No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA74-756 (2) s. DRAFT. • PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CITIZENS SERVICE CORP. , i FILE R-756-74 1 • :) L, 1 'ROUGH DRAFT . • 1 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 1 A. INTRODUCTION 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 i;l 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. ENDANGE.RED 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 I-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 WASHINGTON .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. I ' SECTION THE PROPOSED ACTION A. INTRODUCTION 1 . . The type of action requested is the administrative and legis- lative approvals bythe Cityof Renton to PP 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 - ti,on to Seattle, Division No. 3 , according to Plat recorded in Vol - ume 11 of Plats , page 81 , records of King County, Washington , des- cr'ibed 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. 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. i_ii p.,-.4-1, 610- • ,; I to yel _ f�— �' r —aElem u9 . _ _ - eta°„!41;-k. u; — ;BMQ• �� �1i/{Nq4 * ,si ; +. C � u �\600 %1 ..,Iffii-1'9 .rc;: 21 i 1315 % .f NlIli a • I • 8d O . Boryhl• ingdall a ,y • Q• r �... 9� r � ..„„ •• ir /.:.' 3 f C W 1 Jr Hi■Sch a!•i!/°� T !�'Tn NSE 39 Si _ • .---� SF.N • I� • SE 60 PL `iy. r •. •p' 'I W .• T - _--- 1 w fn6, .6 sr w ' •� s ,\/\0� • •.6000 = '' it ST 15 • U S 61 I 'O1 Q r N=T j� \ rn I r t,1 r .. IN `%! SCttli e 8, I , c I sE'' ST Haz IWf1,Od 8•• 4'st' r � Trio LANE 1 $' _ ' • R u > d 4 �y\_� �BM�427'R::CfHI Ch, - SE i 63 O STD` �__ •. i BM _ ,µ 1 :4 T .__. i�4'R' Bi'ST.� T " 400 II,M?hM" `7t 91".".'7 :A _ 29 < • Fp 1 5 65 i N •�f '� `�~----' 43 �ullll. • a E65-- ¢i d ts � v�4 � • .:4' Pioni,...F0rk '1 ''' sE �4,565 Nb« sL • "'-_%' '"W''I �-) ,..�'i �.P fJ t•• IT 1_ •�'I •' 73, i, IT •S 66- N P 0.' b 9 dq 0. , � �. - —--- W F 8 ••',• t t 69 T r SE 50 I sr 1. 5, q m l . �. 1 W Haze,,,,.q a� DTI. g { i New, \y ,_ r/.�,, n•_: N EI@m SCh SE 71 PLa ,:�:,„', _ n�T �enR1- Project Si., I:rif I . - ----:�`' d • - - _ Ylu':ai - _ •r� NT.T d • SE�S7 y �2 _.��L 720� �� S[ I •� (n ,,-AT: r rIC CT ' I M a 'Q • • A 5200 (`GRET,L •aT,^ �q�.y6�.� I • SE pds W50, O+I�R W�" l� t,�'` 4IMY _�.,I BM,, rs ' x5J9 W.� Gu r4 >.\T / rl�Ifi,'1. /.'nf T JT /Flit . Iv I `C`�• <'76T11 Clork Beach 4800,'" -` / .i :.! • sc ' ' I I I �... s3a `` Q•,. Park 1 �/ G nor t4Q I Le -e o •P y EIS Na'TS. •• Qf 79'�T� ( _•/10Q/ i 0// vas • CEO. r�4,\ ABM L9 �„4t `y Ma Q QI SE= ;• ( b T,. "'tt� ((1- -60 0__--\L.-. FWI LBO Top 4p 0 •`•• ,/�_� 0%/I 1 Mt.q�. S, N I..., I 290° 6Bb92 s /a o`' 4400-•;;;,-Y/ -4 • //dB�; . I W . • 5E f ��� i P‘ ,• !"sp ore f �` % .N 0! ' `N I B III V' i i�f y• � alll�'P J� `r:'_' - c I Si'".605 b • / • ' . . 4' 40�NyI;'/ N 4• T � ~•a. Y "z�oq`• .` \�a a> 8400 • ''A I` A % { ( Q16E8:C7467...1. �I T 4/ ( �� // _ f I - II 4`/ 7 - es a m -I. /r•O1fC I V 1' 4• /r(V }�:���.� :9.\ .. T,e b, N y O ' rW IAA 2: ST • I Q Z � r SE 675T ` YI 'M I_ -- _ e� " � 34-- 3600,% > eeoo /�f�\ South Point 31 KenrydoleSe -'�N 363- 3 1N / •!.'%4 . I- 'J'�,.•`.'ST. ,•,�` 41. SE.9 I- \. 9 - Cl .�.., i • �. Kenn deke • , / SE FS�, i'4 I ,'•\~4V d Ids lo- <rF I r V - li, / f SEA 91' ST I((i`.,'i\ �/ .` S r°i,. • Aci, - N 1/ 4 I � r � ii.�•i c S70 rft�P� � b,� x 7 77 ., J . •-- do" ,0•Y aSP�q. •� I W 9204d . 1 3200�.; W 31 ST (.' � I ..i" p vF. /�� 8 r N ��I,n Coleman Point i z N. N ST 1. ,1 I en Cyddle e.-L�I �---S 'OLD /� -0 g6 BM!\STD y I '�J r z L 1 Me'• Elem School ter. — __ • 30. . . �.� ` . - • NE 28 ST' ..J 5E-96 F. .. Q� • '�' � � T� ./ 9 319 S 9f PL + 9 � 9600 vQ ' 28001�` .a. 't.n ET,• • ►,y { ,1� • L.B�3II I "tip. b" NI ^.N 6 i • CT q f 9 NI N i a Ke•r dale F'7 'NE 2_5 raST I i 4, d lets S a9 ST N . $"> \'\p -••'at _z _Na._...,cTki.'. 8 IT_.r' Nm •• IT1.EIem.Schd i�..7 sI 2400`• / I oo'v }� to? `A\\ '..N `w W • NE .� S.E. STSE wI srBM / NE �)OR I V r. o'' •,fit% s '•� 3 _ NE 23 ST /I I ?I N•E102r` ST' 2 W oo % Z :� ilia_ST' rN`21ST' \ Q SE 103.ST G/ • a33 N .I N,la_. \ �i �J'1 NE 20 W �. 4^ _� x_- Cr • SE 104 3• ST.: •SEATTLE CORP.LIMIT" 's\+C 20��'. 1\ i + �5 Z W NE ALD ` y / �,d •I '5E iv.,N J7r P1 r N.imi i 1400Q ',4 I W 2 f I,ST 1, HI Icrnt / d I -I v -e-,q,44 S \`., x15. , G • NE • ST �'EIe Sth ��J n 1 it \. E'•4106 sr. E .• • �% . }I. *� yfWWi 4, •4• :'/14/ ` 'd'NE8II,ST jR Ti �:"•E •'1,600%i 15 Z a 8 N is NE 5 Z \6 i5's` -rp: - s 'd%/M 1//+sE K'7'L • / \ ,•. .. p0sE.,• .•Lake Wallin. • + 1 ti.5•. ! McKniEhf� . _00 • 1 e�I��liST. ...NE WI4 � W.''�, r � I,•.I Br n Mawr• °. . :� lei +r�/ry.�t•u• � \'G �. '„f -Hon 111200- --14se ®11 sTRent I 4 1 4 r" OliierHi hlSch , ,ti1i/! � �5�, ;�`.--1�✓. 'P� � 1 �>•\ W � ° WHiph Sch is- ®ice // . ,/,'• `i. �thwchan.. • " 1 � tl ,, • BOWLING .T /� 1 %/����/ \ tf� p�-. `;gr r ;\ / r,/ T I . „ T , i Z Z. ''?/C?• BE�. -SE 'll6 I S. I ®® 1 to00, PO '� ' a Q era s T < °naoT N''a-z'�y 4 • /�,C }1{ e prim PC 7 ,A ; µ I. yd • J d - �� i ST nn•,'itlelf Pork ..1 Sa�uf • S IIBI -T !167 '1,t r �:•' 'Iz ',f l4 • is 4 a . W It; : �!/�l �! qq 51191 i '%` e ,�/ ' 2 - �-• n ( S. . t 21 • ST i• n11.7. Fb_i%�/ %�.Sh la 120 I ST i ..O .a &,//.i':I •B •ST trim r. s �i '•_—Z7f i: " 12000 SEe 10�' 7 ,. •All.' • .. rlii ,i ;glom ^ • ��- NE ST�� 21 IST. sT ? s k� ak :,. N ST:, '\ • ,. 4 � � I ; Ks.. w'� � � .. i 1 PL • • ^..' • • le '•'• • i \� " ii • 4 w' d . SEA 124 ST .• j; IV : . l. i •./ ' ' ',!h. ie — I , . ::,i •`:>`' Ell'z • • SE lass VICINITY MAP; FIGURE I=1. 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 o'f 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 I • In .com compliance with theprovisions of the Comprehensive Plan and P P other government regulations and policies, the project is intended to achieve the following objectives : I . 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 fora reasonable profit. - I 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 11 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 th.e 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 occurr 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 be used to support light weight non-settlement critical structures. Parking areas and driveways may 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. I ' 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 latifolis 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 scatterer 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 (1) Mammals A vast part of the Puget Sound Region is in the Humid Transition Zone, a Washington zone where mammals such as the Common Deere 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 , Train '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 Gray Warbl er, Robin , Swainson 's Thrush, and the Song, Sparrow: (3 ) ' Earl J. Larr.i's.on , "Washington Mammals", The .Seattle Audubon' Society, 1970. (3 )Earl J .- Larrison , 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 Lentiginosus) , 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. (5) (4)Terence R. Wahl g Dennis R. Paulson, "A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington", Whatcom Museum Press , 1973. (5)Gordie Frear, "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 55 mph, is estimated as 71 dB. (See Figure IL-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 - - 60—' • 50 - - �� 40 • - • .. • 7,. .ds_,-- AUTOMOBILES ____-_ - -. ------- ==--� -- ---- -- .. 30 •70 - 20 0 .zo;•-•0. 1 AVERAGE SPEED • 1- 60 _ (MPH) Q. 7,6°.°.....°1° m W: 1 z 1 0 Z 40 1 Q38d11.-. -11.-- _ _,o I� w 30 1 i - 20 3 4 5 6 7 8 100 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1000 2 3 4 516 7 8 10,000 2 3 - HOURLY AUTO VOLUME, VA - vph • PLOT OF L50 FOR AUTOMOBILES AS FUNCTION OF VOLU ERAGE SPEED ME FLOW AND AV c. Airport The project site is located three miles northeast of. the Renton Municipal Airport. The airport, operated by FAA, is a Class 1 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 IFR) . (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 boundar.ie.s of the airport, - - - -. "(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. (') FAA Tower, Renton Municipal Airport, February, 1974 (10)Ciity of Renton , "Code of General 0rdinance', Title IV, Chapter 7,, ( 8) "Noise Pollution - Now Hear This", U.S. EPA, 1972 15. • • - lit - • �•Sw-•.•.n......e...+...n w.-a. mow. .. .. •_ S TRAFFIC--PA-T-TERI-S REI TO1 -MUNICIPAL AIRPORT EFFECT lvE nY',s. 190 ' • - CAIX;ELS FATTERFISi MY 1, 1 969 • AFC : /V .B. QxIIELD ELEVATION. - APPROVED: RENTTY TONER • ' TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE •1000_lUSL FEDERAL AVIATION A IiINISTRATICII BUOY •\. �� \:..\\, . ' ' • 8'[i'. `psi •.\\ 1. 1' _ . TH# i . . . sN, -::., . . . 1 - i iti .4 ki; .'i'" i \IV-W.-Kr-11 ir . .. • .,.. . . .. . . . „. . -- • .., • . -1-,4•g:.,71ri',4-.'.... ,.1I I1 — .,. ' . fir- - . • K -¢x ,11 1 ti-..,s ,i' . I : .