: 61 . 4. Soil Siltation The presence of an upper unit of tan to gray soft silt containing organic matter over most of the site suggests that excavation into these soils during excessive rainy periods will produce siltation of the runoff . The use of fill material would also contribute to the. severity of the siltation. Control of runoff during construc- tion can be achieved by the following mitigation measures. a. Provide retention ponds or retention boxes so that the larger. non-colloidal silts could settle out before discharge. b. Contour plowing or ditching adjacent to construction area, and at the same time, the flat gradients of such measures would limit the erosive capabilities of the runoff . 62. B. LONG-TERM 1 . Vegetation Removal The construction of the Project will require the removal of most of the ground cover, shrubs and red alders existing on the site. To minimize the loss of desirable trees and shrubs , siting of structures should be carefully planned. In mitigation, street tree planting, ground cover seeding and other landscaping should be undertaken to replace vegetation losses. 2. Increase in Traffic Volume An estimated maximum traffic increase of 560 ADT caused by the residents of the Project when fully occupied will have an adverse long-term effect. However , the proposed new underpass will all but preclude any adverse effect on the existing underpass and grade crossing. The impact on the freeway traffic will be substantially lessened when shopping facilities are provided at the commercial area near the Interchange. 3• Increased Demand on Utilities and Other Public Facilities , The existing utilities and school system are adequately sized to handle the increased demands of the proposed Project. How- ever, these will be commitments and would have indi - rect impact on the utilities and school system. 63 . 4. View Impairment Any increase in height or width of existing structures on the site will reduce views. Proposed structures , with a maximum building height of 35 feet, would cause a 1 .67 percent view impairment on the total potential lake view now available to the five homes on the slope to the east of the freeway. (Appendix E and Section III) . 64. SECTION V ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION The major objective of this Project is to provide high quality multiple family housing for above-average income residents, and, at the same time, achieve the following: 1 . Produce a development which would be better than that resulting from the traditional lot by lot development. 2. Provide a desirable and stable environment in harmony with that of the surrounding area. 3. Take a more creative approach in the development of land , which will result in a more efficient, aesthetic and desirable use of open areas.. S 4. Optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines , consistent with private property rights . 5.. Encourage water-related recreational activities . 6. Take advantage of the flexibility in design, placement of build- ings , use of open space, circulation facilities , off-street park.- ing areas , and to best utilize the potentials of the site, char- acterizedby special features of water orientation, view., geog- raphy, size, shape and surrounding environment. The above mentioned objectives would minimize the severity of adverse impact on the environment. 65. A. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Several design alternatives that would achieve the same density as that of the proposed action and under the same proposed R-3 zoning district were considered. 1 . Design Alternative This design alternative consists of 56 milti-family dwelling . units , all in three-story structures , with half of the parking stalls under the structures. This design would have a land coverage of 33 percent and leave 51 percentof land .ih open space. This alternative was rejected for the following reasons : a. The design would reach the maximum building height of 40 feet allowed in R-3 zone, and need greater building width. This would create bulkier structures. b. The structures would cause relatively greater view impair- ment to the residents on the slopes to the east of the. freeway. A 14.4 percent view impairment could be expected instead of 8.2 percent impairment caused by a 35 foot build- ing height. (See Appendix E.) 2. Design Alternative II This design alternative. consists. of 56 milti -family dwelling units all in two-story structures . Half of the parking stalls are to be under covered parking structures . This design would have a land coverage of 43 percent and leave 33 percent in open space. This alternative was rejected for the following reasons : a. .' Percentage of coverage exceeds that allowed in R-3 zone. b. The design would have substantially less open space. 66. . 3. Design Alternative III This design alternative is discussed in detail in Section I - The Proposed Action , and was adopted after weighing the advan- tages and disadvantages of each of the three design alternatives . B. ALTERNATIVE USE OF LAND Consideration was given to alternative uses of the land which would achieve a different density than that of the proposed action and land use other than residential . 1 . High Density Multi-Family This alternative would utilize the Project site for "residential uses allowing the maximum number of dwelling units , the maximum number of stories , and the maximum proportion of land area cover- age permitted in the City." (21) The alternative would require a R-4 zoning which allows 117.6 DU/Ac (2 bedroom) or a total of 420. D.U. 's. in the Project. This alternative was rejected for the following reasons: a. Six-story structures with a maximum height of 95 feet will cause substantial view obstruction to the residents east of the freeway: b... The high rise structures would also drastically change the profile of the lake shore. c. :. In order to meet the parking requirements , this alternative will leave virtually, no open. space.. (21)Renton Urban Area - Comprehensive. Plan, revised.March. 1972. . 67. d. Density proposed will not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. e. The alternative will drastically increase the population density of the area. 2. Medium Density Multi-Fami-ly This alternative is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and utilizes the site for "residential uses allowing a maximum of 73 dwelling units per gross acre, a maximum of 3 stories , and a maxi - mum of 45 percent of the land area developed."(21 ) This would require a R-3 zoning with special provision for 45 percent land area coverage, and thus. allow 47 DU/Ac (2 bedroom) , or a total of 168 D.U. ' s in the Project. The alternative was revised to, stay within the provisions of R-3 zone and produced the three design alternatives previously discussed. This alternative without any revisions was rejected for the following reasons : a. . The maximum allowable building height of 40 feet would be reached and a greater building width is inevitable, and thus , create bulkier structures. b. The structures will cause relatively greater view impairment to the up-slope residents to the east. c. . In order to meet parking requirements , the alternative will leave very little open .'space. d. The alternative will increase population density of the site to higher than that of Misty Cove which is in R-4 zone. .. 68. 3. Low Density Multi-Family This alternative will have a lower density than that proposed in the Comprehensive Plan, and utilize the site for "two-family dwellings , provided that the maximum building area does not exceed 45 percent of the land area."(21) This would require a R-2 zone if land area coverage does not exceed 35 percent. Under the provisions of R-2 zoning , the alternative would have a density of 15.24 DU/Ac (2 bedroom) , or a total of 54 .units in the Project. This density is virtually that of the proposed action , except that maximum building height will be restricted to two-story or 25 feet. This alternative was rejected for the following reasons : a. The alternative would not achieve the objectives of the proposed action. b. The natural character of the site would be ignored. c. Open space would be in 27 separated ownerships , thus less usable. d. Recreation facilities would virtually non-exist. e. In order to resolve the above disadvantages , a special permit is required to allow Planned Unit Development. Special permit procedure is the same as a change of zone, thus , a double change of zone procedure would be required to mitigate the above mentioned disadvantages created by a R-2 zone. ' f. If a special permit is granted , due to the height limitation , greater land area coverage would be required. g. ' Wider spread of structures will also result , thus, limiting the usefulness of the open space. 69. 4. Single-Family This alternative is in conformance with existing zoning and will utilize the site "to be occupied by a single family dwelling unit or related compatible uses. "(21 ) In G-6000 zone, all provisions set forth in R-1 zone applies with the exception of minimum lot size. Under these provisions , the alternative could have a potential density of 7.26 DU/Ac, or a total of 26 single-family lots . The Projectsite is within a plat known as "The Plat of C. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No. 3" filed for record at request of C. D. Hillman October 21 , 1904 and recorded in Volume 11 of Plats , Page 81 Records of King County, Washington. The Project site consist of Lots 1 to 18 Block D of said Plat. All lots in the existing plat have a width of 30 feet, which" is. less than the minimum width required', thus , resubdividing may be necessary. The only public access now existing is the unimproved street end of North 52nd Street to the north , thus , a dedicated public street may be required to provide public access to the lots . This alternative was rejected for the following reasons in addi - tion to those mentioned, in the previous alternative (low density multi -family) :: a. A less efficient utilization of land due to the dedication of public right-of-way and the cul -de-sac required for turn around.. b., Provides no transition zone between higher density apartment use and single-family uses . 70• 5. Open Space and Park Land In a letter dated June 27, 1967, the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department stated that the Renton Park Board was interested in retaining the northern portion of the Project site for recreational purposes and were also interested in adding to this area , if possible, as well as adding to the Lake Washington Beach property in a northerly direction, to provide the then needed water front for public recreation.. However, no further interest was expressed. Subsequent to the letter, additional water front (one mile long) property north of Lake Washington .Beach was purchased for public recrea- tion; thus, the City of Renton has no plans for acquiring addi - tional water front property in the foreseeable future. Further- more, the access limitation imposed on the site by the railroad would restrict the usefulness of the property for recreational use: by the general public. C. NO ACTION . No action implies continuation of the site in its present condition. In this case , residents in the three occupied homes will remain , and the other unoccupied .structures and the mostly vacant site would create the following problems ; 1 . Deterioration of Property Without incentive, the present owner(s) of the property will not maintain the vacant site. The littering problem which now exists will get worse, and continued deterioration of the property and its surrounding properties would be inevitable. 71 . . 2. Deterioration of Structures The deterioration of those unoccupied structures. will continue. They have been and will continue to be a safety and fire hazard. 