- - _,, =Lii\ --) , . '...., : . . , ' r , ,..\ ,,f.,/, .. r.:.,(t--,-, , '„)..E----_,k.--_, t L' c 1 1 r 1 - -. y'i ; -• .:- .. -....., i ,= 1 ; , \6 f �\• ,_ ,t-ra:\z I i \ ,. —i, „ . •-.-:- --. • I i li .-'t. c\i - I � \ , Ji1n ir „..,%.„,...... . ii, \ r._,,,i ,,,„ , , - \\. \ \ ' I( ....•• , I ;a1LJ-,u Vrt tali ; lip T , _ _cc_se ri, 1 ;Lf1:: 1... � ca. . —aiaNio 'ip 11(1Q14,111, c ,./ . j[:.t,,J1 • - \.. ..-.,,.. -_• -•-,-: 1p-Ti-h-.,.,.-....„.....i..„i. 1,2 0 .. ram. a�� � � /� r� f,,-Do5o iilkl, :a0_1J .- - ©7.� ,aO`'l�l�lss Qy � 1 rfi t • l f uO4. Am ii. e. il ' c" , A; r . . jL — ,a it ( -- ...-a.j Y., • i ~J Jr-;..O.Ja ll,\ r f. Eli. ,F.ri-p`. .ii -,:lLtsjirai,..,1 . . . .: . - . -TO. . 7..,.___\ r z..,;,.., \ ,' vfly ,*':,, ,, .. . . -„,____, — © 'JI>� l' Il t- P _. NO C1.- JLJ / _ !;..I - PATTERN • FOR RUNWAY 13 PATTERN .FOR RUNWAY 33 - SOUTH WIND • RIGHT TRAFFIC NORTH AND CALM WINDS • 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 129.0ug/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 (11 ) 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, 19.74. 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 .5 mile 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 II-1 .) 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 firt diversion, which removed about 28 percent of the effluent, the lake, 18. stopped deteriorating as indicated by the transparency and phosphorous content. (Figure ( 1-3) 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 11-1 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 } i .6 5.5 6.9 4.6 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 C1 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 • ^r L _ a - • Ce .- 20 • • Uv • . rn 10 — • •• • • • • • 0 • 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I. F I I 1 1 1 4 • _ VI 3 — 2 L W N N 2 v •• • • • 1 .--_ • • • • • 0 . I I I ' I I I IIIIIIIIIJ 1 " I . I I 70 - 60 — • • 5p • . • ce (1) - -- o +-J • 2 •- 40 __ (I • S . o a) 30 — • z i o_ -.• 20 • • • ' • • 10 r 0 " • • . 1 I I I i IIIIII1I I I I1 1 " I I I i 100 ._ Z — . 3 w . • cn o p Ml '. . lol I I I lul I l I 1 I I I. 1 I I �1 I I I 1 1 I en !1 l ' Ln .o ..o . ^ •Ol, •• Ol Ol O� ol- of ' CHANGE IN LAKE WASHINGTON Source: W.T. Edmondson , "Nutrients And Phytoplankton in Lake Washington", 1972 FIGURE II -3 • • 2l • B. MAN-MADE ELEMENTS 1 . Zoning The project site and the area immediately to the north are in General Classification District (G-6000 zone) . The area imme- diately. to the south is in R-4 Residence District (R-4 zone) , and the area south of this R-4 area between the railroad and Lake Washington is in Heavy Industry District (H-I zone) . The area east of the freeway is mostly in General Classification District (G-9600) . (Figure ll-4,Zoning Map, Renton , Washington) 2. Land Use a. On Site The site is currently occupied by three single family homes with landscaping around the houses , all located at the south end of the site. The structure of the most northern house and two other unoccupied buildings in the central part of the site are in questionable condition. The rest of the site is open and vacant with various kinds of household debris scattered around. b. Vicinity The area immediately to the north is presently vacant , how- ever, land fill has occurred in recent months , an indication of new single-family homes to be constructed. Further north , along Ripley Lane North, there are 30 or so single family water front homes. The parcel of land south of the site is occupied by the Misty Cove Apartment , a three to four- story apartment building of 50 units; South of the apartment are the Baxter lumber treating plant and the Barbee. Mill , both. lumber oriented industrial uses . The east boundary o:f the site is bound by the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of- way and Interstate 405 further east . In general , the site is in a transition area between multi-family and single- family uses. 22. ZONING MAP RENTON WASHINGTON • MAP SYMBOL DISTRICT USE MIN. LOT SIZE IN S0, FT. I\\ - • LL• h • L R-I RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY 5000 G-.'' I I--- • SR-I u It it 7500 i�i Sl�l� 0-6000 „ „ •u 6000 . / ,! i _9600 .. • 0 7200 „ 7200 / ,i 0-8400 • t. '0 . ,i B40o ,,' ,• ' !',ti. 0-9600 „ „ „ 9600 ) ii'• ;:k '�, OS-1 „ „ tt 35000 / H-I £, . i., ',tr 3 S-I " n ". 40000 1 r,."'y R-2 RESIDENTIAL TWO-FAMILY - 5000 I /' • , SR-2 n .„ a 10000 1\ R . R-5 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY • 5000 R-4 I „ 5000 / vt P-I PUBLIC USE ~'IiiI.- • G• 0 B-I BUSINESS USE / F B-P BUSINESS PARKING i : -'•" • L-I LIGHT INDUSTRY • `- cat 'i • )'` '•wr'I yj H-1 HEAVY INDUSTRY ,at• •� . T TRAILER PARK 4• Q .. M-P MANUFACTURING PARK •.u�wwINHN R:4 G-9G00 L.-_� ., R1f, nnim nl -• + nillllllll�������lllllluill„ �I.E. .-•;;""" 'G ,££ GS-r -. . & ^r*N NORTH • �' '� u.nr : „f.. I' t.\ d . .... , ,w e .„ t BOO 0 1000 2000 ' 3000 � yam.. •• 1�� �tG9~I. - , SCALE IN FEET 1.••, P-I \. G76004+ i \\ ', yI••I is .. I�... „ :a....(+'S. I • %•' I. \ _ q r,. 1p yi_ir, - • P r ".;!z?b.i,..:,.,..,,,... .,;,, 1...,\ (e./...,:••N,\,,..,....4,.....,:.‘.;,..:,:,;,;;•....:•.. ..,...,....•,:):.„,•••••:-.„.:-.,.. .,,,,., • • . . • ,, \ . 1...fq.. ..- . ... . . . • _. . I ; , ya -I rGSf � "•-A.. • ..R_\g. "6 R-4�' \ �t • : . �• ''i};, .� : M � 1 ... ,+ ' r. . ` , p6 "1 a, � '• 1 t ' V . 0 �`�I , M • w ' + d�111117 M II'1 r, �I • f,,o / f d• I .••� B ;N.,:,, ; .! I��) I IG'I \,�„. '! .. 1... I•rilrry..1Y)II�I _ k I. , 1`- i II II I 1• t , P.... .i., m',mllu 1 i 1 6 \ 1' ` M u4 N 1 -.r 1'R 2, f ) i, �. I >I I } • .a^,. "3 L R.I :. <<. ; 4. dr.-1., '1 H-1 t. 'B-1 �,,. "r.a ,�. ,,'J. iiE„ f f•; '1 ;t+. 1ti r I • y L..;I1 1 II ,,rah M,I.�,; 'R o µiB I l • y :ii A fIY�:ii'r:: t • ,� ,• ,.. .. e "L.:,.", ",..,,,,;I • 1 I ,. ,• H-.I III" 1i1 ,a • 411 V'''"R! ! 4ri'•'''`-•%-;‘,.'11,' , ; .U,I'Ll,H,,p.:. .11". ;�,:1?Jk�I,'1I1i r..,6'' ' \ ', • j` : ! �q_ . •y �,;' �;' • 1 `�'1 r�••IF'" -�'!. 5,.. ;I I.1... 11 • {! X•.,�4' •n.: /�: Y" a' 1'f'C.1.:1'6 • • L; ,, iv�� .I 9 11 11: ,PF1 • ,� ^ i `I $ 7'I • 6e' .:1' 14 lf, ;• N.',, ,,,'' •,' ' i•' t 1• . I •+1•I' 1',,..��irtA III „ !! - • _ ,.`�'IL;.g^., „�; I�I�'"'"'s6,'•• -,).••di' . •• yl I,y h',W ( ,• I:: e, A� IIX' R 4 �'� lh�"" .SR-II �kn; .p L1 T • 11'i" `� r nt ,gp00 ,I:Ar`f 'I ''I 1 i F ^ i ' B I r LrI I 1:I • ) ' •';k• • .q.',I�. t' •, ', -i�., ','„ I ;'' r , „Intl y t Gs-� ,;. it , 1, i .' 7. � rl I • ' •fM • �1 II', , , 0 RAY, 1' N . ti M; ^ GS 1.,1I , f' •li °b.e• `''l' \:�. , ! BI AEI,I bodic •, 7,...., ' 23• FIGURE ,II -4 , 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. Kennydale 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 recreationfacili - 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 ll -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. • • 1 Sr 60 S1 • f . SE 6A S, L-� • 1 ANI WA5HIN01nN B VU SE ee s, • AE[IWOOD ELIA. • i / I se re v RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403 1 NE SS 51 1y l , 1 SE 14 57 i sE se s, -_L W I/( N3O'T 1 W _ Hs KENNEWICK AV NE SE°e° a • �.._ ' `� el ELEN Nf 27'S1 y�+' _ �•I • h ]IFRPA NFION TS ! \ FLEN• OO , - NE 20 sr • Lm SE IOO SI L 1 NF 20 n INDEX AV NE •r•/-•-• • LANE WASHINGIOM •� _ I , • \h a ■DBLCREST CLFM LK RIOOE•DR, 4,, •'Sif NE w 16 STu \A AVIW ^ 1SSAOUAWI h • MIDDLE , 9A YsKN10 0 SCHOOL .0 51010H - ' PO �• —• \ —. NE 12 SI •• .1..40. I • I \ '" Ir-, —\ HAZER NIGH. I _ LANIRIUOf S IIS]i , I 51165T 'B RYN MAWR O NE 10 ST,f //II ELEM.Vp vCDR ST N_•- 1 I )SC NIO�I�Ctl a •[l[YYDIW__-> I 1 _ e APOLLO t • \ CAMPBELL HILL n GOHN 1 i _ TRANSPORTATION•'1 o MIDDLE SCHOOL n I . EL EM THOMSON SCHOOLS • • A AA1Ni!'NANCE W C Nf R so Z SITE 5120 ST 5124 ST OIMMI,T N1001 C n ` • rc X = Tt I - • \ SCHOOL f� \ 5 ION 5, 9f \L RFNTON q1T. �' 'N HST • ! .NE 4 Sl ■VOCATIONAL TECHNICALINST NE 0 ST h} — O,y 4L • AIRPORt\\/q NOIf 1ME / \ 5, l•SUPPLY/ S Si • ' 1 l EARLINOtON FLEN��♦ 5IS2 AIRPORT WY n OV / S 1—•--� Syi Si(9'S'p �-a WELLS Av 5 ♦'+r V , • •MAPL EWOOO HEIGHTS • -- 9UWSfT SIOA, R[N10N N10N�T75T E• / ♦Q O \ELEM I • OY • \ --" SE 139 ST W • GREEN RIVEN MA �� MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE • is 'IADCENI ERATION 1 .—N:, • • IP Av 5 1, CENTER L , \ L rI • V,N i It � IN YINIHGS PIT SE Sy 1N t.• I NI NiON PO T. \K �_ � � - • [\ MAN RIVEN` \� ��/j,\/ \\V\�\• ► _ •"%hut yN' TIFFANY.FART PAflN[LEY - — Of 100 PL SE" ---,PUO[1 • _ J Tn1.B01 XII I ■NELSEN RIDDLE ■CASCADE TEEM �/ PIER SCHOOL SE 4r Er/ —'—-— —1 ' S 2T•SPR1IN 0 016.- ' %E 160 51__ SE I60 nA400O• 1• N NC'I AV NC • I u 'BI• i l• SI '6A SI ■LINODLPUN NIUN.r' 0 , • l/ RCNTON PARK FI INU I° `[IPOVIISN I • • — `1 • LP°PPG _—___ 5[1Te lI _•—.— • �._.J� SF IT9 N1 War.. _ .. I /� E•• ® + 15 lee KI W I . ((� �' 0 RTNSON NI•-SL Lee SI- .--• •••4.4-•••••• .-............... ....... .. •,... . ' ..... -- ... •-.......4-.