3. , Health and Safety Hazards. Without proper maintenance and control , . the ever increasing debris and refuse will certainly pollute the lake and become a health hazard to the neighboring residents. The shoreline portion of the property, without proper supervision, is and will continue to be a .safety hazard for children in the area . Abandoned .struc- tures 'and unattended ground are also inviting to criminal activities . 4. Devaluation of. Surrounding Properties Due to the above conditions , the devaluation of the surrounding ' properties would certainly occur. 5. Erosion and Siltation The drainage ditch now existing on the site will continuously erode the land and carry silts into the lake: 6. Financial Loss. to Property Owners In addition to the loss of revenue that may be generated by the proposed action , taxes on the unproductive property would . be a constant financial drain to the owners: 72. ' SECTION VI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND .THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The proposed Project site and its. surrounding area are committed to residential use by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Multi - family and single-family residential development have occurred on most properties around the site. The proposed action is a project that is - compatible with the City's current land use plan for the site. The development of the proposed Project would restrict a change in the use of .two acres of land-for approximately fifty years , which is the estimated useful life span of the structures, (I .R.S. Bulletin F.).. barringa major demolition effort or a major catastrophe. The probability of the site and its surrounding area changing to less intensive land use . than residential is remote. The development should not be considered as temporary in nature. If for some reason it is decided that the site physically occupied by the Pro- ject is more valuable for another purpose, however, the structures could be demolished and the site restored close to its condition prior to any construction (except the existing structures to be relocated or demolished) , provided that the then property owners ' consent is. obtained. The construction of the..Project,would provide approximately one to two', years employment for ten full- and part-time workers , and an estimated payroll of $900,.000.. In addition to the employment generated by the construction, the completion of the Project would add 56 high quality dwelling units to the City's tax roll . The transaction of ownerships of these units would also generate excise tax, along with the employment. opportunities for real estate related workers. 73 ; The cost of delay in carrying out the proposed action would be mainly contributed by inflation and the possible interest rate increase on construction loans. Improvement costs would also be higher due to further deterioration of the property. 74. SECTION VII IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Development of the proposed action would allow a permanent and irrever- sible alternation of approximately two acres of land. This alternation would consist of 56 multi -family dwelling units on the land permitted by a R-3 zoning of the site. It should be considered permanent for at least the fifty year life span of . the structures. Modification of the struc- tures is possible , however , the committed land use would be irreversible and its undesirable consequence would not be altered to any great extent. Most of the material used for the construction of the Project should be considered irretrievable, at least not to its full usefulness . The use and the maintenance of the dwelling units will require a long-term com- mitment of energy resources , water resources , waste treatment facilities , landscaping materials , fertilizer and certain amounts of monetary commit- ment. 75. . REFERENCES 1 . "Soil Survey, King Couhty, .Washington", U.'S.D.A. Series 1938, No. 31 (1952) 2. Earl J. Larrison , !'Washington Mammals", The Seattle Audubon Society, 1970. 3. Earl J. Larrison, Klaus G. Sonnenberg, "Washington Birds", The Seattle Audubon Society', 1968. 4. Terence R. Wahl_ &, Dennis R. Paulson, "A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington", Whatcom Museum Press , 1973• 5. Gordie Frear, "Northwest Fishing Guide and Hunting Guide", Northwest Guide Publishing Company, Inc. 1972. 6. Highway Research Board Special Report 87, "Highway Capacity Manual", National Academy of Science-National Research Council , Washington , D.C. , 1965. 7. "H'UD Noise. Assessment Guidelines-Technical Background", Report HUD TE/NA 172 (.1971 ) . 8. "Noise Pollution-Now Hear This", U.S. EPA 1972.. 9. FAA Tower, Renton Municipal Airport, February, 1971 . 10. City of Renton , "Code of General Ordinance", Title IV, Chapter 7. 11 . Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, February, .1974. 12. W. T. Edmondson, "Nutrients and Phytoplankton in Lake Washington", Symposium on Nutrients and Eutrophication; American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, 1972 (Excerpt) . 13. U.S. EPA "The Metro Story - How Citizens Cleaned Up Lake. Washington" August 19.72• 14. , "Urban Trail Plan'', King County Planning Department , 1971 . 15. Renton School District 403 , October 1973. . 16,. "Interim Regional Plan Forecast 1970-1990", Puget Sound Governmental Conference, November 1973• 17. "Interim Population Projection", Puget Sound Governmental Conference , (undated report) . 18. Martin, Alexander C, "Weeds", Golden Press , N.Y. , 1972 19. EPA "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations , Building Equipment and Home Appliances", NTiD 300.1 (1971) 20. EPA, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors", 1972. 21 . Renton Urban Area-Comprehensive Plan , revised March, 1972. 77. APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ,\\\-I\. «: 1 . __.7----. • '- -, i h .,, ....., , . , , ,, 1 Eakt Washington urr •j/ xt�1• 52 nJ. :T. sir i ' i ' j .,. , . .J. A PLANNED --- __ �' • R 1 :.-.:1....„,/' _....A. . • �I UNIT DEVELOPMENT ° ° �,a.. •o: 4,1 eg - - �-� '" k `\ i' . ,\T. • a,51P by ��• "`�y� .� - r ' '� 0 . 0lit#60° 5 / � 1�Citizens Service Corporation 7t s. , ° ^ 00 I:se , ...,‘ . i • a •«. _ - ...if" o Exl•TUG PILMKS ° ° ^ r ° o ° ° ° ° ° ° .\ lP I r-_-,---,', I I II I • i I 1• I GELIECOM- uvr06 e, .9' j;� 5:7T•a''y"b 15 UUIT7 _ yAI :I / ': A1 ' N�I1.1.feM. b ' - 1i TpTZ�-SG tJU1T7 TUSAL- 133 1 • 1�A OCEIC Oovu EXITILIG R�"Cb � -'T• J{ , I } I, ' 0K1L14Y.LWIT7 4Z 500•i.('57•otl 27177(. 575X C _--__ I • , 4l.-T �, t 1 . '� -,_/� •t� YwYb io" ; =Z 1(odtesO 51Ct156 10,4.o%(0.34•t) 6xJ7 415X \,• � fJfG(x QSOUIR'.b. 56,saooc(o ts..A ae»Y. ,.1.t4X �. , __- .--. - _5. ! \- ^ / ; /l ; 1 � I 71076,.iYrrl 5 5 So./Y(1 176 5.0016% 3646% '. � wal•' � ";� �.] /1/it r f r/ V .• * / ''''\ s'•41414Zigk?'•-----.7: .„„:..-„), - 1.1:-.s. I f I . 7 ,...,' .... -.'.......1'.\./.. .4...z..,--;,.1 I ,.ta.:• \ , / ' r--.0....,4 _4z..'.:;,7..,-,-;,c '------T, ' . - ' ' • \i is ��// _ NG,/ \\ \\• :.FAY • �` • � 1 ! ' • / .' • . *NIP . • I .claw .wttl.,sl.i 1:.r�.•.r..ry PI....ye 5 1-yroe1' 0 t „�.xnc. 4•,.� 4 li.r a.u,...•:L nos. ...want•.. ;``'3i t ,! ._i _/ - _ O n `• I j .bP1.�r«.nand ' \ »�i I ` Comme1r« sank.art.«rr..of...Sacs. .:I'....� 5 ' '{`w 1) , • �� i :W�, % }' 0. .�as Wt.14.n...• corn.Woo b.�n (. . `` M•LL'ST'Owt M t0•«t . sold »Oawbn \ M«0•5x•.Y t os 1.x].51 Slot to O. •wtbl t. «bl wW.W.M1wr't • .i501051. �5 b«.55•It'$5'I.M.♦ I.N.5]M. I«• Y 4 (' _ A I on o to•Foln....b u ..lY nrY N 0.b.lint«brtbn 411r••d ' .y.t.-......tb tr«ro nt•r 65.6, to..670 5T15.55" •$. �n�� IA a out•1q sold Sp...In Nr>,root n tb Iwr br0•r un . EX 15TIW¢MP V �t'�-x`�... �/ ` , .r tor w.lnt«. tl.•ar bn..5'10'1C'tbt.1«0 uU 1... \ �I / a....r uns5.lwr« t too north.•r s«tbw n.�. ' ' \ -_ _ '� /�_ •oy' C p yi IL n9 .. ",/ ., «.: *twit onoln of a foot •w w wilIab•Y<'rTr•.n- \' `� ..+6- \ �� .�I .I� .�`• ,,' syls.“foot: tome 555.It Oen.sole roi I rood.67III 6.000 pp•. .bars b.to 5I•opt0 of t5.5 root'a•or w no coot r...•I.y sold n •oyy • �' 1 I ?'.�I� I t•tb tro•Paint of M MI�..'wa<i'nas clot.lord or loss / ,t \"P..3G„tea / °r . R:2' d H 4. *1007 =; o / �; -• .‘1 z,.. /I- ;: l, ,// i , • (---"z' --- 14110rC ,'. .-- 4 \ rya `6,, Y D \\ / 1 ly �i/ d `` ~•1 ' y�o tt'•. ` e, Y/ l' rtr..o...s • in Q I ��5� 111% �;vX �.t.'� .. / L it • ". '4'.. . . •-.N.6. , "/*.,. / / , Li, . , ..- / ... 1- -''' . ... , i - 1 - �� iN7TY COVE GPT7411Wiri ,,,_` / •✓ '/ _~ .,/ ir t\ , ,JV ,...,./. /..-- .) - i , `.. -rri*-..,71111, / / / 7-1 ' . .. petourreng. /'--.". ''''46" ;•,t'''.get-',"4:-I---'1,::.‘•-Ai / , , /{\---• a'f . / / ( i:, i • ate / .. • • .. �,� I /, / • / , //> 7' 1 1>w d>tcc a m. i J.Ll. B6XTEL to. CO. t� � ' • i 'sr.. �\�V`,y1T �P ✓ • ; Y rL. • ii ran �Itrawi-ns �:q. % \ , --'�4 • . \ +�, ._ . ; y. w. � 4t � *; •� � J _4 T_ .r r:: _ l \. � �p4/ 1 . • • \ • T at • Ir-• ! r.-• . •4r,;., •, .. I .,',7 4$1 4... ••: . . O •.!'"' f / • .v. op • n . 't . , . • -IL,,... . :be. ; • 4 .4-• '. „,..,, -. • i . -I *. - •• .v, , .t • ,o. • . , •• • • • N. :` . • . .., e 4:,-Ais' . • .1.• . . • * . , .:. -I' - " .4 , , . 1•4414$ •• t• ' . •41. '.••. 41' •-• •* • •- •1 ... .a a. . • 4. • II - • ., , .. , e. • ' ... '' iiiiO4,.. ei , . ... , .v. ).....), i .,eV . 1 •A a te" 4 s "' .0 ' .,.. • 4,ii " , 4,44, 4,1 t. '.1 1 I. .44 4, ,..04., t :iiiir• . . $ T. • • - ' ., ie .4 ft lithitif 1 4 4 , 1111 ••• . ' ' ' II' •. ie° )1°' . *• .1111 . • 464" • . *.. V t ....4,- ' • • k , 4. t4 t . _ iiii . ti: y• it .14 re 41 • • ....k . -. hi • . , • • ..11:•• ,• tit •,, ., . •••••, ..fr ' *INei ' ' .,,,,,ii 3"..t ift • . 0 , . 4 ,,, , , ,,,,,, . , • . v. , - .4 ...iii• VI L 4.. ..* • •••• . .. .; 3.-1 1 j'"iiir ! . • ' 4'' .... t 4 ' t Ar . •• • 11.t. . ' • 4 A. ?.. .... $ I .. , • ..., ..- . , ..i. , ,nik op .... , . 411,.. 1:it 1111: - • 0111 .." e ..., • ti ..1111..4.14.. 4 '1,0 .N• ' . '"• 44.A 4, . ..., IR ..4, , Of ' "V. " ' ay% 4 .; Az ' • .14, . c' • 7 '-• At ,- •', . -I .".„ . . . ,..,• . f. Jr i.J • 414 .. . t '''' • • . .- • 41 'P. ' . * ••• ' ;a if ...a. t.1 ir t • 41, • ' `..v .:* 3, . , • . .. ,...... ,.. ,..,,,,. ,... -11,111 „1.• '411' .r. 1111 . slit, ( ti, * -. • , ,, ..-. .. . . . • : . , , ' •%":44- .. ; , . . ... -• ••' .... . - A WS tie 1140 1.lit 4$1"- (eito• . . lot " 1.4 11110111,4 1 .MI ; ' Z -W7- .. t ‘ • • 44 . ' •• It-, 'Y'Ate . r . . I )I' • 411 '' . - ',eit Ni. ,• ,.. .„' . / •' ' -44.. -,S.: 0 , 1 If , i root. >•• lit ' .4Aid - r- . 111ht . . • , 4 .,.. • iri it . --ti 7‘ 0 110 e, •, a -4.... .—....1 • lit:. 6 . • ' • %ji r • Si. ir4"• . .s•• . , . . 4...• r*' x iI 1 r —/6.4 I ) , • q 0oo Dock I I ) I I �1 am e n I t ' I -- — Dock' A350 I -� / . \, , oo ooc cooc C �- \. .\ 1 1 0 0 �`' /6.5 -,—r o - __:_ it. ., L ... niev„,,- / 0 , 0 . 0, 0 , 0 , 000 1, 1 / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i ------ -, ii I I ic ,/ 111 J , .7 Iz Boot i 1 I I CO Dock House I Dock ( 41 / x/8.7 x /9.3 I /Boot V/6C /6.4x�1 I x I 1 a i • 41 ��\ 1 lilt• OPc� I \�� x 7 3 > '�C , \ 4! I I : I / • / ' r " _ • (\ }-‘ ( -N_ o / • - .1N) r -‘,..0411,) / / i / / 0 C \ \ 2 0.7/ I if:N4lkolo° 1 �0 20./ 1• /9.2� �1 \ 1 � x \ x/9./ ' 1 x/ II--w ijAp ./Wil,yi is, ,/ , . _ 1 ) me \ \ /' \.,. / —\ Deck \r � \� \ t / A . ) i 4conc. L, , . / • 4114 N i / Pool 2QT X ice, \ / i/ r /, 34.5Deck I / 4/ 3✓ 262/ `\\ 23./\ "If S / x r/ , 1 ( / • Aill 20.7 \� \ r i/ / . ' 0 2 5. x \ is \ i 269 J As , 40.8 i \\ \_ ' � 350x x• 4) ', 44 a� x20.3 [ x \ \ \ 28.2 \\� �\ : �' 34.6 32.6 • I' x ` 27.6 , I • // \ \�",. \C x 30.4 x \� 29.2 \� 437 /// . �/ _-- \ a\ 6 c x/ x \ � ,� 29.2 CB.0 3/.8 I 20.7 /x 2!.2 /�— ' \ �, a • 2B.6 t?Q Cvib x • 34.4 lb x I /,' 1 29.4 \ C `rb (7 /\1i . r \1 / 44 / / / / 1 ` / \ APPENDIX B SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR LAKE WASHINGTON SHORES . . 1.11 ' ^ , „ -'• ' o . 1,• - ' (;) °,• • \‘'‘ •, . , " * 4, 1, 111 a 4 -r 11,11.