•••••44-T• F- r .1 • . • FIGURE. I1-5 . • 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 enrol.lent 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 ih the area will attend. 0liver _M. Hazen High School (current enrollment 1 ,710) ,( ) 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. (1-) Renton School District 403 , October 1973 27, 4. Population Density The ro osed p p 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- sented 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. ' 810 506 228.40 . 1970 2,660 ' ' 1 ,662 0.75* 1975 2,680 ' 1 ,675 —83.08 8.1 .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 I-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 11-6) 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 *Designated as Exit 7 - . 29. Q Q o , ^1 N^ i 4. , ' _ O0 ~ Q 0 al o o N ` cn 3� x _ .J N e. 44 th . st 0 a 0 o . N \ - \ft,...NIP6-.-.. FIGURE I1-6 o 0 0 M - O . . . O N 'D LA N 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 by 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 11-7) 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 • • \ , a) c . . r . . I ' LAKE WASHINGTON °G 1-405" z m / No. 52ndS / ,, Ir: lap i/ /. I I `/ I it II I III 1 . II PROJECT SITE %f. • .I If f N I N' r I L. iI is. %I a 4 ftr ,, �� I J Cope Ii �9pt ,, di • , • e r / f CO' • , I .. Average Weekday Traffic Count I I 'I 120 ADT r 0 O 3,12 'A.DT• 546 ADT • • ct' . . • LOCAL TRAFFIC • • - FIGURE 11 -7 Source: " Clark, Coleman & Rupeiks,, Inc. , March .19.74 . 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 1 . 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. 15. 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) 'Martin Alexander C. , "Weeds", Golden Press ,ress , 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-1 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' tinie. 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.. li t / ii g NOISE LEVEL ((Rik) AT 50 I T co 70 80 90 100 110 1' COMPACTERS ( ROLLERS) H FRONT LOADLRS I I ' cr) w z co 6 2' BACKI101.1 ; I 1 W 0 z :5_ tRACTORS I 0 717 , 1.---. /- 0 EL" , D < SCRAPERS, GRADERS I l (Ti w . c5 o Pf-kV E R S H -J .r < I '- TRUCKS I 1....! z a CONCRETE MIXERS I I . _ 15 r 0 rn• c.... `.4 CONCRETE PUMPS H Li fr (i) LLI -I CRANES (MOVABLE) I I . w CRANES(DERRICK) H ? z "....: • PUMPS H , 0 -z. w _ GENERATORS SI '<x . ii. 1 i-- 'i' COMPRESSORS I 1 PNEUMATIC WRENCHES F---1 ow <2 l';'• ri.a. JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS I ,I! ..v. a LI • PILE DFRIVERS (PEAKS) •I I 1 w rt . VIBRATOR I I 9 . 4... --• SAWS I I : 4 ..,,.. iNote: Based on Limited Available Data Samples .i, FIG . III-1 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE RANGES . . i. . 42. Itilki4._ , TABLE 111-2 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 + 18 to + 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 + 6 to + 16 200 feet 40 to 50 1 ' ' ' 52 + 2 to + 12 (inside Bldg.) 2 56 + 6 to + 16 3 49 O to + . 9 . 4 ' 50 0 ' to + 10 5 56 . + .6 to + 1.6 400 feet 60 to 70, 1 66 0 to + 6 2 ' 70 0 to + .10 3 63 ' 0 to + 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 O to + 4 43. 5 . . 50' . 0 to + '10 In addition to the above mentioned construction hours limi - 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 idl ing 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 (1) Usage(2) q 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 80 . 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. Estimated levels obtainable by selecting quieter procedures or machines and. implementing noise control features requiring no major redesign or extreme cost. c2)Percentage of time equipment is operating •at: noisiest mode in most used phase on site. Source U .S. EPA, NTID.300. 1 ' . . ` b. Trafflc Noise ` Noise from vehicular traffic sources prodomina `a~ the axist- � . ` ihg* no/sa level in the area of the proposed Project site. An ` est|mata6. maximum traffic volume of 560 ADT (See, Soctipn at an average speed of 20 mph or less would be gem- eratsd by the Project when fully occupied.-The average noise ' � �t level at lOD `� �rom an assigned ho�r/y volume o l f �l VPH � ' ' (l }� of Total ADT) at the speed of 2O mph is estimated as ' ' ` 3$ dB, (Figure 11 -1 , Section | | -A-5 a. Freeway) a noise level which is .accuptab |a" by HUD Standards. � In proportion to the population increase of the . aree' thm pro- , . . osed Project would contribute 5.26 percent of the total -pro.- / 1 l7 . ' ]���ed traffic voluma lncraase of 8�.�� par�ent` / in the ' ' area e 6 n 1970 on. l| 9Q, a/ 6 e . y � noisa level- increases ' ` logarithmically, a 5.26 ,pqrceUt`traffyc increase would be normal in terms ofa noise level increase. 6. Air Qua li1y ' . a. Construction � Construction .matar|als used for *th. proposed Project^ac wY 11 be ' such,: that. they wYl7 not 'cohflI ct wyth tha raqu^romants. of the � ' Na i l Y Y Nat o0a tm ss on�tandards �mr.`Maoardous Air Pollutants and rovod 6 the � l P 6City- of ` approved y e �nvYronm�nta rotection Agancy� and^ � e Renton 8. y ld/-ng Department. The heating system; | chem|' s ' . . . air pol lutants " wi l l not be used extensively due. ' urrant ' ' c` ` / � fuel shortages. Thus , the construction'. o the Project should ' ` not. cause a significant' impact on the air qualyty'_bf 'the area. ' � ' (l7)o| t r1 'Population p ' n e m Projections", uget 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 NO (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. ' (20)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 (RIBCO) . 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. fly 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- t \ tunity for an apartment or condominium development. 4 , 9 . 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 potential 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. 7 TABLE III-4 RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 403. PROJECT OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENTS FOR 1974 THRU 1978 Current Projected 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 ,034 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 8.2percent 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 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 ": it " Bellevue 3.47 " " I' Census Tract 247 3 .52 " " " AAM District 4000 3.70 " I' " 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 " " " Misty Cove Apartment 2.5 ". " " 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 4O ' 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 pickup 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 a 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 on the easement agG ement. Bur- a'Jj. r�%Y i�C '�vA: fir,.°,v,> lington Northern's records show no'!permit -no•r easement of any kini 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 b.y 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 14,000 gallons of water per days', 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 of11 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 111-2.) 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. Uti.1i.ties 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 .uti1ities 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. 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- acterized by 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 I 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 percent of land hi 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 II ( 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.. Renton`,Urban. Area - Comprehensive. Plan, revised March 1972 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-Family 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.n(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 alternativeis 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 Project site is within .a plat known as "The Plat of C. D. Hillmans. 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;. 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 pProJ'ect site and its. surroundingarea are committed to proposed 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. 7 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 County, 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. "HUD 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 1972. 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). 76. 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 11, . , in �1 1 / x ., D. - , • take afilitng o '' I - ,-, _ , Ri,, ,- \ 0 p \ '''\\ \ 2 NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - I i q PLAN '� �:`` ��m�- f�»� ' it ill � Co poration ,� e o e �.aee/-t • Service sxl vluf�y \I ( `I Citizens �'' o o o o a o - , 000 � � � { o i �• I d \ : o SoeY111r T.: I t �\,f-2-23 -Y--- •S a o0 f.L.eCI\J�7Tn-L- ! '' ■f „I 3 1.1; ' �.Ji cam•�,�cF IY.I,Te eo—� EXI'�11A1C Snn � r / � / ' 1.y _ te4172 _�s �vu �(.9T.