- IL rrivvE I -Rif.; & ( An.F.' 8 -41 4,* coNuLrNe. ',S.0 I L.S ENatNF_E:RS A , • 4 TELEPHONE MAIN 4-3946 NEIL H. TWELKER & ASSOCIATES • CONSULTING SOILS ENGINEERS ALASKA TRADE BUILDING SEATTLE. WASH. 9B1D1 •' April 4, 1974 41 Citizens Service Corp 201 Williams Ave South Renton, Washington Attention: Mr. Ross Woodward J Re: Soils and Foundation Investigation for Proposed Condominiums, near Ripley Lane North, Renton , Washington I. Gentlemen: At your request we have conducted a soils and foundation investiga-- tion for a proposed. condominium project to be located near Ripley Lane on Lake Washington, Renton, Washington. We submit herewith a report of our findings, conclusions and recommendations. Site Description The proposed site is a relatively level , irregularly shaped tract of land, bounded on the east by the I. Burlington Northern Railway right-of-way, .on the west by Lake Washington, on the south by the Misty Cove Apartments, and the north by the N 52nd St [Renton] right-of-way. Three occupied houses and two abandoned structures are located on the southern ' portion of the property , and one abandoned shack on the north . The site is open, covered with grass, and has a few stands of 11 alder in the northwest corner. A drainage ditch crosses the northern portion of the site to the lake. Soil exposures are of brown organic silt in most areas, and imported fill [sandy gravelly silt] along the east boundary, City of Renton, where a sanitary sewer was recently installed. 41 Subsurface P Sbf Ex loration In order to ascertain the soil condi- tions at the site, four test borings were made using a track- mounted -hollow stem power auger. Locations of borings are shown . in Fig. 1 , attached. Samples were taken at 5-foot intervals using the Standard Penetration Test, in which a 2-inch 0D split spoon sampler is driven into the formation by repeated blows of a 140-lb pin-guided hammer Falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler a given distance is a measure of the soil consistency. Subsurface Conditions Five principal soil units were encountered at the site, these are described briefly as follows: • i nit Ell • OM pa um 0111111 M. IIIII MINI• _ we um doom mi. Ern mg _ Citizens Service Corp April 4, 1974 Page 2 1 . An upper unit of tan to gray soft silt containing organic matter covers most of the site to a depth of 4 to 6 feet. 2. Beneath the silt unit [and exposed at the surface near the lake at the north end of the site] is a unit of red-brown soft fibrous peat. It varies in thickness from 18% feet in the north to less than a foot in the southwest. 3. Beneath the peat in the easterly part of the site is a unit of gray moderately loose silty sand and silt , 6 feet in thickness. 4. In the southwest corner of the site, the peat unit and silty sand unit appear to interfinger with a unit of very soft gray to brown organic silt whose thickness varies from 28% feet in the southwest to 12% feet toward the north. 5. The lowermost unit encountered is a dense gray, silty sand and gravel with hard silt layers. It was encountered at a depth of 15 to 20 feet in the easterly part of the site and 30 to 35 feet in the westerly part. Logs of the test borings were combined with logs from previous borings in the vicinity and topographic information to construct three geologic sections through the site; these are shown in Figs. 1 through 3, attached. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 2% to 9% feet below ground surface, approximately at the level of Lake Washington. Conclusions and Recommendations On the basis of our studies at this site we draw the following principal conclusions: 1 . All major structural loads must be transferred directly to the dense sand/gravel unit which underlies the site at a depth of 15 to 35 feet. This can best be accomplished by means of driven piling, preferably of displacement type. 111 2. The upper silt unit in the southern portion of the site may be used to support light-weight non-settlement critical structures. Bearing pressures to be used in this soil unit will be governed in part by the magnitude and flexibility of the proposed struc- tures. 3. Parking areas and driveways may be constructed on fills placed over existing surface soils, Where these are of inorganic or partly organic composition. Portions of the project site in which peat is exposed at ground surface [northwest quadrant) could also receive fill ; however, the precautions which must be ' ;invoked to offset the effects of compression of the thick unit of soft peat are i • Citizens Services Corp April 4, 1974 Page 3 such that this area could better be used more economically as as open space. 4. Settlement of parking areas and driveways can be controlled by preloading accomplished in conjunction with filling of the site. The details of the earthwork procedure will be dependent on variations in thickness of the grossly compressible soil units. We recommend that a detailed exploration of: the upper soil horizons be made prior to undertaking this phase of the project. 5. Care must be exercised during the site preparation phase of the project to prevent erosion of fill and siltation of the I! adjacent lake waters. We anticipate,, however , that with final paving and landscaping of the project, no future exposure to siltation would exist. Concentrated discharge of storm water into Lake Washington should, of coyrse, be provided with closed conduit or lined ditches to avoid erosion. S. Recommendations for aseismic design of proposed structures will be provided at. a later date, when structure types and loadings are known. The site itself presents no natural hazards (e. g. , landslide or liquefaction potential ] from seismic activity. We shall be pleased to provide such additional assistance and consultation as you might need;: in formulating further plans for this project. t "ta Very truly yours, as �<�ce NEIL H. TWELKER 6 ASSOCIATES .ors w f by `� �•41 AFGIT�R�' \C Neil H. Twelker 00e4VL NHT : acm f Nrk- -111 I APPENDIX CC ENDANGERED SPECIES ENDANGERED SPECIES Mammals Birds Polar Bear Whooping crane Barren Ground Grizzly California condor Glacier Bear Everglade kite Northern swift fox Southern bald eagle Black-footed ferret American peregrin falcon Eastern Panther Ivory billed woodpecker Florida cougar Southern red-cockaded woodpecker Texas, ocelot Imperial slender-billed grouse Texas'.margay Bachman'.s warbler Mexican grizzly Kirtland's warbler Red wolf Dusky seaside sparrow San Juaquin kit fox Cape Sable sparrow Lower California pronghorn Masked bobwhite Sonora pronghorn Puerto Rico plain pigeon Peninsular bighorn Eskimo. curlew . Tule elk Yum clapper rail. Key deer Aleutian Canada goose Columbia white-tailed deer Tule white-fronted goose Wood bison Mexican duck Indiana: bat : Puerto Rico parrot . Spotted bat Puerto Rico short-eared owl Kaibab -squirrel Attwater's prairie chicken . Delmarva Peninsular fox squirrel . Utah prairie dog Reptiles & Amphibians Texas kangaroo rat . , Salt marsh harvest mouse. Gila monster . Beach meadow vole American alligator Block Island meadow vole Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Atlantic walrus San ' Francisco garter snake Florida manatee Santa Cruz long-toed salamander Southern sea otter Texas blind salamander . ' Guadalupe fur seal Inyo County toad Caribbean monk seal ' ' - Houston toad Fin whale Pine Barrens tree. frog, Blue whale Bog turtle ' • Humpback whale Greenland right whale North Pacific right whale North Atlantic right whale Fishes . Pui'te cutthroat trout Mohave chub Greenback cutthroat trout . ' Humpback chub Gila trout. Moapa: dace. Apache trout Devils hole pupfish Pahrump killifish Comanche Springs pupfish ' Modoc sucker. Owens Valley pupfish Unarmored three-spine stickleback ' Big Bend gambusia Fountain darter Clear Creek gambusia . Short-nosed sturgeon Picos ::gambusia' Source: Seattle Audubon Society APPENDIX D AIR QUALITY ( ( • AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS SULFUR OXIDES NATIONAL PUGET SOUND PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS • Tne presence of .sulfur.oxides in.the . • PRIMARY • Notes SECONDARY _ Notes REGION Photochemical oxidants are produced in ambient air has teen associated with 3 -' the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides a variety- of respiratory diseases and. SULFUR OXIDES ug/m3 ppm . . ug/m • ppm and some hydrocarbons are exposed to increased mortality rates. They rep- annual Average $0 I . ,Q3 j • c n ' Q2 a 02 sunlight. Photochemical oxidants cause resent a significant economic burden I ppm irritation to the mucous membranes, and have a nuisance impact. When sill- 30-day .Average I ' a .04 ppm damage to vegetation and deterioration fur.. oxides are inhaled with small I of materials. They affect the clear- par.ticles, the health effect is in- 24-hour Average • • 3b5 ',14 260 I ,10 a 10 ppm ante mechanism of the lungs and alter creased. -Inhalation of sulfur dioxide ' • ' resistance to respiratory bacterial can.cause increased airway resistance ' hour Average I o 1,3�! 5Q infections. The national primary air by constricting lung passages. 1-hour Average I I c 25 PPm quality standard for photochemical oxidants is based on evidence--of in- 1-hour Average I I 'a 40 ppm creased frequency of asthma attacks PARTICULATES 1 I for some people on days when hourly 5-min. Average I d 1,00 ppm averages reach 0.1 ppm. Eye irrita- Smail discrete masses of solid or iiq- • 3 ' tion is possible when atmospheric con- .uid.matter dispersed in the atmosphere, SUSPENDED ug/m I --- ug., i centrations reach this level. especially those of one micron or less _ .PARTICULATES I in diameter, are associated with a Annual Geom. Mean • 75 I -- a 60 I a 60 ua/m3 variety of adverse effects on public I NITROGEN DIOXIDE health and- welfare. Particulate.mat- ' ter in the respiratory tract may pro- 24-hour Average. + 260 . I •--- b 150 I b 150 ug/m3 Nitric oxide results from the fixation duce- injury by itself,. or it may act_ of nitrogen and oxygen at high temper- in 'conjunction with gases to increase 3 i t atures as in fuel combustion. There the effect on the body. Small parti- . CARBON MONOXIDE m9/m I PPm are several atmospheric reactions Iles suspended in the air-are ' chiefly_ which lead to the oxidation of nitric responsible for reduced visibility in 8-hour Average 10 I 9 b. same same oxide 'to nitrogen dioxide, , and the the Puget Sound area. Soiling of presence of' nitrogen dioxide in am- 1-hour A buildings and other property is' a verage' 40 ' 35 b Sane same bient air is essential to the produc- leo levels, effect of high particulate tion of photochemical oxidants. The PHOTOCHEMICAL ug/m3 I ppm . presence of nitrogen dioxide in am- - • - OXIDANTS- . bient air has been associated with a • variety of respiratory diseases. CARBON MONOXIDE 1-hour Average ' . 160 1 -.08 b . - same same Carbon monoxide reacts with the hemo- 1 NITROGEN ug/m3 I PPM HYDROCARBONS giobin in red blood ce.l-ls.to decrease .IT OGE.N DIOXIDE the, oxygen-carrying capacity of the I A Defined as organic compounds 'composed blood. -The• 'national nnual Average 10Q I- Q5 a same same primary standard exclusively of carbon and hydrogen,. for carbon monoxide was based on evi- 3 I HYDROCARBONS. ug/m PPR;._ hydrocarbons are primarily associated dense that levels df carboxyhemoglobin I with the use of petroleum products. r human blood as low as 2.5` may be I • They are the main components of photo- �iated with impa.ir�rent .of ability 3-hour Average- 160 i ,24 t same same a« -tG- discriminate chemical smog. Hydrocarbons alone have time- intervals. national ambient air quality standards - •- T G no known effect on. human health; there- for carbon . monoxide are intended to. _,ATE AND REGION PARTICLE FALLOUT STANDA, DS (No National Standard) fore the sole purpose of prescribing protect.against trc occurrence of car- Industrial Areas'(a) • IC'6-an.s/meter2.;7onth (28.6 tons/mile2/month) a hydrocarbon standard is to control photochemical oxidants. • boxyhemoglobin levels above 2' . Note: Commercial-Residential Areas (a). 