•a 37 i7% K�s 7t)b.9pXr'---------SN .N.-_ . F.. — _— Pr t�',� � , ` / � � � ��I } , } I I • T7 43.50� : r eeD ti<r►Ib' e)r-s ae.ri9: ,.s/Y �Sp• " • fib.90G Co. X ->PnGE '. CfLULdI10U ' '95s4 Va"2 e.,*' ' i9"X% .-ilk-/. _ i.• •o I; .».se9.3c<D e].4)wo uo se sGx `' . � f•• 1 ,ITS IYn STUeY -- � eiv�/� r ' -tar, voo ys.7005E( 35.c0 v -� _ - .I� `1 ..dd ' AC(J IG3.00y5F(9]Sec 3) M� r ��. 1tl 5,� 1 Torsi.cGeU 153.]e9 x(c79.%-1 pop 7 EXi� �� � �� • TONI pg37gT GCM wAx. T'4a ti • / r_ • ' , 1 lri ,_ ... . ttZ • `-9 1 e-,NIt,-.IM ••••4:. .,?, iiiVI -- -. '1 --- r) - ...�` �' .`,'�" eEc!e1v rr., >TR. '� Jam_ I 4,..; / ..***''''''..„.............,,.... / ,_ , . , • /+ �xu«mo+ ,"e , WRSS -}Tp2Y �, r ��'' �� �. l� i- .::f� �"::W, `.'ate' ram. <,� ��mr. ? Il .-., li 46. N, "pie ,'..;`3.•.«�,'':I:I„....:ri:.~M of..t.,m,«. '', ,x".. \ • c�h ' I t m7 W,J.1,d •� M •.1 ' ..rNS•e«rol,+ "•.M S••r r of parMr iS. �'�•. `\ pPEU>41"•,•p�/ t M J.�`S tw..V.V�«ule L. �„ ^ 1� eMP �(y�{•,� � fptl'$T V.• d WOT.N.rt[er�rr« "•u�«iSpi05t. / -\4' ; A � ��\ ,f I� l/ illr "` `"."` ''' dro ol noloo Oros e`M sii»S' �/ .�- .• .. �: -' >; ...ol a ;i''. y,•r..to r%",sf ro...E:.."«•ot«u�•6 /.. �` ♦' ° Ki, t • �- s° ! /I I 0 Mru.31« «S).a .r�N,J=. h�1 nm �'.M / / . r e/" ••'�S'. A 9\.f �.,. �ems' l / I i/ / � J • �„r,°..on ,"° .de "Ir.olN•^ , �� / / 't: 4` " -e iv--" .,,ao ems+ / /I j i' :�w.r.: 'e r .wn. :,•» e r / r likf t• i y_ i; ,3 w dMfa.a `'v;•or++ .r nn . \ -✓ i ' ' - -. .,:.!i,.,,t--..,-;.,' , -f i-,.. . , tn \ !., pr. ,� 21 UUITD 3- T02.Y 4 l• l�9 i I I � , � i� \ ., 2,, 4 4...111, 4,...... .......... ,. 1 .,...,...,.. . ,, tkr* .... I i, , / '--- ,/ I'S' ; ai - R ___ - `� /nl'7TY COVE APT7. ,/� ;`3 /,,•./ , Ai 14 ' 1 ' L 1 Alb_- ..41K,,,my, tik I I, t,,i )..s '')''‘Z.PWfrlirt / ' i t : [NN '',..„ , •' I / S.u.e�xTee CO ' i , \ . % r El au. - 7.a.Mr1pG+� Imo` ' /// _ oo Y tit+'' 4 1 'ft t Y.1 «r ':r ij : e r .i y ''' fc ..x • ,,n 4. .. '4i .. ♦ t i v Sri �bA '4% ♦ ' Ay • fitPV }' •► ii 11106 * 4 tir . A litItillir : . . .. ., v ii. ,i)K A. v A. a+ .ar.t 4 . y_ fa • +•t a .4 , ' , 4 . ,,,,,,„„, ...„. 4. . ,i, . , .... ..,,! ., ,,,. 4 • .. Jr, ,,,, ,.. . . •,,,,,,.. . •..,4 i . .. -If A.-#._ ,- ' ' . t‘ ..-1. f ,i, 1 4.t • ''' 41. 1 .-P. ..,. :i.:1' .. fit. A. �!.j .� tn' ♦ ♦ • .441 ' 11111. -•'t . •' ,. • ''' ' , millt Iktiii 6 i ,.:, , 010 v .Y „ gin!•. . Of /94 y � ili lt • I/`� X I /I I. ) rTh I ' ) I Ooc* Dock C C O ( J I I 1 (, / I { „ /` /6/ ti I 1.350( I I C� o -— --- ---- - Dock �� � I n x , \ 00 Loo : : : : : C \. , , . . ` C A G // Boot ,'• I --7...._,- pock House / x I t I m 1 Dock _ n — /84 I ,Boot �� /a T /9.3I I ( 1 - x House /6.4 I I / I , a U ) I: ' I l62 x ~ • ' /5.7 1 J \ I i (( '' x f I C O i \ (j ... J ' Pc6 I � x 7 3 I . ,./if /. x/6.9 -\-. ��� I / ir / / / - I r _, C \ R 'Th-'\, 1 / / i ,- \ ,x 1._ /7/ i o 0 , . , / /• l \ 2 0.7/ % CSCL-...„,,C) lirolic-i ~\ 1 1 / x ��\\\ x/9/ X� I I .„\\ i , `-, .-Ilikc ‘ ' \\\ /,- Ip • ( 91 �� Deck \} \ / F-'4IT PO° �; /3411/. / , ..: 1---- \ // f / / , C......'"...--)pn,,, 2Q X / `�Deck r ` Cy. // 34/ 3 o .01INS \J� 2*a/ ' X/ x23./ 1 441411111441 \\N C Conc. �� (41/.5 4X. X \ \ ` / 0 . 20.7 All* N' _ - . • \-\- - - ' 1%4,'''.2,---,.. 41 j....------•-'..----------------"7 '2' 1/ . to \\//c69, t 't //, V / / 40.8 it 43 1 x20..3 ', x \\276 �''' 28.2 \ \� K.,, C/do/ S 44 34.6 x 32.6\ \ r . r 1/ 20 // li /� J \ \ \\" 27.8 \ cab ��\ 3/./'t �\ x 30.4 x29.2dx \ \- 43720.2 "" `��X �� X/.O 29.O \ \ p / tix// ; \ �- x \ 29.2 CB.0 3/.8 / r/ / 207/ 2/-2 \ x 28.6 � ��� x' x x / \ Q�bc �� Alf 34.4 r ----) , �' , / x 44 APPENDIX B SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR LAKE WASHINGTON SHORES 11 ' 11 , - I I i 11 cli I c '' 0 , u ' 1,. i' :`,„,,',_.,:•,, '_:•1_11,, ,, `•,- -- I , !I I , I 1: , , • . „ t— — .' -----4 AT I i 1-,T,1 L 1- I. I. s; J 14,1.1-`,11 kv.e. A.S oc LATE s _...,, c 0 N F,Li k T.1 .s4 Ci 3 OILS E.NMNEE R.5 1 III .f.,;.. . 4 rl. . , k " 1 1 II 0 6 11 A TELEPHONE MAIN 4-3946 NEIL H. TWELKER & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING SOILS ENGINEERS ALASKA TRADE BUILDING SEATTLE. WASH. 98101 April 4, 1974 Citizens Service Corp 201 Williams Ave South Renton, Washington 11 Attention: Mr. Ross Woodward Re: Soils and Foundation Investigation for Proposed Condominiums, near Ripley Lane North, Renton , Washington 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 11 alder in the northwest corner. A drainage ditch crosses the northern portion of the site to the lake. Soil exposu'r. es 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. Subsurface Exploration 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 I of the soil consistency. Subsurface Conditions Five principal soil units were encountered at the site, these are described briefly as follows: • 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. 11 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 w-ith a unit of very soft gray to brown organic silt whose thickness varies from 28% Feet, in the southwest to 122 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 oe 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 6% 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- Ptures. 3. Parking areas and driveways may be constructed on fills placed over existing surface soils, o• 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 • 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 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. 6. 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. tom" Very truly yours, s,/ 'I `'JISFNt"N NEIL H . TWELKER 6 ASSOCIATES <?/' a) 4f w by �' .o ^FIS � � Neil H. TwelkeracemL N H T . a c m a'� `��iiQ N n-\N APPENDIX C 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 Puite cutthroat trout Mohave chub Greenback cutthroat trout Humpback chub Gila trout. Moapa dace Apache trout Cui-ui 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 1 • AMBIENT AIR DUALITY STANDARDS SULFUR OXIDES PUGET SOUND NATIONAL PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS Tne presence of sulfuroxides in_tnE . PRIMARY Nees SECONDARY Notes REGION Photochemical oxidants are produced in ambient air has teen associated .,ith 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 80 I 03 i .;. 02 a •02_ PPm sunlight. Photochemical oxidants cause _resent a significant economic burden• I irritation to the mucous membranes, and have a nuisance impact. When sul- 30-day Average ! a .04 ppm damage to vegetation and deterioration fur.. oxides are inhaled with small I r of materials. They affect the clear- particles, the health effect is in- 24-hour Average 365 I ',14 260 • .10 a. .10 ppm ance mechanism of the lungs.and alter creased. -.Inhalation of sulfur dioxide I resistance to respiratory bacterial car..cause increased airway .resistance 3-hour Average o 1 3i1' , J'..' ,50 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 • I 5-min. Average ! for some people on days when hourly d 1,00 ppm averages reach O:1 ppm. Eye_irrita- Smail discrete masses of solid Or iiq- ' 3 . r 1 Lion is possible when atmospheric con- .uidl.natter:dispersed in the atmosphere, SUSPENDED ug/m I --- ugf7- 1 --- centrations reach this level. especially those of-one micron or .less '.PARTICULATES I in diameter, are associated with a Annual Geom. Mean 75 --- a 60 a 60 ua/m3 variety of adverse effects on public NITROGEN DIOXIDE health and- welfare. Particulate.mat- 24-Hour Average. I 260 . I ___ b 150 I b 150 ug/m3 ter in , the respiratory tract maypro- Nitric oxide results from the fixation duce. injury by itself, or it may act_- 1 of nitrogen and oxygen at high temper- ir. 'conjunction with gases to increase 3 i . atures as in fuel combustion. There the effect on the body. Small parti- CARBON MONOXIDE mg/m PPm • are several atmospheric reactions ties 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- . buildings and other l hour- Average' ( bient air is essential to the produc- g property is a 9 40 35 b same same common- effect of high particulate levels. PHOTOCHEMICAL ug/m3 ppm Lion photochemical oxidants. The OXIDANTS presenccee of nitrogen dioxide- in am- bient air has been associated with a varietyof respiratory diseases. CARBON MONOXIDE 1-hour Average • . 