5 -grants/meter2/month (14.3 tons/mile2/month) Smoking •up .to 2'packs of-cigarettes a day raises carboxyhemoglobin levels to ' about SC.. This.is equivalent to expos- Gpr" 1 = parts per million a Never to be exceeded . . . ,,re for 8 or more hours to 30 ppm of -3/m' = mitre^rams per b Not to be exceeded more than once per year cartcn,'rnonoxide. cubic meter c Not to be exceeded rrc,re that. twice in seven bays • ,!m3 . = miliigrar per d Net to be exceeded more than once in eight hours • cuLic meter Source: Puget .Sound Ai r •Pol 1 uti on Control Agency ' . , . . PSAPCA 2/7? i'Ubt I JUUNU M L K F'ULLU 1 1 UIV LUN I KUL AULNL T AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - JANUARY 1973 • • SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient Of Haze) Max 1/hr. Max 24/hr Monthly Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Station Ay) (ppm) Avg (epm) Avg (epm) Avg (COH) Avg (COH) Avg (CON) . Marysville School Dist. Off. - - - i 3.2 1.4 0.46 . Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett .09 .03 .009 2.2 0.8 0.44 . . Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle .10 .02 .004 , - - - . Seattle Center .13 .05 .011 + 2.6 1.4 0.58 . Duwamish Pump. Sta. , Seattle .19 .05 • .014 4.5 2.6 1.00 . AMC1, Tukwila .08 .01 . .002 , 2.6 1.4 0.56' , Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .08 .01 .001 2.8 1.7 0.53 . rife Sr. H. S. .13 .01 .000 3.1 2.1 0.70 • . Adams St:, Tacoma - - - + 1.9 . 1.2 0.49 . N. 26th & Pearl , Tacoma .42 - .06 • . .005 i 4.1 0.9 0.37 • 1 Burton, Vashon Island .19 .04 .005 . McMicken Heights, King Cty. .26 .05 .010 1 H L. SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AIR QUALITY INDEX . 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm : (50 = ALERT, 100 = WARNING. Station for 5 min for 1 hr for 1 hr for 24 hrs 150 = EMERGENCY) ' r , 1 Everett: Seattle Tacoma • ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma . 1 -- McMicken Heights, King Co. 1 , Max 24 hr 23 , 43 32 , Min 24 hr. . 2 3 3 1 , Monthly Avg 8.8 17.0. 13.1• SUSPENDED•PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24 hrs. each 6th day) SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur (150 micrograms/cubic meter not.to be exceeded more than once per year) trioxide/100 sq. centimeters/day) Min ' Max Occ Exc Monthly. (Sampling Period: 30 days) Monthly Station 1,g/m3i 1:g/mi • 150'1�g/m9 Avg pg/m Station ' Avg , bolt River Watershed '4.0 6.6 ' 5.4 • , Marysville School District Off. 0. 31 ' ' ;,,,Marysville School Dist. Off. , 16.3 (i '.5 • 44.2 , Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett • 0.61' , Medical-Dental .Bldg.,Everett+ 17.8 65.8 44.6 Seattle Center 1.43 , U.S.C.G.S., Seattle 25.6 86.2 • 69.7 , Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 0.92 , Seattle Center I, 39.2 102.0 78.3 , Duwamish Pump. Sta.. Seattle 0.76 , Public Safety•Bldg., Seattle, 41.9 155.0 1 103.0 ' , 25 S. Hanford St., Seattle 0.65 , Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle; 53.8 190.0 2 127.0 , Municipal Bldg.,' Renton 0.28 , Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue 20.8 102.0 73.2 115 E. Main, Auburn 0.27 . S.E. Pub. Health Ctr.,Renton 14.3 43.2 . 28.3 , KIRO Transmitter, Maury'Is. ' 0.51 , Municipal Bldg., Renton 25.7 73.8 43.0 , Hancock Ranch, Maury Is. 0.68 , 115 E. Main, Auburn : 32.3 116.0 . 88.2 Gold Beach, Maury Is. 1.04' , Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton 16.8 52.8 38.1 , Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton 0.50 ,Meeker Jr: H.. S., Tacoma 23.9, 91.6 ' 55.1 , Winslow City Hall, Kitsap Cty. • 0.27 , Tideflats, Tacoma. ; 50.3 115.0 85.6 , Kitsap County Airport 0. 13 , Fife Sr. High School . 21.0 ' 100.0 63.4 , Tideflats, Tacoma 0. 40 , Hess Bldg. , Tacoma 70.3 . 124.0 92.3 N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma • 0. 51 , N.•?6th & Pearl, Tacoma i 19.0 84.1 . 57.7 . , Clover Park, Tacoma 0. 26 . , McMicken Heights, King Cty. ; 19.9 56.1 34.0 , McMicken Heights, King Cty. • 0. 40 , Monthly all-station average !- 65.2 ' , Monthly all-station average , ' 6. 56 • TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .08 ppm/1 hr. not to be exceeded more than once per Year), Seattle Center McMicken Heights ' Maximum 1-hour average .04 ppm .04 ppm . Maximum 4-.hour average . ' .04 ' ppm .04 ppm • • Maximum daily average ' ' . .03 ppm .04 Ppm. •. . Monthly arithmetic average . .014 ppm • ..018 ppm McMicken Heights, King County • CARBON MONOXIDE (Standard: 9 ppm/8 hrs and 35 ppm/1 hr NITROGEN•DIOXIDE (standard: .05 ppm annual avg.) , `....+ neither to be exceeded more than once per year) • Maximum 1-hour average • 5 1 9 ppm Maximum 1-hour average O6 ..ppm ' Maximum 8-hour average • 2 ppm ' Maximum daily average • • 2 ppm Maximum daily average ' � ' .04 ppm• v Monthly arithmetic average . . . • 0.7•ppm +• Monthly arithmetic avera e• . ' ' ' .025 ppm + .- -. ......- - - - . .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - . .. 9 - - - - _ • • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - FEBRUARrr 1973 SULFUR DIOXIDE' AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient Cf Haze) Max 1/hr •Max 24/hr Monthly Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly 'r..., Station Avg jppm) _ Avg (ppm COH l _ Avg ippm) Avg-( )_ Avg fay) _ Ayg_(COH)_ _ .Marysville School Dist. Off. - - - ' 2.6 1.2 0.68 .Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett .09 .02 .012 2.2 1.2 0.66 . Green La1.e Reservoir, Seattle - .07 .02 .004 - - - ' :'eatt.le Center .18 .05 .008 3.0 1.1 0.67 ' Ikrw;onish Pump. Sta., Seattle .29 .05 .017 3.9 2.0 1.12 INA'1, 'll'kwil:i . Al .02 .005 2.7 1.5 0.85 Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .10 .02 .005 2.1 1.2 . 0.63 . ' Fife Sr. H. S. .06 .01 .002 5.0 1.7 1.06 '.liill1rrd lien. School., Tacoma .10 .02 .009 ' 3.8 1.7 1.01 • N. 26th F, Pearl, Tacoma .14 .02 .007 ' 1.9 0.8 0.46 . Burton, Vashon Island .16 .02 ' .004 '1,1 Micken heights, King Cty. .30 ' .06 .015 J SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AIR QUALITY INDEX . 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm (50 ., ALERT, 100 .. WARNING, Station - for 5 min for 1 hr for 1.hr for 24 hrs 150 .. EMERGENCY) 'N. 26th Fa Pearl, Tacoma . ' 1 • Everett Seattle Tacoma . 'McMicken Heights, King Cty. 2 ' ' • 'Duwamish P. S., Seattle 4 ' Max 24 hr 20 33 28 ' ' Min 24 hr 3 10 7 Monthly Avg 12.2 19.0 18.2 SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24,.hrs. each 6th day) SULFATI ON RATE (Milligrams sulfur (150 micrograms/cubic meter not to be exceeded more than once per year) trioxide/100 sq. centimeters/day) • Min Max Occ Exc Monthly (Sampling Period: 30 days) Monthly . Station ug/m3 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 Avg ug/m' Station Avg r 'NI"' 'Tolt River Watershed ' 7.6 26.9 16.7 ' Marysville School District Off. 0.25 ,,Marysville School.Dist. Off. ' 25.2 119.0 . 64.1 ' Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 0.66 • ' • 'Medical-Dental Bldg.,Everett' 37.6 88.5 60.1 ' Seattle Center 1.04 .'U.S.C.G.S., Seattle ' 12.9 ' 62.7 39.8 Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 0.70 'Seattle Center . ' 28.3 ' 112.0 65.3 ' Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle . 0.79 • 'Public Safety Bldg., Seattle' 55.9 157.0 • ' 1 105.0 ' 25 S..Hanford St., Seattle 0.69 'Iuwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle' 53.3 . 156.0 1 111.0 ' Municipal Bldg., Renton . ' 0.42 • 'Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue .' 49.0 111.0 74.9 ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 0.24 'S.E. Pub. Health Ctr.,Renton' 16:0 129.0 56.7, ' KIRO Transmitter, Maury Is'. 0.33 'Nkinicipal Bldg., Renton . ' 46.2 73.6 59.8 ' Hancock Ranch, Maury Is. 0:53 '20 Auburn Ave., Auburn. ' 56.0 120.0 86.2 •' _Gold.Beach,,Maury Is. 0.59 . . 'Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton ' 20.4 60.4 36.7 ' Dewey Jr. .II. S., Bremerton 0.46 'Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma '' 29.3 ' . 85.0 • 54.2 Winslow City Hall, Kitsap Cty. 0.26 'Tideflats, Tacoma . ' 55.8 143.0 104.0 ' Kitsap County Airport . 0.20 . 'Fife Sr. High School . ' , ' 52.9 126.0 80.7 ' Tideflats, Tacoma 0.35 . 'Willard Elem. School,Tacoma. 41.9 . 179.0 2 . 127.0 ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma . 0.58 'Hess Bldg., Tacoma 48.5 134.0 75.5 ' Clover Park, Tacoma_ 0.33 'N. 26th 6 Pearl, Tacoma ' 28.2 116.0 • 75.6 ' McMicken Heights, ldng:Cty. . `0.46 • 'McMicken • ,Heights,. King Cty. 30.3 ' 88'.3 56.4 ! • 'Monthly all-station average ' . 71.9 . Monthly all-station average . . 0.50 • TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .,08 ppm/1 hr. not to•be exceeded more than once per year) ' ' • Seattle Center McMicken Heights Maximum .1-hour average .04 ppm .05 ppm • • Maximun 4-hour average .04 ppm .04 ppm Maximum daily average .02 Kw :03 ppm Monthly arithmetic average .015 ppm • .011 ppm - ' I • . McMicken Heights, King County • . • `'�- CARBON MONOXIDE (Standard: .9 ppn/8 hrs.and 35 ppm/1 hr NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard: .05 ppn.annual avg.) neither to be exceeded more than once per year) . 'Maximum 1-hour average 5 , ppm , Maximum 1-hour average . . . . . .04 ppm 'Maximum 8-hour average . ' 3 •ppm , • ' • 'Maximum daily average . mum 2• ppm ; Maxi daily average ' • .03 ppm 'Monthly arithmetic average 1.1. ppm '.,. Monthly arithmetic average. . .. . . .. . .. • .025 ppm • • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY • •• AIR MONITORING STATISTICS.- MARCH 1973 • SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient <<' iia:'.':, Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Max.1/hr . Max 24/hr Monthly \"•'" Station Avg ippm) _ Avg IPhm) _ Avg kppm) - -Avg-( )- - - Avg SCO}I) - _ -,17g_('.J ;. 'Marysv:i lle' Schnnl Dist. Off. - - - 2.1 0.9 . c,.;;:: • • 'Medical=Dental 81dg., Everett .20 .03 .008 ' ' 2.4 0.8 0.42 '(;.•een Lake Reservoir, Seattle .12 .02 .003 ' 1.9 1.0 0.5:: . ' Seattle Center .14 .04 .006 1.7 0.8 0.7:, '1. ainish Pump. Sta., Seattle .14 .04 .009 2.4 1.5 0.67 • 'AMCI, Tukwila .11 .02 , .006 1.6 1.1 • 0.56 . 'ticker Jr. !i. S., Tacoma .60 .03 .006 ' ' 1.8 0.8 0.42 'life Sr. H. S. - - - ' 2.6 . 1.6 0.61 'Aillard Elem. School., Tacoma .11 .03 .005 2.9 1.6 . • 0.60 ,N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma ' .22 .04 .006 ' 1.7 0.6 . 0.:,' 'Burton, Vashon Island .Z1 .04 .009 'McMicken Heights, King Cty. .20 .05 - .012 ' . • • SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AIR QUALITY INDEX • 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm ' 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm (50 o ALERT, 100 = WARNING, Station for 5 min for 1 hr for 1 hr for 24 hrs 150 g EMERGENCY) ' t4 oker Jr. H.S., Tacoma ' 3 1 2 ' Everett Seattle lacoro.. ' . ' ' Max 24 hr 15 23 27 ' ' Min•24 hr • 3 3 3 . ' ' Monthly Avg 7.5 ' 11.8 11 .'! • SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24 hrs. each 6th day) SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur i;50 micrograms/cubic meter not to be exceeded more than once per year) . . trioxide 100 sq. centimeters/day) . • ' Min Max Oct Exc Monthly (Sampling Period: 30 days) Monthly • Station . ug/m° ug/m° 150 ug/m° Avg ug/m° Station Avg ..► .'Tolt River Watershed -. 6.8 37.0 16.9 . . Marysville School District Off. 0.24 'Marysville School Dist. Off. ' 28.8 70.0 45.8 . .Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 3.56 'Medical-Dental. Bl.dg.,Everett' 33.9 58.4 47.2 •' Seattle Center 1.10 'L'..S.C.G.S., Seattle 46.9 93.2 68.8 ' Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 0.88 • "'eattle,Center 27.6 48.5 37.4 ' Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle 0.90 ' 'Public S..fety Bldg., Seattle' 47.6 ' 85.2 68.8 ' 25 S. Hanford St., Seattle 0.67 '1'•:.n,'maish Jump. Sta., Seattle' 52.5 89.5' 76.6 ' Municipal Bldg., Renton . 0.43 'Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue ' 34.3 54.5 45.2 ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 0.30 ' . . '5.Ii. Pub. Health Ctr.,Renton _ 18.5 44.6 34.7 I KIRO Transmitter, Maury Is. 0.:al • 'Ainicipal Bldg., Renton , ' 32.2 71.4 58,1 ' Hancock Ranch, Maury Is. 0.81 ' ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 31.3 86.0 • 64.4 ' Gold Beach, Maury Is. 1:11 ' 'Pcwey Jr. H. S., Bremerton ' 15.4 34.0 . 27.2 ' ' Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton. 0.37 'M.:cker Jr. H. S., Tacoma ' 21.2 • 50.7 ' 38.7 ' Winslow City Hall, Kitsap Cty. 0,27 'Tideflats, Tacoma ' 33,0 88.7 . 72.2 . .' Kitsap County Airport 0.08 . 'Fife Sr. High School • ' 12.8 .• 60.1 41:3. ' Tideflats, Tacoma • • . 0.40 'Willard Elem. School, Tacoma ' 14.4 111,7 54.6. ' N. 26th $ Pearl, Tacoma 0.49 . 'floss Bldg:, Tacoma . 22.1 60.4 • 46.7 . Clover Park, Tacoma 0.27 ' • 'M. 26th G Pear.l, Tacoma ' 12.5 . • 67:6 38.1 ' McAti.cken Heights, King Cty. 0.54 'ktMicken Heights, King Cty. 21.9 ' 70.9 38.6 ' . 1/,kinthly all-station average- :- 49.0 . ' Monthly ail-station'average 0^56 TOTAL OXIDANT. (Standard: .08 ppm/1 hr. not to be exceeded,more'than once per year) . Seattle Center ' McMicken Heights Maximum l-hour average .05 ppm .06 PPm • Maximum 4-hour average • .04 ppm .05 PPm Maximum daily average .03 .ppm . .04 PPm M nthly arithmetic average .016 ppm . • .020 ppm • ' McMicken Heights, King County r • . .CARBON MONOXIDE (Standard: 9 ppn/8,hrs and 35 ppm/1 hr' S NITROGEN DIOXIDE ( random, • .05 ppm annual avg.) neither to be exceeded more than once per year) . 'Maximum 1-hour average ' 5 ppm , Maxittum 1-hour average • .11 ppm 'Maximum 8-hour average 3 ppm. , 'Maximum daily average , • • 2 Maximum, Maxi daily•average • .08 PPm • ..Monthly.arithmetic average . . . . • 1.1 ppm , Monthly, arithmetic average .038 PP h • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS APRIL 1973 • • • SULFU!; DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (coefficient 01 Hai.: • Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly :._a 1..1.•_1 Avg IPpm) _ Avg IPPm) _ Avg Ippm) _ Avg_(COH)- - - Avg fall() Avp ((.U.=iJ.. ,.- ' :'r.-.wii]; School. [list. Off. 1.3 0.6 �. 2 'Medical-Dental P]Lh ., l:verett. .07 .02 ,005 1.9 0.8 0.35 Gr'ci; Lake Reservoir, Seattle .26 .01 .001 ' 1.3 0.7 1.37 ' sear t.]e ('enter .56 .03 . .005 1.7 0.8 : /:' L)u:amiss Pump. Sta., Seattle .29 .02 .007 2.4 _. O.Gt 'WI, Tukwila .16 .03 :009 1.6 1.0 0.55 'Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .11 .02 .004 . , 2.0 0.7 D.36 • • 1-:fe Sr. H. S. - - 2.3 1.2 0.61 •Willard Elem. School. , Tacoma .12 .02 .005 2.6 1.2 0.59 ' .<.• 2(th v Pearl, Tacoma ' ' .3] .02 .006 1.6 0.6 0.: . ' -Burtea, Vashon Island .26 .03 .004 'NIMicken Heights, King Cty. .59 .06 .011 ' SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AIR QUALITY INDEX 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm (50 = ALERT, 100 = WARNING, Station. for 5 min for 1 hr for 1 hr for 24 hrs 150 = EMERGENCY) Barton, Vashon Island • 1 , ' N. 76th F, Pearl, Tacoma 2 Everett , Seattle Tacoma :kaatcken Heights, King Co. 2 4 -'- - :•c.ittle Center 1 2 Max 24 hr 13 ::3 20 ia:wan.ish 2 Alin 24 hr 2 3 3 Greer.l ake 1 . Monthly Avg 6.2 11. 4 10.0 SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24 hrs. each 6th day) SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur 1150 micrograms/Cubic meter not. to be exceeded nor! than once per .year) trioxide/100 sy. centimeters/day) . Min Max 0cc Exc Monthly (Sampling Period: 30 days) ...lonthl.} Station , ' ug/m' ug/m' • 150 ug/m' Avg ug/m' ' Station Avg . 'ioit. River Watershed 11.1 25.9 16.4 ' Marysville School .District Off. 0.22 `..- 'Marysville School Dist. Off. ' 26.0 81.6 51.4 ' Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 0.63 • 'Medical-Dental Bldg.,Everett' 41.7 90.3 60.0 ' Seattle.Center a.70 ';.S.C.G.S., Seattle 40,7 85.3 67.7 Public Safety Bldg., Seatfile 0.53 •Sc;tt]e Center 23.4 49.1 34.1 ' Duwamish Pimp: Sta., Seattle 0.55 'I` clic Safety Bldg., Seattle 34.5 88.0 59.6 ' 25 S. Hanford St., Seattle 0.56 1 rwarnish Pump. Sta., Seattle' 36.0 ' 127.1 75.6 ' Municipal Bldg., Renton 0.4S itc;et Power Bldg., Bellevue ' 21.8 58.6 35.9 ' 20 Auburn Ave.., Auburn 22 S.E. Rib. Health Ctr.,Renton' •21.8 107,9 50.6 ' KIRO Transmitter, •Maury Is. 0.34 ' ' 'Municipal Bldg., Renton ••26.2 84.5 . . 54.6 ' Hancock Ranch, Maury Is. 0.77 ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 36.2 110.5 • 77.5 ' .Gold Beach, Nhury Is. 6.9E 'Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton ' 22.3 35.3 • _ 27.7 Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton 0.3C • 'Meeker Jr. H. S., 'Tacoma ' 26.2 73.8. 48.8 ' Winslow City Hall, Kitsap Cty. 0.25 ' . . 'Tideflats,' Tacoma .49.2 233.2 1 132.4 I Kitsap County Airport 0.1] ' 'Fife Sr. High School 23.3 ' 110.0 59.7 Tideflats, Tacoma 0.39. 'Willard F:lem, School,'Tacoma ' '28.7 129.4 70.8 ' '• N. 26th $ Pearl, Tacoma • C.50 'Hess Bldg., Tacoma ' 24.1 107.6 64.0 ' Clover Park,'Tacoma 0.3: N. 26th f; Pearl, Tacoma 14.0 52.0 29.6 I McMicken Heights, King Cty. 0.54 ' 'Mc31icl,en Heights, King Cty. 14.4 75.4 43.8 ' . tenthly all station average 56.9 ' MonthlyalI_stationaverage 0.46 TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .08 rpm/1 hr. pot.to be exceeded more than once per'year) , . Seattle Center • ' McMicken Heights . • Maximum 1-hour average .03 ppm .05 ppm Maximum 4-hour 4-hour average .03 ppm .05 ppm • Maximum daily average .02 ppm .03 ppm . . Monthly arithmetic average .013 ppm .022 ppm .1 • McMicken'Heights, King County • • (.:.FLcN t 0NOX1DC (Standard: 9 ppm/8 hrs and 35 ppm/1 hr NITROGEN.DIOXIDE (Standard: .05 ppm aturu•;l avg..' �,, neither to be exceeded more than once per year) • ' 'Maximum 1-hour average 4 r . M.ixiu m 8-Ivor average 4 PPm ' Maximum 1-hour average - PP 'Maximum c'aiij•, average � 3 P[� ' un ppm i Maximum daily average - [',ur Mhnih;y arithmetic average 1.6 • , .. _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ - - ,- - - . . - - ; - - -Ppm- , Monthly arithmetic average - - - - - pig;;; • ' PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - JUNE. 1973 SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient Of Haze) ;� Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly , Station Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (CON) .Avg (CON) Avg (COH) • Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett .34 .02 .005 , ' 1.2 0.6 ' 0.30 , • Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle. ' .05 .01 .005 0.8 0.4 0.24 Seattle Center ' .10 .01 • .005 , 1'.5 0.5 . 0.29 ' ' Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle .27 .03 .007 . , 3.5 0.8 0.44 AMCI, Tukwila .17 .02 .004 , , 1.5 • 0.8 0.34 McMicken Nelghts,'King County .44 .05 .009 , - - - Meeker Jr.. H. S., Tacoma .31 .02 • .005 , . 0.7 0.4 0.20 Fife Sr. H. S. - - - , 2.3 1.3 0.43 Willard Elem. School,'Tacoma .36 .02 .003 , 2.7 ' 1.1 • 0.44 , N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma .69 .03 .006 , 0.8 0:3 0.18 Burton, Vashon Island .27 .02 .004 , ' • SO2 • OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AIR QUALITY. INDEX 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm (50 - ALERT, 100 . WARNING, . Station . for 6 min for 1 hr for 1 hr. for 24 hrs 150 . EMERGENCY) Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma 2 . . , , • H. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 1 5 ' Everett Seattle Tacoma Burton, Vashon Island . 1 , > • McMicken Heights 2 1- 2 '. Max 24 hr 10 • 17 20' Willard Elem. School, Tacoma . • 1 '. Min 24 hr 3 3 . 3 'Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 1 / . • Duwamish, King County 1 . ' Monthly Avg 4.9 7.9 7.5 , •SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24 hrs. each 6th day) SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur '...,, (150 micrograms/cubic meter not to be exceeded.more than once per year), trioxide/100-sq. centimeters/day (Sampling Period: 30 days) ' Mine. Max Occ'Exc Monthly Monthly ' Station . U9/m' u9/0 150 u9/m' Avg µg/r' • Station .Avg • ' Tolt River Watershed . ' 10.1 26.0 • 17.4 ' Medical-Cental' Btdg., Everett 0.59. ' Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 28.3 53.5 . 39.8 ' Seattle Center 0:72 ' U.S.C.G.S., Seattle - 46.6 68.3 • • 54.5 ' Public Safety Bldg.. Seattle 0.66 ' Seattle Center ' • 24.6 • 43.2 ' 33.9 ' Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle • 0.81 ' Public S• afety Bldg., Seattle ' ' 41.2 '79.4 57.4 ' 25 S. Hanford'St., Seattle 0:65 ' Duwamish Pump. Sta.,, Seattle 46.9 112.8 72.3 • •' Municipal' Bldg., Renton .. • 0.57 ' ' Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue 27.8 45.8 • 35.1 ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 0.30 ' S. E. Pub.• Health Ctr.,.Renton • 26.6 43.3 • 35.9. • ' McMicken.Heights, King County , 0.59 ' ' Municipal Bldg., Renton 32.6 50.4 40.2 ' KIRO:Transmitter;..Maury'Is. 0.43 .• ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn , • 43.1' 103.8 . 67.1 .. '. Hancock Ranch; Maury Is." 0.72 ' McMicken Heights, King Cty. . 21.9 61.0 • 35.1 ' ' Gold Beach, Maury '1s. 0.74 ' Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton. - - 21.7 27.0 24.4 ': Dewey Jr. H.. S.', Bremerton 0.24 . 1 _. Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma ' 23.9 43.7 . � 32.4 . . 1-.•Winslow City Hall; Kitsap Cty. • 0.27 ' ' • Tideflats, Tacoma 66.1 300.4 , 1 133.3 ' Kitsap County Airport, , ' ' 0.17 Fife Sr. High School ' 19.1 '84.1' ' 48.1 ' Tideflats,. Tacoma . . 0.60 . ' ' Willard Elem. School. Tacoma 18.9 91.2 • 47.9 ' N.' 26th &.Pearl, Tacoma. 0.48: I. Hess Bldg., Tacoma . 25.7 56.9 ' 36.1 ' ' Clover Park, Tacoma ' • 0.35 ' N. 26th.& Pearl • , Tacoma ' •� 22.8 74.8 46.6.. ' ' •� • ' Monthly all-station average '. ' 47.6 ' Monthly all-station average.. . .. 0:52 . J. TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .08 ppm/1 hr. not to be exceeded • NITROGEN DIOXIDE .(Standard: '.OS ppm more :than once per year) ,annual avg.) . . Seattle Center McMicken Heights . McMicken Heights ' ' . Maximum 1-hour average .05 ppm . .07 ppm , Maxi:sum 1-hour average . . • .09 .ppm, . 1 Maximum 4-hour average .05 ppm • .06 ppm ' , • • . ' 1 Maximum.daily average .03 ppm. . .04 ppm ', Maximum daily average . .06 ppm, •• 1 Monthly arithmetic :average, • .019 ppm •• .023 ppm , Monthly arithmetic average .' . .029,ppm, ' J. • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY • AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - MAY, 1973 • SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient Of Haze) Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Station Avg fppm) _ Avg fppm) _ Avg fppm) Avg (COH) Avg (COH) Avg fcgH) - , . Marysville School Dist. Off. - - - 0.8 0.4 0.22 Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett .14 .02 .004 1.5 0.6 0.32 • (Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle .06 .01 ' .001 1.4 0.5 0.27 Seattle Center .12 .02 .005 1.2 0.6 0.35 Duwamish Pimp. Sta., Seattle • .15 .03 .009 2.4 1.1 0.56 AMCI, Tukwila .15 .03 .005 1.9 0.8 0.41 Meeker Jr. H.S., Tacoma .27 .02 .006 1.3 0.5 0.25 Fife Sr. H.S. .06 .02 .004 1.9. 1.0 0.47 Willard Elem. School, Tacoma .05 .01 .004 3.1 1.4 0.46 N. 26th'i Pearl, Tacoma .38 .03 .006 0.9 0.4 • 0.19 Burton, Vashon Island .42 .04 .004 -McMicken Heights, King Cty. .27 .07 .014 - , SO2 OCCUR) LACES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCFNI•RATICNS AIR QUALITY INDD( 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm (50 - ALERT, 100 n WARNING, Station for 5 min for 1 hr for 1 hr for 24 hrs . 150 a F14ERGENCY) Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma - 1 Everett Seattle Tacoma ' N. 26th 6 Pearl, Tacoma 2 5 . Burton, Vashon Island 1 3 ' Max 24 hr -10 20' 27 ' 1,.. McMicken Heights 2 ' Min 24 hr 2 3 . 