160 I ,08 b ' same same P y 1 Carbon monoxide reacts with the hemo- ug/m3 I PPm HYDROCARBONS globin in red -blood cells to decrease NITROGEN DIOXIDE . the . Oxygen-carrying capacity of the Defined as organic compounds 'composed . blood. The national .primary standard •Annual Average 100 I 05 a same same for carbon monoxide was based on evi- 3 I exclusivelyof carbon and hydrogen,. deuce. that levels cf carboxyhemoglobin HYDROCARBONS ug/m, PPm-• hydrocarbons are primarily associatedate with the use of petroleum products. it human blood as low as 2.5:; maybe g 1Fn - 1 2u t same sane They are the main components of photo- s« �iated with irca.irment .of ability 3-hour Average- _ chemical smog. Hydrocarbons alone have 'to' dis-criminate time- intervals. The no known effect on human hetlth; there- n.atibnal ambient air quality standards CTATE AND REGION PARTICLE FALLOUT STANDARDS (No National Standard) . fore the sole-purpose of prescribing .. for carbon . monoxide .are intended to. 2;� 2 a hydrocarbon standard is to control ndustrial Areas (a 1, grans/meter .ironth 28.6 tons/mile /month) protect. against ere occurrence of car- ) t 2 photochemical oxidants. oxyhemoglobin levels- above-2` . Note: Commercial-Residential Areas (a) 5 _gran-s/meter /month (14.3 tons/mile2/month) Smoking 'up to 2 packs:of cigarettes a • day raises carboxyhemoglobin levels to ' ' about 5":. This.i's egoivalent .to expos-. ccr n = parts per million- a Never to be exceeded ,,re for 8 or more hours to 3C ppm of ,.,/m" = micrograms per . b Not to be exceeded more than once per year cartcn'monoxide. cubic meter c Not to be exceeded rGre than twice in seven Jays ' -,!m3 = miliigrar._ per . . d Net to be exceeded rcre than once in eight hours cubic meter - . Source: Puget Sound Air. Pollution Control Agency - PSAPCA 2/7? I'UbL I JUUIVU M 1 K I'ULLU 11 UIV LUN I KUL MbLIILT • • 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 Avp (ppm) Avg (2pm) Avg (epm) Avg (COH) Avg (COH) Avg (COH) `....,, Marysville School Dist. Off. I - - - - 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 i - • - - 1 Seattle Center .13 .05 .011 + 2.6 '1.4 0.58 , Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle . .19 .05 ' .014 4.5 2.6 1.00 AMCI,. Tukwila .08 .01 . .002 , 2.6 1.4 0.56 , Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .08 .01 .001 - 2.8 1.7 0.53 Fife Sr. H. S. ; .13 .01 .000 3.1 2.1 0.70 • , Adams St. , Tacoma - - - - i 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 1 McMicken Heights, King Cty. .26 .05 :010 L SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CONCENTRATIONS AIR DUALITY 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 , r Everett_: •Seattle Tacoma ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 1 1' ' 1 McMicken Heights, King Co. 1 ' Max 24 hr 23 43 32 Min 24 hr 2 3 3 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 Oct Exc Monthly (Sampling Period: 30 days). Monthly • . Station l,g/m•i pg/rn3 '' 150'pg/m9 Avg ug/m Station Avg ~1 , Tolt River Watershed • I' 4.0 6.6 • 5.4 Marysville School District Off. 0.31 ,.Marysville School Dist. Off. , 16.3 61.•.9 44.2 , Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett • 0.61 , Medical-Dental Bldg.,Everett 17.8 ' 65.9 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 • 139.2 102.0 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 78.8 43.0 Hancock Ranch, Maury Is. 0.68 , 115 E. Main, Auburn 32.3 116.0 68.2 . 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 • 1 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. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 1 19.0 84.1 57.7 . , Clover Park, Tacoma V 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 '0. 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 ppn' Maximum 4-.hour average • .04 ppm .04 pPm , V V V Maximum daily average . .03 Vppm • .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) ' Maximum1-hour average 5 • 1 g ppm ; Maximum 1-hour average .06 ppm • ' Maximum 8-hour average 2 ppm, ; ' ' Maximum daily average ' 2 ppm Maximum daily average • V .04 ppm• ' Monthly arithmetic average'. .' ' 0.7 ppm Monthly arithmetic average . , ,025 ppm . ' • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - FEBRUARY 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 jppn) _ Avg f ppn) _ Avg Sppn) _ Ayg_(COH)_ _'Avg ,ICOI I) - Ayg_(C011)_ .Marysville School Kist. Off. • - - - 2.6 1.2 . ' 0.68 - 'Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett .09 .02 .012 2.2 1.2 0.66 . Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle - .07 ' .02 .004 - - - , ' ;'eatt.le Center .18 .05 .008 3.0 1.1 0.67 ' Dinwamish Ptm>p. Sta., Seattle .29 .05 .017 3.9 2.0 1.12 ' ANC I, Thkwila • 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 'Hillard 1.1em. '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 - .. Iinrton, Vashon Island .16 .02 .004 'McMicken Heights, King Cty. .30 . '.06 .015 -" L • 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 - far 5 min for 1 hr for 1,hr for 24 hiss 150 c EMERGENCY) ' 1 'N. 26th $ 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 I. 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 " 'ug/m' ' ug/m' , 150 ug/m' Avg ug/m' Station Avg • r • , , `✓ '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 'I)uwamish 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.I:. Pub. Health'Ctr.,Renton' 16.0 129.0 , 56.7. '. KIRO Transmitter, Maury Is. s, . 0..33 'Municipal 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. H. S., Bremerton 0.46 'Meeker Jr. H.' S., Tacoma ' 29.3 ' • 85.0 . ' 54.2 ' -Winslow City Ha11,•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 6 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 •1 McMicken Heights, King�: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 , - - - - - - - -Maxii.an 1-hour average - - - - - - - - -.04 ppm - - - - -.-'.05 ppm- - - - - - . - - - - - - ' Maxilain'4-hour average .04 ppm ' ..04' . , ppm . ' Maximum daily average .02 ppm .03 PPm Monthly arithmetic average .015 ppm .011 ppm . I. . • ' ' McMicken Heights, King County . CARBON'MONOXIDE (Standard: .9 ppM/8 hrs.and 35 ppm/1hr . . NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard:, .05 ppin.:annual avg.) . .. . neither to.be exceeded more than once per year) ; . ' • 'MaximuM 1-hour average - ' '- - - - • 5 , pre I. Maximum 1-hour average . . . . ' .' .04 ppm ' 'Maximum 8-hour average . 3 ppm 'Maxim* daily average . . . .. . . 2. ppm , Maximum daily average ' .03 ppm 'bbmthly 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 t. lia,.,!I • Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Max.1/hr ' Max.24/hr h nth i y `.r.r - Station . Avg Ippm) _ Avg (ppm) _ Avg•£PPm) Avg-( )- - - Avg (COH) _ _A;rc*_(' (.1• ,, 'Marysv:i.11e SchooI'Dist..0ff. - - - 2.1 0,9 . 0.37 . ,''>k'dik:al-Deutal MAR., Everett 20 .03 .008 2.4 0.8- 0.42 '(;Teen Lake Reservoir, Seattle ' ' 12 . .02 ' .003• 1.9 - 1.0 0.'5;: ' :eattle Center _ ' 14 .04 . .006 ' -1.7 . 0.8 0.35 'i ai.+:un ish Pump. Sta., Seattle .. 14 .04 .009 . ' 2.4 1.5 0.67 • . • '.WC:I, Tukwila 11 .02 -.006 1.6. 1.1 r 0.56 'A'kcker Jr. H. S., Tacoma _60 .03 .006 . 1.8 ' 0.8 , ' 0.42. '1if€ Sr. H. S. - ' 2.6 . 1.6 0.61 . ' 'ii'i.11ard Clem. School., Tacoma .11 .03 ' . .005 ' 2.9. • . 1.6 . • 0.60 ' 'N. 26th f, Pearl, Tacoma ' • .22 .04 '.006 '• 1:7 0.6 0.::[' ' 'Burton, Vastxin=Island • .21 .04 ' .009 , 'Mcllicken 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 . ALERT, 100 = WARNING, . Station for 5 min . for 1 hr for 1 .hr •for 24 hrs 150 = EMERGENCY) '. . ' Wcker'Jr. 11.S.,Tacoma: . ' ' 3 1 , 2 ' Everett Seattle Paconr. ' Max 24' hr 15 . ' . 23 27 .. ' Min 24 hr • 3 3 3 . ' Monthly Avg 7.5 . • ' 11.8 l.i.. • SUSPENDED PARTICULATE :(ding Period: '24 hrs each 6th'day) '• SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur • ' W�.�.0 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' _ _ u_g/m° 150'u_g/_ms Avg ug/_m_°' Station Avg a.a '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 1 .Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett ' . 3.56 . 'Medical-Dental. Bldg.,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., Seattle0.88 • ' ' oattle Center 27.6' 48.5 37.4 . ' Duwamish Pump. Sta.; .Seattle 0.90 • • • 'Public Safety Bldg., .Seattle' 47.6. ' 85.2 . 68.8. ' 25 S:. Hanford St., Seattle 0.67 '1;11:'ar•;.ish Pump. Sta., Seattle' 52.5 _ . 89.5' • . • , . 76.6 . . ' Municipal Bldg., Renton 0.43 'Puget Power.Bldp., Bellevue ' 34.3 54.5 45.2. ' `20 Auburn Ave., .Auburn 0.30 : 'S.'Ii: Rib Health Ctr.,Renton', 18.5 44.6 34.7 . '= KIRO Maury ury Is. O.,;0 ' 'u.nicipal 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 - 'Dewey Jr. H. S.,:Bremerton ' . 15;4 34.0 • . . 27.2 '! 'Dewey,.Jr..H. S., Bremerton'. . 0i37 'Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma ..:., 21.2. • 50.7 ' 38.7. ' Winslow•City.Hall, Kitsap Cty: p,',�7 'Tit:eflats, 'facoma. . ' .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 - ' 0.47 ' '.Jiess Bldg:, Tacoma ' 22.1 60:4.. ' 46.7 ".. ' ''.Clover Park, Tacoma 0.27 'M.' 26thr $ Pearl; Tacoma . 12.5 . ' '67:6 38.1 ' ' ! McNi.cken Heights,,King Cty. . • 0.54 ' • 'MEMicken Heights,, King.Cty: , 21.9 70.9 38.6 ' ' • ' ' 'Hk.;nthly:all-station average ' 49.0 '"Mbnthly all-station'average' 0.56 TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .08 ppm/1 hr. 'not to be exceeded)mor than.once'peryear) ' . . . Seattle Center . AtMicken Heights - - - - - '- _ - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - Maximnn:l-houravera e ,05 ' ppm, .06 PPm. ' ' . . . Maximo 4`-hour average • ' , ' .04 ppm . ' • '.05 • PPS . ' Maximum daily average -. . .03 ppm .04 PPm. ' ' MOnthl arithmetic average. ' Y :016 ppm .020. Prin. -. . _ _ _ _ _ .. - - . •- _ _ - ' . • tt-Micken.Heights, King County . ,. . CARBON MONOXIDE (Standard: 9 ppn/8 hrs and:35 ppiri/1 hr NITROGEN. DIOXIDE (standard: • .05 ppm annual avg.) neither to be exceeded more than once per',year) . ..f • ' �ximlml.1-hour average''..: . . .• ppm • ' 5 ! MaMaximum'1-hour average :- - - - - - - - - - .11 -Ppm ' • ''M4llaximimi 8-hour average 3 ppm. 'Max nntn daily:'average .. . .. . . . . '. . 2 ppm ,. Maximum daily'average • . ' .08 ppm ' ' . 'Monthly arithmetic average:: .. 1:1 ppm , - Monthly arithmetic average .: .038 PP ; • PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL.AGENCY ' ' AIR 'MONITORINC STATISTICS-- APRIL 1973 • . SULFUf; DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient Oi 'uaa . ' Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Max 1/hr . Max 24/hr Monthly :;_aC,.' i Avg .(ppm) _ippm) _ Avg .(ppm) _ _Avg_(COB)_ - ' Avg fC01I) Avg_(C('_,) 'r':,r•.,viale School Dist. Off. - - 1.3 0.6 J.32 • 'Medical-Dental Bldg., Fverctt. " • .07 .02 .005 1.9 0.8 0.7,5 ' 61-vi: Lake Reservoir, Seattle .26 .01 • .001 • 1.3 0.7 0.37 cc.a; Llc C rater .56 .03 . .005 ' " 1.7 0.8 G.:,: ' Duwimisii Pump. Sta., Seattle .29 .02 .007 i 2.4 �.5 0.68 'A'k Tukwila .16 .03 .009 i 1.6 1.0 0.55 • ,Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma .11 .02 .004 2.0 0.7 0. 6 • 1•:fe Sr. H. S. _ - i 2.3 1.2 0.61 Will,+rd P1cm. School., Tacoma .12 .02 .005 2.6 1.2 .0.59 ' .'. '2Cth E. Pearl, Tacoma .3]. .02 .006 • 1.6 0.6 0.. Btnt_,i, 1"ashon Island .26 .03 .004 . 'M;Mick.e'r F1eights, .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 = E"IERGENCY) Barton, Vasi,on Island 1 . ' N. 26th F, Pearl, Tacoma 2 Everett Seattle Tacoma ' A-Micken Heights, King Co. , . 2 ' 4 - - -' - - :,cittle Center 1 2 Max 24 hr • 1"3 23 20 Ct:wan.ish 2 ' Min 24 hr 2 • 3 3 Greet l eke 1 ` : Monthly Avg 6.2 " 11. 4 . 10.0 SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24 hrs. each 6th day) SULFATION RATE (Milligrams sulfur 050 micrograms/cubic meter not to be exceeded more than once per .year) - trioxide/100 sq. centimeters/day) Min Max 0cc Exc Monthly ' (Sampling Period: 30 days) : , M.lonthl.y ' Station , ug/m' ug/m' ' 150 ug/m' Avg ug/m' ' Station Avg 'Tait River Watershed 11.1 . 25.9 16.4 s ' 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 �.70 ':.S.C.G.S., Seattle ' 40.7 " 85.3 67.7 ' Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 0.53 Sc;tt]e Center • 23.4 49.1 34.1 ' Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle -0.55 'I' clic Safety Bldg., Seattle 34.5 88.0 59.6 ' 25 S. Hanford St., Seattle 0.56' 12r•:arr.ish Pump. Sta., Seattle' 36:0 ' ' 127.1 75.6 " 4 Municipal Bldg., Renton 0.43 • •iuget Power BIdg., Bellevue ' . 21.8 58.6 . 35.9 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 2.2 'S.B. Pub. Health Ctr.,Renton.' 21.8 107.9 . 50.6 ' KIRO Transmitter, Maury Is. 0.34" ' 'uunicipal Bldg., Renton •'26..2 84.5 . 54.6 ' Hancock Ranch, Maury Is. 0.7', '20 Auburn Ave.., Auburn ' 36.2 110.5 • 77.5 v Gold Beach, Maury Is. 0.95 'Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton '• 22.3 35.3 27.7 ' Dewey.Jr. H. S., Bremerton 0.3C • ' 'Mrr.kcr,.,Jr. H. S., Tacoma ' 26.2 73.8. 48.8 + Winslow City lla]1, Kitsap Cty. . 0.2S 'Tideflats,. Tacoma, ' . '' .49.2 233.2 1 . ' 132.4 ' Kitsap.County Airport ' 0.11 'Fife Sr. High School 23.3 ' 110.0 '59.7 ' ' Tideflats, Tacoma" 0.39 'Willard Elem. School,Tacoma ' 28.7 129.4 . 70.8 ' '41. 26th 6 Pearl, Tacoma • C.50 'Hess Bldg., Tacoma ' ' 24.1 107.E ' • '64.0 . ' Clover Park, Tacoma U.31 'N. 26th 1 Pearl, Tacoma 14.0 52.0 29.6 ' Mcgicken Heights, King Cty. 0.5; 'r'tMicb"en Heights, King Cty. 14^.4 • ' 75.4 43.8 ' ' . •• 'i��pnihl> all-station average 56,.9 • Monthly all-station average.. . . 0.46. • TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .08 ppm/1 hr. not to be exceeded more.than once.per year) . '. Seattle Center McMicken Heights ' Maximum,l-hour average .U3 ppm .US ppm " . • . - . Maximum 4-hour average . ' ' .03' ppm', .05 ppm . ' Maximum.daily average ' •" , ' .02 ppm ' . . ,.03 ppm • ' Monthly 'arithmetic av erage .013 ppm .022 ppm , . McMicken Heights, King County , •' . •• (''•.F'LCN. MONOXI I,''E (Standard: ' 9 ppm/8 hrs and 35 ppm/I hr NITROGEN .DIOXIDE.(Standard:" .05 ppm atur,l avg. fir., neither to be exceeded more than once per year) ' 'Nax iun,m 1 hour average 4 r PPm , Maximum 1-hour average I%1' ' • 'M1.txiwum 8-hour average 4 ppm 3 'Maximum n c'a i]j, average pPm. Maximum.daily average h;.'m Mtinrhly ar.ii:lunetic •average • 1.6 PPm Monthly arithmetic average- -. _ _ _ - - _ _ . . .•- _ . . . _ - -. - - _ pp::; 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 (COH) Avg (COH) Avg (COH) 1 ' Medical-Dental Bldg., .Everett .34 .02 .005 , 1.2 0.6 0...3 0 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. Ste., Seattle .27 .03 .007 3.5 0.8 0.44 AMCI, Tukwila .17 .02 .004 , 1.5 0.8 0.34 McMicken Heights, 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 5 min' for 1 hr for 1 hr, for 24 hrs 150 = EMERGENCY) , Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma 2 , N. 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). Min.. Max Occ Exc Monthly Monthly Station , ug/m' We 150 ug/r' Avg u9/m' Station Avg ' 1 ' Tolt River Watershed 10.1 26.0 17.4 ' Medical-Cental Bl.dg., 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 Safety 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 Is. 0.74 '. ' Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton 21.7 27.0 24.4 ': Dewey Jr. H. S., Bremerton 0.24. . _ Meeker Jr. H. S.. Tacoma . 23.9 43.7 32.4 '. 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. '. Hess Bldg., Tacoma 25.7 56:9 ' . 36.1 ' Clover Park, Tacoma. 0.35 • N. 26th &:Pearl. Tama •22.8 74.8 ' com ' 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: .05 ppm more than once per year) annual avg.) Seattle Center McMicken Heights McMicken Heights s Maximum 1-hour average .05 ppm .07 ppm , Maximum 1-hour average .. . . . .09' ppm, , Maximum 4-hour average . .05 ppm ,06 ppm , , , Maximum daily average : .03 ppm',. ,.04 ppm , Maximum daily average . . .06 PPm, 1 Monthlyyarithmetic :avera e .019 yarithmetic average . m;9 ppm'. .023 ppm , Monthly g .029.pp � . PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - MAY, 1973 • SULFUR DIOXIDE AVERAGES SOILING INDEX (Coefficient o_f Haze) • ' Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Max 1/hr Max 24/hr Monthly Station Avg .(ppm) _ Avg jppml Avg jppm) Avg (CON) Avg (CM) Avg LCCH) _ • `� . 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 Pump. 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 F, Pearl, Tacoma .38 .03 • .006 0.9 0.4 • 0.19 Burton, Vashon Island .42 .04' .004 ki McMicken Heights, King Cty. • .27 ,07 .014 • 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 Everett Seattle Tacoma ' N. 26th G Pearl, Tacoma ' 2 5 Barton, Vashon Island 1 • 3 ' Max 24 hr 10 20 27 ' 1,,1 McMicken Heights 2 ' Min 24 hr 2 3 3 . ' ' Monthly Avg 5.5 9.7 9.2 ' J 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) Alin Max ckc. Exc Monthly (Sampling Period: 30 days) Monthly • Station tilg/m3 ug/m3- - -150_ug/m3_ _Avg_ug/m3_ - _ _ _ Station- _ _ _ _ Avg _ _ Tolt River Watershed , Marysville School District Off. 0.59' 1 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 .,r , 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 I Public Safety.Bldg.,'Seattle 38.9 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 Puget Power Bldg., Bellevue '15.7 53.0 31.3 , 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 0.26 S. E. Pub.Health Ctr., Renton '20.6 58.1 33.5 , KIRO Transmitter,.Maury Is. • 0.58 ' FiArdcipal 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., Tacoma ,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 £- lAdi icken Heights, King Cty. • 0.64 '".MicMi.cken Heights, King Cty. ,14.6 ' 59.9 . 35.5 • I • ' Monthly all-station average 46 1 , Monthly all-station average . . . 0.58 TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard: .08 ppm/1 hr. not to be exceeded more than once per year) . • _Seattle Center . McMicken Heights - 1 Maximum 1-hour average .07 ppm .07 ppm,. , Maximum 4-hour average ,06 ppm .06 ppm Maxintm daily average .04 ppm ,04 '.ppn .Monthly arithmetic average .017 ppm .027 ppm McMicken Heights, King County ' • CARBON MONOXIDE (Standard: 9 ppm/8 hrs and 35 ppm/i hr NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard: ,05:ppn annual avg..) neither to he exceeded more than once per year) I . 1 • , Maximum 1-hour average . . . . . . . .. . . 3 :ppm_ , Maximum 1-hour average - ppm, , Maximum 8-hour average 2 ppm , some , Maximum daily average - . . . 2 ppm. , Maximum daily average ppm., Monthly arithmetic average 0 9 ppm a Monthly arithmetic average . - ppmi . PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - sjULY, 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) •..... . 