3 . , • ' ' Monthly Avg 5.5 9.7 9.2 ' SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24 hrs. each 6th day) SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur (150 micrograms/cubic meter not to be exceeded more-than once per year) trioxide/100 sq. centimeters/day) Min Max lkc Exc Monthly, (Sampling Period:'" 30 days) Monthly Station ug/m3 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 Avg ug/m3 Station Avg , ' Tolt River Watershed . Marysville School District Off. 0.59 Marysville School Dist. Off. '22.8 63.4 35.7 , Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 0.62 ' • Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett '27.6 56.0' 39.6 , Seattle Center • ' 0.81 ' �..., . U.S.C.G.S., Seattle '41.1 69.6 • 51.8 , Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 0.65 ' Seattle Center '27.5 43.6 33.3 , Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle 0.90 Public Safety Bldg.,-Seattle38.9 78.9 • 52.5 . 25 S. Hanford St., Seattle 0.85 '' ' Duwamish Pump.Sta., Seattle '48.1 110.8 73.9 . Municipal Bldg., Renton . 0.58 I Puget Power B1d0., Bellevue :15.7 53.0 31.3 .. 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 0.26. ' S. E. Pub.HealthCtr:,Renton 20.6 58.1 33.5 . KIRO Transmitter, Maury Is. 0.58 ' Municipal Bldg., Renton '38.7 56.5. 47.8 . Hancock Ranch, Maury Is. •1.05 ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn .34.2. . 83.2 59.6 , Gold Beach, Maury Is. 1.06 ' Dewey Jr. H.S., Bremerton .18.8 46.8 31.0 . Dewey. Jr. H.S. Bremerton 0.18 ' • u-_Meeker Jr. H.S. ,21.8.21.8 69.1 _ .42,9 --. . Winslow City Hall,Kitsap Cty. 0.23 ' Tideflats, Tacoma 65.5 .150.7 1 94.2 . Kitsap County Airport 0.23 ' • • . • ' Fife Sr. High School '14.6 • 70.2 • 44.8 . Tideflats, Tacoma 0.39 ' Willard Elem,School,Tacoma ,19.9 72:8 50.5 N. 26th $ Pearl, Tacoma 0.55 ' Hess Bldg., Tacoma' �30.6 .81.4 55.6 . Clover Park, Tacoma • 0.31 , '' ',N. 26th $ Pearl, Tacoma ,14.4 ' 75.4 47.7 1-(McMicken Heights, King Cty. . 0.64 '^ht,Micken Heights • , King Cty. ,14.6 ' 59.9 35.5 Monthly all-station average ' , 46 1 . Monthly all-station average . : 0:58 TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .08'ppm/1 hr. not to be exceeded mare than once per year) • . •• -Seattle Center . McMicken Heights ' . I Maximum 1-hour average • .07 •.ppm . • .. .07 ppm, , , Maximum 4-hour average .06 ppm .06 ppm • . , Maximum daily average .04 ppm .04 ppm • . • '• , Monthly arithmetic average .017 ppm '. .027 ppm • MoMicken Heights, ,King County CARBON MONOXIDE (standard: 9 ppm/8 hrs and 35 ppm/1 hr NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard: .05.ppm annual avg..) neither to.he exceeded more than once per year) Maximum 1-hour average 3 . ppm . Maxinun 1-hour average - ppm, • , Maximm 8-hour average 2 ppm ' Nur Maximum daily average 2 ppm . Maximmt daily average - ppm, . , Monthly arithmetic average 0.9 ppm , Monthly arithmetic average - ppmi PUGET SOUND 'AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY • AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - JULY. 1973 SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient of.Haze) Max 1/hr Max 24/hr. Monthly Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Station Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) . Avg (COH) Avg (COH) Avg (COH) `. I1 ' . Madical-Dental Bldg.. Everett .46 .04 .007 , 1 3 0.7 0.36 , ' traen Lake Reservoir, .Seattle .06 .01 .002 , 1 3 0.5 0.25 , . ' Szattic Center .07 .01 . .002 , 1 4 0.7. 0.30 , ' Duwamish Puny. Sta., Seattle .32 .03 .006 , 2 2 1.1 0.47 , ' MCI, Tukwila .19 .02 .004 , 2 2 0.8 0.37 , t°cMicken Heights, King County .54 .05 .008 , 1 1 0.5 0.31' , ' raek=r Jr. H. S.. Tacoma .65 .09 .008 , 1 8 0.5 0.21 , ' Fifa Sr. H. S. - - - , 2 3 1.0 0.50 , Willard Elem. School, Tacoma .14 .02 .003 , 2 9 1.3 0.52 , N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma .39 .04 .006 , 0;8 0.4 0.18 Burton, Vnshon Island .06 .02 , .004 , 1 SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AIR QUALITY INDEX 1.00' ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm ' (50 • ALERT, 100 ■ WARNING, ' Station for min for 1 hr for 1 hr for 24'hrs 150 ■EMERGENCY) i___t'.'eker Jr. H. S., Tacoma 1 2 6. N. 26th &,Pearl, Tacoma 2 4 ' ' Everett Seattle Tacoma rrMicken Heights 2 3 I - ' , tlAtcnl-Dental Bldg., Everett 1 1 ' Max 24 hr 10 20 22 ' Duwenish; King.County ' . ' ' 1 ' Min 24 hr 2 3 2 1 , ' Monthly Avg 5.9 7.9 9.5 ' FUSPENDED' PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24,hrs. each 6th day) SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur. (150 micrograms/cubic meter not to be exceeded more than once per year) ' trioxide/100 sq. centimeters/day (Safipling-Period: . 30 days) Min Max 0cc Exc Monthly Monthly Station u9/m' Mg/m'' 150 yg/m' Avg ug/m' Station Avg . . - - - -• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 ' 'olt River Watershed 13.8 25.7 18.2 . ' Medical-Cental Bldg., Everett 0.52 ' 'Medical-Dental Bldg.. Everett 23.2 '48.6 38.8 ' Seattle Center 0.50,. ' ' IF.S.C.G.S:, Seattle 35.4 66.4 46.7 ' Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 0.55 '. Seattle Center ' : 21.1. ' 34.0 ' 27.0 '' Duwamish Pump. Sta.., Seattle '0.65 ' ' Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 29.1' 51.0 43.8. ' 25 S. Hanford St., Seattle 0.32 ' Dummish Pump. Sta., Seattle 35.9 84.3 58.5 ' Municipal Bldg., Renton 0.41 ' Nat Power Bldg., Bellevue 22.9. 42.3 33.9' ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 0.22 ' . S. E. Pub. Health Ctr., Renton 27.1 47.3 . :, ' 41.5 ' McMicken Heights, King County 0.47 ' Municipal Bldg., Renton 17.9 54.8. '42.0:- '. KIRO Transmitter, Maury Is. 0.29 ' 20 Auburn Ave.. Auburn 48.5 89.4 . 75.3 ' Hancock Ranch, Maury Is. 0.53 ' McMicken Heights, King Cty. 23.1 : 69.1 ' 42.2 ' Bold Beach, Maury Is. 0.56 ' Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton 14.6 25.8 ' 20.6 ' . ' Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton 0.10 ' 1•'�$eker .Jr. H. S., Tacoma ' 22.8 , 42.0 ' 33.3 ' Winslow City. Hall, Kitsap Cty.' '0.20' '-. ' . ' Tidflats, Tacoma 58.2 184.E 1' 112.3 ' Kitsap County Airport 0.08 ' Fife Sr.. HighSchool` 31.2 : 77.0 1 55.6 ' . Tideflats, Tacoma 0.38 ' ..Willard Elem. School, Tacoma 29.9 , 99.3 69.6 ' ' N. 26th.& Pearl, Tacoma ' 0.42 ' ' Hess Bldg., Tacoma 16.4' 86.9 54.4 ! Clover.Park, Tacoma. 0.23 1 N. 26th &.Pearl, Tacoma 43.1 . 80.4 . 61.6.. Monthly ill-station average 49.4 ' Monthly all-station.average`. . 0.38 TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .08 ppm/1 hr. not to be exceeded • NITROGEN DIOXIDE :: (standard: .05 ppm more than once per year) annual avg.) Seattle Center. McMicken Heights McMicken Heights 1 . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. ... . . .. . . .. . ..... . . . ..a.- - - - - .7 , . Maximum 1-hour average .07. ppm' .08 ppm , 'Maximum 1-hour average . . .11 ppm, 1 Maximum 4-hour average '.07 , PPm .07 PPm ; ' ,. Mr.ximum daily average .05. ppm .03 ppm. ' , Maximum daily'.average ' . .: :. .06 MP'm, 1 Monthly arthrnetic average ..020 PPm .020 ppm : Monthly arithmetic average . .036 ppm, r.r ..-.r . i 'r ,,. PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - AUGUST. 1973 . " SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient Of Haze) Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly r.., Station Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (COH) Avg (COH) Avg (C0:!) Medical-Dental Bldg., 'Everett „ .14 .02 .006 ,: 2..1 0.6 0.38 Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle .08 .01 .003 ' , 1.0 0.6 0.33 Seattle Center .06 .01 .001 ,. 1.5 0.6 0.L7. Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle .26 .03 .009 , 2,0 1.0 " e.51 AMCI, Tukwila .30 .03 .005 , 1.3 0.7 . 0.38 , McMicken Heights, King County . .30 .02 .007 ', 0.9 0.5 0.28 Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .27 .02 .004 , 1.4 0.6 0.27 . Fife Sr. H. S. , 1.8 ' 0:9 0.46 , . • Willard Elem. School, Tacoma .07 .02 . .006 ,. 2.4 ' 1.1 0.48 N. 26th &.Pearl, Tacoma .64 .05 .005 , 1.0 0.4 0.23 Burton, Vashon Island .. ' .21 . . .02 .003 SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AIR QUALITY INDEX 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm '0.25 ppm '0.10 ppm '(50 ALERT, 100 = WARNING, Station for 5 min, for 1 hr. for 1 hr for 24 hrs . . ' "150 =, EMERGENCY) 1 , Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma 1 , , , N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 3 - 1 5 . ' ' ' Everett Seattle Tacoma , McMicken Heights. 1 0 r , Duwamish, King County 1 ' ' Max 24 hr 12 15 ' . 18 , Tukwila, King County ' . . . 1 ' Min 24 hr 3 5 . '3 . '. ' ' Monthly Avg 6.6 , 8.8 • 8.6 I i , SUSPENDED'PARTICULATE -'(sampling Period: 24, hrs: each 6th day) SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur „% (150 micrograms/cubic meter not to be exceeded more than once per year) trioxide/100 so. centimeters/day Min Max . Occ Exc Monthly (Sampling Perioa: 30 days) Station , . ' yg/m' µg/m' . 150 i.. ' Avg Monthly ug/m Avg Vg/m Station A I'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -, ' bolt River Watershed ' 12.6 ' 37.2 " 26:2 ' Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 0.44 ' Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 30.8 63.9 44.6 ' Seattle Center 0.60 ' U.S.C.G.S., Seattle ' .32.3 72.1 55.4 ' Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 0.60 ' Seattle Center 26.6 39.9 33.6 ' Duwamish Pump: Sta., Seattle 0.78 ' ' Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 34.2 62.9 47.5 ' .25 S. Hanford St., Seattle 0.33 ' Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle - ' 44.8 98.9 ' '74.0. ' .Municipal Bldg., Renton ''0.59 ' ' Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue 27.8 49.7 38.1 ' 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn " ' 0.21 ' S. E. Pub. Health Ctr., Renton 29.8 56.2 43.0 ' McMicken Heights, King County 0.43 ' ' . Municipal Bldg., Renton ' 36.7 61.2 • 50.0 ' KIRQ Transmitter, Maury Is. 0.38 ' ' 20 Auburn Ave.,.Auburn 48.4 114.4 ' 85.6 ' Hancock Ranch, Maury .Is. 0.83 ' ' McMicken Heights, King Cty. 24.5 53.4 : 41.6' ' Gold Beach, Maury Is. ' 0.64 ' Dewey Jr. H. S:, Bremerton 21.9 37.4 27:7 . ' Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton . '0.06..: ' ,, , y: Meeker Jr. H.•S:, Tacoma 32:2 59.2, 43.6 . ' Winslow City Hall, Kitsap' Cty. 0.07 '. ' Tideflats, Tacoma - 92.9. 144.4 . 116.6 ' Kitsap County Airport . 0.00 ' . .Fife Sr. High School - 32.2 78.2 55.7 ' Tideflats, Tacoma . " 0.44 ' . ' Willard Elem. School, Tacoma 42.8 85.7 64.9 ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma' 0.40 ' ' Hess Bldg.', Tacoma 41.5 . . 75.4 59.4 .' .Clover Park, Tacoma 0.21 ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 18.3 101.3 67.9 ' Monthly all-station average - 54.2 ' Monthly all-station average .' . . 0.41 . ' J • • CARBON MONOXIDE (Standard TOTAL OXIDANT (standard: • NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard: 9 ppm/8 hrs. and 35, ppm/1 hr 0.8 ppm/1 hr. allowed once " ' .05 ppm annual average) ' allowed once per year) per year) j9 - 2nd, Ave,: .Seattle, Seattle Center McMicken Hts. McMicken Hts. : Max 1/hr avg 13 . ppm ' 07 ..PPm .07. ppm '.. 11 PPm ' Max'8/hr...avg 9. ppm ,. .. , Is Max daily avg ......... '6 ppm ' . .02 'Ppm . ' .03' ppm . ' 06 ppm , _ 1 Monthly avg 3..3 ppm , 013 ppa, .018 ppm , .037 ppm , .I PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - SEPTEMBER, 1973 • SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES • SOILING INDEX (Coefficient Of Haze) . `®.. Max 1 hr Max 24 hr Monthly ' Max 1 hr Max 24 hr Monthly • Station Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm)c ' Avg (COH) Avg (COH) Avg (COH)' ' Medical-Dental Bldg.. Everett .17 .02 .005 • 1.9 0.8 0.39 ' • Green Lake Reservoir. Seattle - - - 1.6 0.6 0.38 ' • Seattle Center .08 .02 .006 1.9 0.8 0.47 ' ' Duwamish Pump. Sta., "Seattle. .11 .03 .008 2.6 1.2 0.60 ' AMC1, Tukwila .27 .02 .003 • 2.3 1.5 0.54 ' ' McHlcken Heights. King County .17 .03 .006 1.8. 0.7 0.33 ' ' Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .13 .01 .002 1.8 0.8 0.41 ' ' Fife Sr. H. S. 2.2 1.4 0.64 ' Willard Elem. School, Tacoma .28 .02 .008 • 3.0 1.5 0.67 ' ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma. .29 .03 .007 1.3 0.6 0.32 • • • . • SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS • AIR QUALITY INDEX • • 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm (50 ALERT, 100 o WARNING, ' • Station for 5 min for 1 hr for 1 hr for 24 hrs 150 E EMERGENCY) ' • • A. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 2 • Everett Seattle Tacoma ' ' Tukwila, King County 1 ' Willard Elem. School,. 1 ' Max 24 hr 12 23 25• Tacoma ° Min 24 hr 3 5 5 ' . ' Monthly Avg 6.9 11.0 12.1 ' • , �. - SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampli.ng Period: 24 hrs. .each 6th day) TOTAL OXIDANT (standard: : • (Standard: 150 ug/m' 24 hr avg)b .08 ppm/1 hr)b • • Min Max 0cc Exc Monthlyca Seattle McMicken . • $tiltion uq/m lq/mi " 150 ug/m' Avg ug/m . • Center H• eights • . Tolt River Watershed 7.7 34.5 18.3 , Max 1 hr avg - ppm .07 ppm • Medical-Dental Bldg.. Everett 28.9 42.8 34.5 • No. of 'I hr avgs . U.S.C.i.S., Seattle 55.5 68.0 61.0 • " .08 . Seattle Center 25.0 40.5 32.1 exc ppm . Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 37.3 54.8 48.8 . . . . . . • . . . Duwamish Pump. Sta.,.Seattle 45.0 70.3 60.2 . Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue 24.8 41.2 • 30.5 CARBON .MONOXIDE•. (Standard: • . S. E. Pub: Health Ctr., Renton 20.9 51.4 35.6 b ▪ Municipal Bldg.. Renton 28.4 53.6 42.1 9 ppm/8 hrs and 35 ppm/1 hr) • ▪ 20.Auburn Ave., Auburn 37.5 98.7 60.0 1209 - 2nd Ave ▪ McHicken Heights, King Cty. 23.7 49.6 31.1 Seattle. Wash. . Dewey Jr. H. S;, Bremerton • 16.6 36.8 • 24.0 • • Meeker Jr. H. S.. Tacoma 21.7 • 48.7 • • 38.4 • Max ] hr avg 28 ppm ' • Tidefiats, Tacoma 62.2 172.4 1 • .96.4 . Fife.Sr. High School 25.5 75.4 • • 41.4 • Max 8 hr avg 18 ppm ' Willard Elem. School, Tacoma 31.9 87.9 54.1 • No..of l. hr avgs . Hess Bldg.. Tacoma 21.5 67.4 38.5 • exc 35 ppm. . - • • N. 26th i Pearl, Tacoma 37.3 92.5 59.7 • No• of8 hr avgs". ' exc 9 ppm. 56 • • NITROGEN DIOXIDE;" (Standard: . Monthly all-station average 44.9 a .05 ppm annual average)a• II • • Heights • Monthly avg 048 ppmc ' • u9/m8.• micrograms per cubic meter a . Never to be exceeded " c Arithmetic average . ppm ■ parts per million b Not to be exceeded more than once per year PUGET SOUND AIR 'POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - OCTOBER, 1°73 , �" • • SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES • SOILING INDEX (Coefficient of Hate) . • Max 1 hr Max 24 hr Monthly • Max 1 hr Max 24 hr Monthly Station Avg (ppm) Avq (Ppm) Avg (ppm)c Avq (COH) Avg (COH) Avg (COH)c • Me:?ical-Dental Eldg., Everett .27 .02 .005 • 1.7 0.9. 0.46 . ' Gre^n Late Rrservoir, Seattle .07 .02 .006 1.7 1.0 0.55 • ' Scattln Center .12 .02 .010 • 2.1 1.0 0.54 ' ' CuwaTish Purip. Sta., Seattle .06 .02 .006 • 3.3 1.5 0.77 ' ' AMCI, Tukwila .41 .03 .007 2.7 1.9 0.76 • • !4<.',icken Heights. King County . .34 .02 .004. 1.8 0.9 0.46 ' ' Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .28 .02 .004 • 2.5 1.1 0.48 ' ▪ Fife Sr. H. S. - - 2.2 1.6 0.66 • ' Willard Elem: School, Tacoma .09 .02 .008 3.1 . 1.7 0.77 ' N. 25th i Pearl, Tacoma .20 .03 .005 1.7 0.8 0.39 • • • • • • SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS . " . . AIR' QUALITY INDEX • 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm (50 = ALERT, 100 = WARNING, ' : Station for min for 1 hr for 1 hr. for 24 hrs :• . 150 a EMERGENCY) • Med.-Dent. B1dg.,.Everett 1 • Everett Seattle _Tacoma ' • Tukwila, King County . 1 1 ' ' McMicken Heights, King . 2 • Max 24 hr 13 28 28.. • ' County. • Min 24 hr 3 5 .5 • ▪ Masker J. H. S.. Tacoma 1 :. . . . ▪ Monthly Avg 7.6 14.0 13.1 ' • • • . . • SUSPENDED PARTICULATE`. (Sampling Period: 24 hrs. each 6th day) TOTAL OXIDANT (standard: • (Standard: 150 u4/m' 24 hr avg)b .08 ppm/1 hr)b • Min Max Occ Exc Monthlyc : : • Station jig/m' uq/m' 150 pg/me Avg uq/m' Seattle McMicken Center Heigghtss . • . Telt River Watershed 7.2 20.1 10.4 . Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 22.0 53.1 33.1 . Max 1 hr avg .06 ppm' .05 ppm • . •U.S.C.G.S., Seattle 46.7 '163.7 1 78.9 , No. of l hr avgs . . • Seattle Center 15.0 .. 67.5 33.4 , exc .08 ppm 0.. 0. . Public .Safety Bldg., Seattle 34.5 94.8 54.8. . . . .. . . . '. .. . '. . .. . : .. . . H:�.rbor Island, Seattle 41.8 51.4 46.6 . . Duwsmish Pump. Ste., Seattle 41.5 108.0 : 57.0 • CARBON MONOXIDE (standard":. . Ceergetown, King County - - - 9 ppm/8 hrs and 35 ppm'1 hr) . . ' A:len town, King County 18.2 68.2 • 34.6 r . Friqat Power Bldg.;_ 8e1.levue ' 18.3. 84.8. ' I .: V 1209 - 2nd Ave. .. S.f. Pub. Health Ctr., Renton ' 15.9 62.6 . 26.6 V • . filunicipal 'Bldg., Renton 22.6 :55.8 31.2 Seattle, Wash. . 20.Auburn Ave., Auburn ' 24.3: ' .98.3 46. . M.cMicksn Heights, king County : 21.7 . 37.7... 26.7 Max 1 hr. avg -:ppm . I'• ey :'r. H. S., Bremerton 14.4 23.1 18.3 Neel hr avg ppm Meeker Jr. H,..S.. Tacoma. 25.7 66.0 36.8 • No, of lhr avgs ▪ Tideflats, Tacoma 16.9 .108.4 54:4 • exc 35.ppm ......... -▪ Fire Sr. High School 10.6 63.0 27.3 No of 8 hr avgs . Willard Elem.; School, Tacoma •, 18.8 .90.3 39.6 • exc.,9 ppm ., . ▪ Ness Bldg.,.Tacoma 29.3 123.7 50.2 . . . . .. . ,. . . . . . • N. 26thi Pearl, Tacoma.. 16.6 81.3 36.8 ,. • liont(oly ate-station average 38;8 ▪ NITROGEN DIOXIDE (standard: • .05 ppm annual 'average) McMicken .. . . ' honthly avg 046 ppnc • Prins micrograms per cubic meter.. a `Never to '..le exceeded c Arithmetic average gym, 4 pats per million b Not to be exceeded more than once per year. r UUL I JUUIWU N1 R•I.ULLU I !UPI LUil I i1UL NULIA.I AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - NOVEMBER, 1973 SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES • SOILING INDEX (Coefficient of Haze) Max 1 hr .Max 24 hr Monthly •. ' Max 1 hr Max 24 hr Monthly ' . Station Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm)6 : Avg (COH) Avg .(COH) Avg (COH)c : • • Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett .04 .01 • .002 2.0 0.8 0.43 ' ' Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle .10 .02 .004 • 2.3 1.4 0.63 ' ' Seattle Center .16 .03 .009 2.2 1.2 0.52 ' • Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle .11 .04 .006 3.3 1.9 0.73 ' ' AMC!. Tukwila .04 .01 .004 • 2.6 2.0 0.65 ' ''-HcMicken Heights, King County . .09 .01 .002 1.9 1.0 0,37 ' ' :-seeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .05 . .O1 .002 .2.2 0.9 0.44 ' Fife Sr.,H. S. - - 2.7 1.7 0.58 ' • Willard Elem. School, Tacoma .07 .02 .006 3.6 2.0 0.75 ' ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma . .26 .03 . .005 2.1 1.1 0.34 ' • SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS • AIR QUALITY INDEX • 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25. ppm 0.10 ppm (50 = ALERT, 100 = WARNING, ' : Stetipn for 5 min for 1 hr for.1 hr for 24 hrs : 150,a EMERGENCY), ▪ 26th & Pearl, Tacor a 1 Everett Seattle Tacoma ' • ' Max 24 hr 13 32 33 • • Min 24 hr ` 3 '. 3 S ' : Monthly Avg 7.1 12.6 12.4 • SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24 hrs. each 6th day) TOTAL OXIDANT (standard: : ' (Standard:. 150 ug/m' 24 hr avg)b_ .08 ppm/1 hr)b . • Min Maxi 0cc Exc� Monthlyc_ .. . Seattle McMicken ' Stain ug/mi . ig(m 150.pg/m Avg ug/m Center Heights- , ▪ Telt River Watershed 2.6 9.0 4.9 Max 1 hr avg .04 ppm - ppm: • Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 13.2 41.6 26.6 . • .No •of 1 hr avgs.-. • - • U.S.C.G.S., Seattle . - . . 14.9 , 77.6 52.7. exc .08 ppm.. 0 • Seattle Center . 17,9. 38.4, .28.1' • ▪ Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 27.5. 62.5 45.3 ▪ Harbor Island, Seattle. 29.8 69.2; •' 49.7 • Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle 23.6 .' 74:3 48.0 • CARBON MONOXIDE (standard: ▪ Georgetown, King County . - - • 9ppm/8 hrs and' 35 ppm/l hr)b. • • Allentown, King County 12..2.' 41.8 • ' Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue: 4.9 29.1; 19.8 e. , • S.E..Pub. Health Ctr., Renton 8.6 34.0 Seattle. 19.0 . . ' . 1209 le Wsh.h. • Municipal Bldg., Renton 14.9 . 40.4 , Waas . • 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn • 24.4 69.5 44.1 . . '.,'Max lhr avg. ppm ' .- HcHlcken Heights, King County - - • Max 8 hr avg -.ppm ' Oewe Jr. H.', y S.,.B''emerton 11.3 . 39,8 22.1 � No. of 1 hr avgs ' ..,::1leeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma; 17.3 34.0:,- ... _23.3 . •e . . Tideflats, Tacoma 21.2' 66.0 .47.0 xc 35 ppm - . Fife Sr: High School 18.5 39.3 ' 30.5 No• of 8 hr avgs . Willard Elem. School, Tacoma . exc 9•ppm . • 14:2 73.4 . 38,1 . Heti Bldg., Tacoma 22.4 50.5 36.9 • N. 26th,1•Pearl, Tacoma 9.5 . 74.8 37.7 • NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard: • Monthly ell-station average 33,4 . = • .05ppm annual average) • . McMicken ' • . Heights . `.r : Monthly avg. ... ppmc. ug/m' amicrograms per, cubic meter . a Never to be exceeded c Arithmetic average ppm ■ parts' per million. b Not to be exceeded more than once per year _ •.['Ult.I SULJ J AIR t'ULLU I 1 UIV LUf1 I RUL I\bU. .Y • AIR MONITORINIG STATISTICS - , 1973 . SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES • SOILING INDEX (Coefficient Of. Haze) . Max 1 hr Max 24 hr Monthly ' Max 1 hr Max 24 hr Monthly ' • • Station ' ' Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm)c ' Avg (COH) Avg (COH) • Avg (COH)c ' • • Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett , a 3 .44- . O/ At. .00z.99t /1.2•re 0.1 6re 0;104.48 • ' Green Lake Reservoir,,Seattle O ..i•9• ,oz.4? •oo�f..G94• '2. r /.h 1r` 0.77 9,s3 ' • Seattle Center ,/' .1.6 ,o1. .a// -Di 2 z+? /•V 1. 0.G3.4.s.� ' • Cuwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle , a ..1+ .Oz.64. ;ooa.a96 '3,43-3 2.2•� 0•9_3 • Ar�3 A►"C I, Tukwila .64 ..44 , 0/ Ui. •0 0/• .e.13.6., /.8 4•*6• 0.6o 9+•65 • • lcMicken Heights, King County ,Oa ,e9' .0/ .a•3- • 00/,.69t' '2.o 4 /,/ ,•9, o.s0 r Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma ,/G -Fe ,O/ .Ai .a0/ ,e ? •e24.942 /,2 4A o,5'Q 6r4 " • • Nil lard Ele ;. School, Tacoma 0 AT' o/ .42 .00S.6@tr /03-6 2.3 .0 o.9.s9r11' ' N. 26th $ Pearl, Tacoma. ..7 .. •Oy.63 .00�'ree . . 20,E O. '+•r 0.38t +. • • • MAURy rsiAv W4Sh• . •/7 '03 .00S /.!o /,O 0.3� • . SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS. AIR QUALITY. INDEX • • 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm . 0.10 ppm (50 = ALERT, 100 = :•DARNING, • • Station , for 5 min for 1 hr for I .hr for 24 hrs •• . 150 •• EMERGENCY) •' 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 'f� 2 - 4 2 Everett Seat_*Te*Te Tacoma ' • • - ' Max 24.hr /3. 4-3. 37 3s .t/o - . ' . • Min 24hr 3 -3 7 -5. 7 -5- • . ' Monthly Avg 6.9 4•/4•74 r6-/G.74.•r4- • • • . . • • `4 • SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling.Period: 24 hrs. each- 6th'day). . TOTAL OXIDANT (standard:• • ' (Standard: 150 ug/m3 24. hr avg)° • .08- ppm/1 hr)b - ' • . M1n. Max Oct E:<c3 Monthlyc • . Station ,q/m . yq/mi 150 tie/m. Avg ;..1 Tj • Seattle "'cMicken • Center _ Heights . • Tolt River „atershed• 2.7 ?-6 iii-9 f•2 +r1 G.G. • Bldg.,Medical-Dental Max 1 hr avg . -- ..t pin • - ,� ••PET • g.,,.Ever•ett/51-131 .4}-.6 39!Z . i!+A 20/.0. .. of 1 hr aygs U.S.C.G.S., Seattle 34/,0}+-9• 'Y?-e//5.2 ' 54r-, 46.2 PF . Seattle Center •30 2 7e • • • • -'t 312. exc .08 m. •• .-9' .../ . Public Safety Slda., Seattleg2. " .-o �i: /•3 46, r5 /'/ . .34 . b.79,I1 . . HPrbor..Isla.nd, Seattle • • 4'2,7 .19-fi :Gr. tf77. • / 40117Sa. Du►,amish Pump, Sta. , Seattle.5-7/o; 6. .44,r3 /oi.Z 68,4744. CARBON MONOXIDE.. (Standard: . Georgetown, King Count) • - /, f - ,r _ . Ailentn�•rn, .King.,County . �1,,9 },r,..a: 44.4.6 9.r, • . 9. ppi�i/8 nrs and 35.ppm/1 hr) . Puget' Power -6iag.., Bel lev.ue /8,9•- - .23-4,3'3,/' i!�:-9 3/.9 1209 - 2nd:Ave.: • S.E: Pub. Heal to Ctr. , Pentor:to 8-� L;..ji. A//V 1.1.4 2z.4 Seattle Wash'. ' Municipal cR1dc: ; Penton 2/,244ry 44./02,'''/ . ffi-r':1Gi./, _ . 