1 ' Medical-Dental Bldg:. Everett .46 . .04 .007 , 1.3 0.7 , 0.36 . Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle .06 .01 .002 , 1.3 0.5 0.25 , S2sttle Center .07 .01 .002 , 1.4 0.7 0.30 , Cu;ramish Pump. Sta.,' Seattle .32 . .03 .006 , 2.2. 1.1 0.47 , Pc:C1, Tukwila .19 .02 .004 , 2.2 0.8' 0.37 , PcMicken Heights, King County .54 .05 .008 , 1.1 0.5 0.31 - r.eker 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 , Curton, Vnshon Island .06 .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'5 min for 1 hr for 1 hr for'24 hrs 150 • EMERGENCY) S . , ,....Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma - 1 2 • 6, , N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 2 ' ' 4 • ' Everett Seattle Tacoma r°ciicken Heights 2 • ' 3 ' - , , 1'4:A1 nl-Dental Blc'g., Everett 1 1 .• ' Max 24 hr 20 20 22 ' Duwinish, King CoLn_ty 1 • • ' Min 24 hr 2 3 , 2 , , • ' Monthly Avg 5.9 ' 7.9 9.5 1 . , , S,ISPENDED 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) Min Max •0cc Exc Monthly Monthly . Station ug/m' ug/m' 150 pg/m! Avg yg/m1 Station ' Avg • . . . 1' - ' Tolt 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 ' • ' V.S.C.G.S., Seattle • • 35.4' 66.4 ' 46.7 ' ' Publlc' Safety Bldg., Seattle 0.55 '. Seattle Center 21.1 . 34.0 ' 27.0• ' Duwamish Pump.' Sta., Seattle I 0.65 ' ' Public Safety Bldg.; Seattle 29.1 -51.0 ' 43.8. ! • 25 S. Hanford St., Seattle 0.32 ' ' ' Dt ramish Pump. Sta., Seattle ' 35.9 84.3 • 58.5 : ' ' Municipal Bldg., Renton. 0.41 ' • • ' Puget '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 ' Gold Beach. Maury Is: 0.56 . ' Dewey .Jr; H. S., Bremerton 14.6 25.8 ' ' . 20.6 ' Dewey Jr.• H.' S.,'Bremerton 0.10 ' . talker Jr. H. S.. Tacoma ' 22.8 : 42.0 ' : 33.3 ' .Winslow.City Hall. Kitsap Cty., .0.20' ' Tidaflats, Tacoma 58.2 184.6 , 1' ' 112.3 ' Kitsap County Airport 0.08 ' Fife Sr. High School 31:2 ' 77.0 55.6 ' .Tideflats, Tacoma ' .0.38 ' ..Millard Elem. School, Tacoma 29.9 99.3 ' 69.5 ' N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 0.42 • ' Hesa Bldg:. Tacomi 16.4 86.9 ' . • 54.4 . ! Clover Park,'Tacoma , ' .. 0.23 ' ', R. 26th' Pearl, Tacoma . 43.1 ..80.4 . 61.6 ' ' ' Monthly all-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 ' . ore'than once per year) ' ' annual avg.) Seattle Center McMicken Heights . .McMicken Heights ' , , ' , Maximum 1-hour average ' ' • ' .07. 'ppm ' ' .08 ppm • . 'Maximum 1-hour average . . . . .11 rpm, 1' Maxlaum 4-.hour average'•. ' .07 . ppm ' • .07 ppm ' 1. . , ' . Maximum daily average , ' '.05. ppm ' , ' _ .03 ppm, ' , Maximum daily' average ' . : . . AG ' PM, . . 1 Rlanthly arithmetic average '..020 'PP.m . .020 ppm 1 Monthly,arithmetic average : . .036 ppm, ... . i. 1 PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - AUGUST. 1973 I 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 (CUH) Avg (CON) - ' 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 0.17. 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) Meeker 'Jr. H. S., Tacoma 1 , , ,. 'N. 26th & Pearl, Tacoma 3 1 '5 ' Everett Seattle Tacoma , McMicken Heights 1 I ' 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 SUSPENDED`PARTICULATE (Sampling Period: 24, hrs. each'6th day) ' SULFATION RATE (M1Uigrams.sulfur ,� (150 micrograms/cubic meter, not to be exceeded more than once per year) trioxide/100 sq. centimeters/day (Sampling Period: 30 days) Min Max 0cc Exc Monthly Monthly Station . ug/m' ug/m' . 150 pg/ms Avg ug/m' . . Station Avg + 1 ,. ' 'Tolt 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 ' ' IS. E. Pub. Health Ctr., Renton .29.8 ''•58.2 43.0 ' McMicken .Heights; :King County 0.43 ' ' . ;Municipal Bldg., Renton 36.7 6.1.2 . 50.0 ' KIRO. 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.., ' ' IMeeker 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 (CARBON MONOXIDE (Standard:• TOTAL OXIDANT (Standard:., NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard 9 ppm/8 hrs. 'and' 35 p m/1 hr 0.8 ppm/1 hr, allowed Once .05 ppm annual average) ,allowed once per year) per year) .20.9 - 2nd,:Ave.. Seattle, Seattle Center McMicken.Hts. McMicken Hts. ' Max 1/hr avg. ....;..... 13 - ppm • : ....... .07 .ppm ...: pp � ..r...:'.........;.. :11 � 07 PPm , Max 8/hr avg . . ... 11. ppm r• ,: , ' Max daily avg 6 ppm ' ...... .02 ppm .03 ppm ' . ..........:.... .06 ppm ' , , Monthly avg 3.3.ppm . , ..:,..; .013 ppm 018 ppm , 037 ppm • - ---- - - - - -- --- ---- - - --- - I.. i'. - - - - - - - - - - - -'. . . - - - - - - - - - - . ... .1 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)c ' 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 ' ' Ouwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle .11 .03 .008 • 2.6 1.2 0.60 ' • AMC], Tukwila .27 .02 .003 2.3 1.5 0.54 • ' McMicken 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 r ALERT, 100 = WARNING, ' Station for 5 min for 1 hr for 1 hr for 24 hrs 150 r EMERGENCY) ' • N. 26th & Pearl, Tacuma 2 • Everett Seattle Tacoma ' ' Tukwila, King County 1 • • Willard Elena. 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 (Sampling 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 Monthlyc . • Station . . ug/m' .q/m' 150 ug/m' Avg Ng/m' Seattle McMicken Heights Center Heights . Tolt River Watershed 7.7 34.5 18.3 Max 1 hr avg - ppm .07 ppm . Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett 28.9 42.8 34.55 No. of 1 hr avgs U.S.C.i.S., Seattle 55:5 68.0 61.0 exc .08 ppm . Seattle Center . .25.0 40.5 32.1 . Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 37.3 54.8 48.8 Duwemish Pum . Sta., Seattle 45.0 70.3 60.2 . Puget Power Ildg., Bellevue 24.8 41.2 30.5 • CARBON MONOXIDE .. (St• andard: • S. E. Pub. Health Ctr., Renton 20.9 51.4 35.6 9 /B 35 }b . . Municipal Bldg.. Renton 28.4 53.6 42.1 ppmhrs andppm/1 hr • . 20.Auburn Ave.. Auburn 37.5 98.7 60.0 1209 - 2nd Ave. McMicken 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 ' . Tideflats, Tacoma 62.2 172.4 . 1 96.4 Max 8 hr avg 13 ppm • . Fife Sr. High School 25.5 75.4 41.4 • No .of 1. hr avgs. Willard Elem. School, Tacoma 31.9 87.9 54.1 exc 35 . Hess Bldg., Tacoma . . 21.5 67.4 38.5 • ppm' • . N. 26th.1 Pearl, Tacoma 37.3 92.5 59.7 • No. of, 8 hr avgs exc 9 ppm 56. Monthly all-station aversg NITROGEN DIOXIDE:` (standard: . e 44.9 .05 ppm annual average)a • McMicken Heights • Monthly avg 048 ppmc . u4/an.0 micrograms per cubic meter a . Never to be exceeded • c Arithmetic average ppm s parts per million b Not to be exceeded more than once per year PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY' AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - OCTOBER, 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 ' • t+":+ical-Dental Bldg., Everett .27 .02 .005 1.7 0.9 0.46 ' ▪ C-repn Lear Rrsprvolr, Seattle .07 .02 .006 1.7 1.0 0.55 • • Seattlr' Cuter .12 .02 .010 2.1 1.0 0.54 • ' Cuwaii sh Pump. Sta.. Seattle .06 .02 .006 3.3 1.5 0.77 ' ' APCI, TuNila .41 .03 .007 • 2.7 1.9 0.76 ' ' Mc.%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 A 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 5 min for. 1 hr for 1 hr for 24 hrs 150 = EMERGENCY) ▪ Med.-Dent. Bldg., 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: ' ' (Standards 150 ug/m'. 24 hr.avg)b .08 ppm/1 hr)b ' Mini Maxi 0cc Exc, Monthly Seattle McMicken • .0 tion }iq/m uq/m 150 ug/m Avg ug/m . • Center Heights .• Tolt ,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.6.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 Sifety Bldg., Seattle 34.5 94.8 54.8 . ... .. . .. .. . . . .. . . . H:.rbor Island, Seattle 41.8 51.4 46.,6 . ▪ Dewsmish Pump. Sta., Seattle ' 41.5 108.0 57.0 CARBON MONOXIDE (Standard: C'ergetewn, King County ' - - b ▪ A:lintown, King County . 18.2 68.2 . 34.6 ' 9 Ppm/8 hrs and 35 pm/1 hr) • . Paget Power Bldg.. Bellevue 18.3. 84.8 1209 - 2nd Ave. . S.F. Pub. Health Ctr., Renton 15.9 62.6 26.6 . Municipal Bldg.. Renton 22.6 55.8 31.2 . Seattle, Wash. . 20 Auburn Ave., Au!urn ' 24.3. 98.3 . . 46. • • McMIcken !!aights,. fang County ' 21.7 37.7 . . . ' 26.7Max 1 hr. avg Pig . . r w ey ,'r. H. S., Bremerton 14.4 23.1 18.3 Max,B hr avg: ppm M▪ eeker Jr. H, S., Tacoma 25.7 66.0 36.8 ' No. of 1 hr avgs • • Tideflats, Tacoma '16.9 108.4 54.4 U. of 8 hr avgs exc 35.ppm - Fire • Sr. High School 20.6 . 63.0. 27.3 '• �c.,9 ppm . . Willard Elem., School, Tacoma 18.8 .90.3 39.6 ' ' . ' • Ness Bldg., Tacoma 29.3 .123.7 60.2 . . . : . . . . . . N. 26thA Pearl, Tacoma 16.6 81.3 36.8 Monthly all-station average 38.8 NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard: .05 ppm annual 'average) • • McMicken • Heights• ° honthly avg 046 pppmc Pe/o' micrograms per cubic meter a Never to'::e exceeded c Arithmetic average rAll 4 parts per million b Not to be exceeded more than once pe r r year. . 