20 Auburn Ave., Aab,,rn : ..370€4.r4 .44,.L 84!D • 444,4 6e, !icMicken :Eel ghts, .King Cadr,ty2 '9 / / ya;6 i 31.2.. Max 1 hr ava .. ....•... .20i, opra Dewey Jr. H. S., Breme-torr ' /d>/•44- - !y-1 3/.9. 43r3 23.j�. Max..G hr:avg :.. .......,3 ilf P. • Meeker Jr. P. S.,.. Tacoma 2e:7 ir*' - - 7.47 . • • , ya. (10' or 1.hr wigs• Tioeflais Tacoma exc 35 .ppm. 0j( 7 /470, l 4�-v L r . • Fife Sr. High School . ' /1,74•&-5 ---�+ 75 41ys• • g . . qq f ' P . of 8 hr a'; s Willard El ern. .S'cheol , Tacoma 4</./•r!.-2 14r4 /27,V. • i9-'i 72e. oxc 9 PFm ... ..•. .:2�}�. . . • Hess Bldg. , iacoma' ., 29/r+Lr� t''r /0.l:0 • y6r,4•S3,i. . . . .. . . . . N. 26th. & Pearl, Tacoma :a.5.2.-9--5 ;+r& G 7.4 e•P•a111(9. : • Monthly.allrsteticri average 9Y'4 • NITROGEN, DIOXh)E ; (.Standard: . .0.5:ppm annual average) • McMickcn' Heights . • ' Monthly avg •• ,O�?� pPin • • 4rg/ris 10 micrograms per cubic meter • '- . a Never to be exceedea .• c Arithmetic average 1 • ppm r parts per million •. . • b Not to be exceeded more . . than cnce per year • . APPENDIX E VIEW IMPAIRMENT STUDY APPENDIX E VIEW IMPAIRMENT STUDY When a view condition exists , any introduction of a structure or build- ing will have an impact on the view condition. As this proposed devel- opment is on the shore of Lake Washington, with a sloping terrain rising eastward from the site, a water view condition does exist along this slope. Impairment to a view condition will result when any structure is built. The extent of the view impairment is dependent upon the height and/or the width of the structure and the proximity of the viewer to the pro- posed building. In this anaylsis , the existing dwellings above Lake Washington Boulevard N.E. were used as 'the control view points. The results given herein are an average of these points as the individual values did not vary sub- stantially from each other. . . From the average view point , the total horizontal angle of view was de- termined by use of an aerial topographic map flown March 6,. 1973 at a _ scale of 1" = 50 feet , with a two foot contour interval . The total hori- zontal angle of view is that angle formed at the focal point for the full width of the property development less the width of the existing obstruc- tion caused by the Misty Cove Apartments which lies immediately south of the proposed site. (See Figure' E-1 ) Any impairment due to natural vegetation has been disregarded. For practicality, a theoretical view base was assumed to lie in a hori - zontal plane between the eas.t,or Renton , shoreline and the west , or Mercer Island, shoreline of Lake Washington. The total vertical angle of view was established as lying between these limits. The control of the view criteria was thus established as being a hori- zontal and a vertical angle from a subject focal point through a sight distance to a view object. The focal point was established as being at each dwelling at a height of five (5) feet more or less from the ground floor elevation. The sight distance is that distance from the focal point to the object being viewed. Profiles were determined: from the existing dwellings above the proposed development to. the east shore of Lake Washington. A straight line of sight from the focal point of each dwelling to the east shore was es- tablished as zero degree (0°) line. The total vertical angle of view to the Mercer Island shoreline was determined to be plus (+) three and one-half degrees (3-1/2°) . This angle was found to be approximately the same for all dwellings. The sight distances were determined as 1 , 100 feet more or less to the east shore and 4,300 feet more or less to the Mercer Island shore. (See FiguresE-1 and E-2. ) An impairment angle is the angle formed by the extreme ends of the obstructive object with the vertex being at the focal point. The hori- zontal impairment angle is set by the width of the object and the ver- tical impairment angle is set by the height of the object. The horizontal and vertical impairment angles were determined from each subject focal point to the proposed structures and also to the exist- . ing Misty Cove Apartments. Again, the impairment angles from each dwelling were sufficiently close to allow an average value to be 'used in determining the view limitation area. 2 Using the above criterion as a guide, percentage figures can be deter- mined as to total present view area and potential impairment due to the proposed construction. (See Figure E-3.) The area of lake surface which will be impaired from view due to the proposed development is shown in Figure E-4. The total view area used in this analysis is a portion of the total view available to the dwellings under construction , and is only that portion of the lake lying within the view analysis sector shown in Figure E-3. The total view available to the subject dwellings is limited by the topography of the surrounding land. The horizontal view approaches 118 degrees , more or less , and the vertical view encompasses Mercer Island and the sky above. When approached in this manner, the view limitation percentage decreases sharply due to the increase in total view area considered. The total view area of 24° horizontal angle used in this analysis is thus 24/118 or 20.34 percent of the avail- able horizontal view angle. This would then reduce the 8.2 percent impairment to 1 .67 percent of total available view area. The view limitation area as determined herein is considered a maximum impairment due to the assumption that the proposed buildings will cover the total width of the site, when, in fact , they will not. ' 3 • • , . , . • , . . i . *. I / , (1) , r , --"(. , --, / t . n 1.- -4 .. \ tl 0 %/) • 1 IT1 • , . ,..1 ' j Existing ' m , 0 X */ Proposed \ \ • , .Structure Proposed Structure ••000••01 Proposed . A Proposed Structure 0 1-1 Structure/Existing Structure House 1 R I Existing I f • ..E. 1 M ' \ _ \ 1 I R. • \ I ___.______. BNRR BNRR 1 1 . , El BN P.R \ \ \ I Q. BNRR \\ 0 Proposed Structure m IRipley Ln \ Ripley Ln. \ \ M , \ \ Ripley Ln. —I ) Ripley Ln. , ... \ \ . \\ \ Hwy. 405 Hwy. 405 ,• -- Hwy. 405 Ripley Ln. _ v. 405, , \ ,, , a ' Lk"..WnBlvd, Lk Wn Blvd. . - ' Lk.Wn.Blvd. • 1 C Lk.Wn.; lvd.• Lk.Wn.Blv CI . C.) M . _ , C..) • * -' I ......0 _.% _ 0 01,_, 0C2 0 0 Ul 0 0 01 -A 0 Ul (r) Li L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . - View Limitation . Area • er, -1 , ' _- ,...„ . . O r. • • O I ° . . . . . ; I I a) . • • . • I ..._......______:---------7----- . • .. _ • . IO • Gp`!a CDI rt I n v. 5t Cr c pC.M (D n O ;� rt- �e m `� a • • u, • PLAN VIEW I • 1 0 . . Total Exist. Vert. View Angle 3-.1/2° ° c • 73 111 of S ' - 100.... : :-717 ht M I 3 .�` / a) / m co • / . r uT 3200' + - 520' + 1100' + •I N �- N 3 03 0. i _ . ELEVATION VIEW m o GTON SEO��R. 24 o ES SFC T0R S ®cD 3o .S, x / G. bsk• ), po Ja 6� � 0 mpd � q� rmen tG 11,111111110. J� />eo� G. Av. Focal Pt. �, �°'e`: • O,, Sector . Total View View Limitation Unobstructed View • h = 35' Sq. Ft. Area Percent Sq. Ft,. Area. Percent . Sq. Ft. Area Percent 1 3,619,,110 100% 296 ,230 . 8% 3,322,880 92 2 1 ,809,560 261 ,340 14.5i t00% 1 ,548;210 -: .... . 85.5i h = 40' 1 3,619,110 100% 522,680 14,4% 3,096,430 85.6% • rIGURE E 3 • \ \ • \ \ l x Existing V i ew "• /0, Limitation , .. Area ------------ /, /. (to i st N y Cove) >c, z 4„ •‘\ rz' -9 LP '/''' I , / • / z 2 \ sr -, c, 2, . <9 •,., 0 View g 2 -A/ v . Limitation • • .-„ o C.) o cv Are \ •,:,\ /i NI N ' N. \ ' -•.---.--. -....11 '.-.... ''' \ Line _Jr-N_______ S ift e I •?ley Lane N. • ' I Br i ,,_ IBurlington 14orthern ?"9 * ' --•t-,.. t• '',fc, `-,,N -•,...-, ,-•.„60.,v3 601, ;_, ,,,,,?,-.N1,Y1, .151'. / 0 ii LimiS________t,o, • • 'V „. , , rc L. Avg . Foca I Pt. ,ite Location / mt.c44 r, / 4.., r...) ,c.., CI ^.. (r) 4/. N• -.. FIGURE VIEW IMPAIRMENT - SUMMARY SHEET Under the present conditions, two separate segments of the view condition exist. One is the present impairment due to the existing apartment house structure of Misty Cove. The second is the proposed structures of Lake Washington Shores. The Misty Cove Apartment building, which was built right at the lake shore with a four-story height of 40 + feet , overshadows any view impair- ment resulting from the proposed structures for sector two, as shown on Figure E-2. Therefore, a separate analysis is presented for comparison purposes. Three major assumptions are made in this analysis for ease of presenta- tion. These are: (1 ) that no consideration is given to natural vege- tation as an impairment to the view condition; (2) the surface of Lake Washington lying within the view sectors shown is the only view condi - tion under consideration; and (3) due to the fact that no substantial value variations exist between the dwellings considered as view points , an average view point or focal point was used. The results of this analysis for the two sectors shown in Figure E-2 are as follows: The present view impairment from the existing Misty Cove Apart- ment building covers approximately 261 ,000. square feet of lake surface to a distance of 825 feet more or less outward from the Renton shoreline. With a total considered view area of 1 ,809,500 + square feet, this is an impairment of 14-1/2 percent. 8 The potential view impairment from the proposed Lake Washington Shores will cover approximately 296 ,000 square feet of lake sur- face to a distance of 520 feet more or less outward from the Renton shoreline. With a total considered view area of 3,619,000 + square feet, this is an impairment of 8 percent. 9 • n , A ' = 0 I.I r2 n Misty Cove Apt. : n = 12° , 3 0 = 0.03333333 n Lk. Wash.Shores: n = 24° , = 0.06666667 h = 35' h = 40' S A r'= 4300' 4300' 1+2+3. qD N :�3 r = 1110111111 r = 1620' 1925 '. ' o �'' ralOAAwAlr O -` N N41 • 41� O Misty Cove = 12° Lk.Wn:Shor.e = 24° TABLE E-1 • Lake Washington Shores Percent . Misty Cove Apartments Percent h = 35' A 3 1 ,936,266Sq.Ft. Al+2+3 = 3,872,533 Sq.Ft. A1+2+ = ' 126,710' Sq.Ft. A = . , 253,422. Sq.Ft.• 3 . 3A = 388,052 Sq...Ft: A = 549,652. Sq.Ft: 2+3 2+3A2 = : 261 ,342 Sq.Ft. 1.4.4 A2 = 296,230 Sq,:Ft. . 8.2 A1 =` 1 ,548,214. Sq.Ft. 85.6 A' = 3,322,881' Sq.Ft. 91 .8 1 . A1+2 = 1 ,809,556 . Sq.Ft. 100.0 Al+2 = 3,619,111 Sq.Ft. 100.0 A�+3 = 776, 104 Sq.Ft A2 522,682 Sq.Ft 14.4 A1 = .3,096,429 Sq.Ft. 85.6 A = 3,619,111 Sq.Ft. 100.0 1+2,`' h = 35' (0= 1 °30' = koi 6)=- 2° Focal e Point . (c), H = 90 ' . now • L • h, = 35' NOTE: • Angle (D 15 a scaled value from 6:)= 1 °30' profile drawing. . = L-1100 • - . L = H/Tan" oc = Tan-1 9'3/1100 = 0.0818181 = 4° 40' 39" . • 4° L,i0' 39" 30 00 5777-79" tan = 005551416 . .90. L = Tan = 1621 .2' J2 = 1621 7 1100 = 520' I:h = 40.1 . CD= 2°001 j • . • • = = 4° .40? 39" -2 :00 00 2°. 40' 39" tan = 0.04676524 L = Tan = 1925' • -Q = 1925 = 1100 = 8251 . • • APPENDIX F UTILITY LETTERS THE. CITY OF RENTON C.) AVERY GARRETT, MAYOR ' FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS On n`.� MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVENUE VIUTN RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 • AL 5 3333 •/gTFO SEP1- • CHIEF M. C. WALLS • ASST. CHIEF. DICK GEISSLER APRIL 19, 1974 DAVID P. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION 1409 5TH AVE. RE: CITIZENS SERVICE CORP. LAKE WASHINGTON SHORES SEATTLE, WN. DEAR MR. THOMPSON: THE EXIT FACILITIES YOU SHOW FOR THIS PROJECT ARE ADEQUATE. THEY APPEAR TO BE SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE LOCAL TRAFFIC INTO THE PRO- JECT AS WELL AS EMERGENCY TRAFFIC. THE ONLY CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS THE WIDTH OF THE STREETS AND TURN AROUND AREA AT EITHER END OF THE STREETS FOR OUR APPARATUS. IF THIS SITUATION COULD BE WORKED OUT, IT WOULD. BE APPRECIATED BY OUR DEPARTMENT. I HOPE THIS WILL HELP YOU. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO CALL. ME. SINCERELY, . RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT e_eziriee.etzt:scapo R. GEISSLER, ASST. CHIEF RG:PR