1 UUL I OVUIYU M1 R•I•ULLU I 1 Ultl l,Ull I RUL moLI'lL 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 Avq (ppm) Avg (ppm) Avg (ppm)c ' Avg (COH) Avg (COH) Avg (C0H)c • Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett .U4 .01 • .002 2.0 0.8 0.43 ' ' Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle .10 .02 .004 2.3 1.4 0.63 ' • Seattle Center .10 .03 .009 • 2.2 1.2 0.52 • ' Duwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle .11 .04 .006 3.3 '1.9 0.73 ' ' AMCI, Tukwila .04 .01 .004 2.6 2.0 0.65 ' '' -HcMicken Heights, King County .09 .01 .002 • 1.9 1,0 0,37 ' ' Peeker Jr. H. 5., Tacoma ' .05 .01 .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 6 WARNING, ' Statism for 5 min for 1 hr for 1 hr for 24 hrs 150,= EMERGENCY) ' ' 26th & Pearl, Tacera 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; 160 ug/m' 24 hr avg)b .08 ppm/1 hr)b • Min Maxi Occ Exc Monthly' . Seattle McMicken ' • Station uq/mi uq/m 150 pg/m3 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 . • Seattle Center 17.9 38.4 28.1 exc .08 ppm 0 - Public Safety Bldg., Seattle 27.5' 62.5 45.3 ' . Harbor Island, Seattle . 29.8 69.2 '49.7 • Diminish Pump. Sta., Seattle 23.6 ' 74.3 48.0 • CARBON MONOXIDE (standard: b ▪ Georgetown, King County - -. _ . • Allentown, King County . . . 12.2 41.8 31.9 9.pPm/8 hrs and' 35 ppm/1 hr) Pugget. Power Bldg., Bellevue . 4.9 29.1 19.8 . . 1209 - 2nd Ave: ' • 5.E..Pub. Health Ctr., Renton 8.6 34.0 19.0 . • Municipal Bldg., Renton . 14.9 40.4 29.5 Seattle, Wash. • ▪ 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn 24.4 69.5 44.1 • HcMicken Heights, King County - Maxlhr avg.;..:......, - ppm . . Dewey Jr. N. .S.,.B 'emerton . 11.3 39.8 22.1 . N of 1 hr avgs • x 8 hr avg ppm r. H. S., ▪ Tifeflata, Ta omhoolcoma . 21.5 . 39.36 _..47.3 exc 35 ppm - . Tideflets, Tacoma 21:2' 66.0 47.0.. ° •. 30.5 ' No. of 8,hr avgs ▪ Willard Elem. School,• Tacoma' ' 14.2 73.4 . 38.1 . .e • xc 9.ppm, _ - . . Hess. Bldg., Tacoma 22.4 50.5 ' . 36.9 . .4. 26th Pearl, Tacoma 9.5 . 74.8' . 37.7 • Monthly all-station average 33.4 NITROGEN DIOXIDE (Standard:a . ` .05 ppm annual average), • • • McMicken • Heights ' ° .► ' Monthly avg .... Ppmc_' uU/ma • 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 ' ;_ • t'UbLI SUUi�J AIR VULLU I IUN LUi•f I i;UL l\bLI.LY . . . AIR MONITORING STATISTICS - ,±H-, 1973 • DEc B[,f • • 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 (CON) Avg (CON) Avg (COH)c • ' Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett , e 3 .44•• . 0/ .&i- .00Z.99:a •/•7 9 . O:a 6,•9 o,•10.G,+3 • Green Lake Reservoir, Seattle 0 7 .4•9• ,oa.4? ,o09..44t. 2. �/.4 0,77 66r 3 ' • Seattle Center ,/2 .l6 ,09. .o// -�' 2 2.2 bit 4411 4rrsi ' • Cuwamish Pump. Sta., Seattle 02r . .0Z.6+ ,OOa- 3 g96 ' ,4 2 2. • 0.93 ' • • AMC I, Tukwila •0 G ,A; , 0/ .4.1.. .0 0/ .e.S i+•6- L.IT i•.•e• o,/o 0 9;-66 • icMickrr, Heights, King County ,0 ir ,B9• •0/ .G�• , 0o/.A9t. '2.0•1.•9 /,/ 3•,•9 0,312 4rair• ' Meeker Jr. H. S., Tacoma ,/p .6S ,0/ .9i• ,oe/.,gam' '22?•' /,2 4a 0.5.2@vet .- ' ▪ E . 3i- F e. .. �. �- ,2.; .ice �, Nil lard E1 e�:. School, a 0 .0, o/ .02 .a0S.996r 6 3 fr• 2,3 2•.0 o,9si1 ' • N. 26th & Pear Tcom .7Z .2d' •og/.g3 .oe.free9• 2:0i'4 O.S�'i' 0.38cor5+ . ' MAUR� rsL •/7 `03 .00S . /.O o.37 • . SO2 OCCURRENCES EXCEEDING.SPECiFIED COiCENTRATIONS. . AIR QUALITY INDEX • 1.00 ppm 0.40 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.10 ppm (50 = ALERT, 100 = 1.4ARtlING, ' •• Station , for 5 min for 1 hr for 1 •hr frr 24 hrs • 150 a EMERGENCY) • : • 26th & Pearl, Tacoma ' . • Z ,- Everett Seattle Tecorr.�. . . • • - ' Max 24 hr /3 +3 . 37 -3i .10 •1 ' . : Min 24hr 3 -3 7 - 7 -5- • , Monthly Avg 6.9 t-/0734e6-/4,7 : SUSPENDED PARTICULATE (Sampling Period:-24 hrs. each.- 6th'd•ay) . TOTAL OXIDANT (standard: • . ' (Standard: •150 ug/m3 24 her avg)° •• .08 ppm/1 hr)5 - • . Mini 'Maxlm•Oct0cc Exc3 Monthlyc3 Seattle IkicMicken ' . Station pg/m pq/m 150 iic Avg' ug/rr Center Heights• • Tolt River Watershed 2.7 2 3 4 f•.2 • 4-.•9 G.G. . Medical-Dental Bldg., Everett/•S. Max 1 hr avg . - f PP' 7�3 ? +Fr•6 3'1!2' .,6*6 - --• No. of 1 hr avgs . U.S.C.G.S.. Seattle. 34'.D 4 9• .4?715//S•2 • •5 r,� 46.2. • Seattle Center130.211.79 . 3sr:•4 43,5 • MT? 3&2. exc .08 YFm. - -e. - .j . Public Safety Slda., Seattleh/242.4'- .ry:*r /h'/•3 .. . , . . • , , . . • • ▪ HPrbor.,Is1and,.Seattle 4/2.7 39^r1 •. /s17: / .491 77 . Dunrsish Pun.p. Eta. , Seattle.37,4i-14 .;4r3 /0.4;2 4,re7 / • CARBON MONOXIDE . (Standard: . . Georgetown, King County - f . :f - -i b • King County 9. ppm/8 hrs •aho 35ppm/1 hr) . . Al l entnwn. y .21.f lam: s 5 .934. 4-1.9 413o• . Puget Fowe•r• 6iog:, Eel lev.ue /8,',f/. -d -27-i! -5'3./' Ider9 3/1 ; ' : 1at 2nd:fwe.:▪ S.E: Pub. He31to Ctr. , Penton 7.0 �:•4:.9/,i ? ij,p.B 2� ,P ( .• Nur,icipaT Bidc: � Penton 2/,2}r-y :h}rt /o2, f 'Seattle, Gash. - . 20 Auburn Ave., Auburn : ..37,O -4 7O i4r36,,,,1+ Max 1 hr •ava .... ..... .20�(Dorn. ' • ;�ict1 cken Heiahts, .King Cat.r,:y299•/ / : i/e,G i 31.2' Max-E hr:avg 3XPP •• , • . t1�_igey Jr.. H. S., Breme-toe /61/id-•S - r8 .3/.f ,Z3-3 S ▪ , d ' Meeker Jr. P. S., Tacoma • 2e:7 iT•+ 44^9 7147 • };:r37e, , 'e o. l hr avas TideflaLs,.Tacoma exc•3, Fpm. O x �!/,7 ,ii-•i .tits-9:/G�o, I +�-07� . ' Fife Sr. ugh School ... #+-5 `-?s.3 ,'.r' : 's% No: of 5. hi':a',gs . .. .. • : • Nil lard Eleni. .S'cheol , Tacoma• � /.:rill : ?%,r 92?. �Y7.S• exc 3 ppm 2�X, Hess Bldg. , iacorra: 2f/r.,i,4 t?-�•/03,0 46.04• -3... . .. . ; . ▪ N. 26th. & •Pearl, Tacoma .. 2.5.2.E :47 r G 1.4 i. .744/• . NITROGEN. DIOXIDE . (Scaridard: . ▪ tlontnly.all-station average 9?"4 a. .05 ppm annual average) • - McMirken ' Heights . . MonthlJy avg 0?/ pprn` . • • pg/m' 5, micrograms per cubic teeter • . a Never to. be exceeded .. c Arithmetic average . prim• • parts per mi 11 ion • • b Not to be exceeded more . . i than once 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-l) 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 east,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 theifocal '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 Figure5E-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.' 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 • : ► . • cn .•-� -ar 0/ / \ ... Ex'ist.ing �` . m' _ j Z'' Proposed':• I- Proposed :.. - O St ucture •/ Proposed, : _.• Structure Proposed Structure �/ Structure - ,EXist.ing Structure , I r House j _., R. Existing I R IJ ►.2 I - .BNRR -' I� Proposesr - _ BNRR Structure m \ \ I Ripley Ln. Ripley Ln _ Ripley Ln. I I I. _ Ripley Ln. -- R. . • - \ \ . ' , - \\ BNRR. . Iy I Hwy. 405 Hw405 \\ __ Hwy. ?05 Ripley Ln - - - I -.- - - .Hwy, 405 I _ - Access- Rd,. _ Hwy. 405• . ' -"` _ Lk.Wn.Blvd:. ' . I ,, , , , \ . L'k.Wn.81,vd, --' G) - , Lk.Wn Blvd. ' ; --- - Lk.Wno : lvd. ' ' )--- - _Lk.Wn.BI • 0 0 l' \I ' . \ M , 1 r - , o 0 : o 'o o �► o o �,, 0 o 0 o O C.) g 0 .. 0: O View • Limitation Area 0 N S, • O I ° ' ' 11+ er/.1 011111110a.0 cc) ..>„.....__________,... t io ' ' • GOV e to cur) 5t Cr M\ c of co n o Or'e rt c D \�mgrt N r+ \n` a v, • PLAN VIEW fismmima (2) Total Exist. Vert. View Angle 3-1/2° a C • 0 �►ne °f sisi't I :: . M ., .Aiiiiii110111 _ co ,` �. / o no �✓ M , _ ' 0. 3200' + 520 ' + 1100' + N N 73 S (D 1\1) O O D ELEVATION VIEW m o L KE WAS G TO N 5 -C1() 24 o ES Se- et ® ® &o SCD ' CO 0 \X d Go �� 0 Sxtv Impee rm a, tibtbo G�°a ent l,00' `Sh /)e G. N 4. o 9r S; Av. Focal P t. od. ode,. oy 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 ,809,560 100% 261 ,340 14.5% .. 1 ,548,210 .... 85.5% h = 40' 1 3,619,110 . 100% 522,680 14..4% 3,096,430 85.6% EI G U R E , E 3 6. • Existing • N>o,,, View \ ! x. Li mi tat i on 6' ") Z 1 4. .. ' ,.. 4, 1 ( stove)sty Cove) \ 7 & V2 \ )— ,VVI 4' 2 • Z / , ..Q..A' . z-.''' 6" is 0 2 1./ . ,V i ew Li• mitation Area o ‘, ,-- . , — „ _l \ I / •Play Lane N. '---.."'"....-..--'---...'...---...--------...„.........../r7t — • \ etst ; I ' te ,,, I,'•r.,, , .' ,-,:,,I, ,,, 0,4,,,,10,1'‘ Burl ington 1401-the .10 5 . . 6,,- .,;, 1 ,.. ' ' '' '''''''''' ='.'.'": 1.:4`,N . • 1 . A, ;.t.(1.:',...t,i,;,..i, , i 't '' ' ,, , ei.0.,,,,,,r '94 ''''',,N. '' ''''''' •4,rr:„1} ' 4 01,vi•i,,•;. ,,,,,„y;;,0.,11 A 0; 'i'l ''''''''l' ''''.f. / LI mi_t-- ------ /) , sc"e`o • ri •e '4',..,: , a) , 0 A, ..,,, fri.,.. Avg . Fota 1 Pt. 44 •i_____Re'7 n Location ton FIGURE E - 4 ,...., , ... , `i ... 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 . An = 0 1..1 r2 n Misty Cove Apt. : n = 12° , = 0.03333333... n. Lk: Wash.Shores: n = 24° , 3Z-0 0.06666667 n h 35' h = 40' , Al+2+3 r = 4300' 4300' co 4/1 ko A3 r 1 100' 1 100` �� `� <v� o ' A2+3 . r. = 1620' 1925 ' o,s ® o -� �Nh . ` eN co 400 0 0, (:) - Misty Cove = 12° Lk.Wn.Shor.e = 24 TABLE E-1 Lake Washington Shores Percent . Misty Cove Apartments Percent h = 35' A , = 1'.,936,266 .Sq.Ft. Al+2+3 = 3,872,533 Sq.Ft. 1+2+3 A3 126,710 Sq.Ft. A = . 253,422 Sq.Ft.. 3 A = 388,052 Sq...Ft: A = 54.9,"652 Sq.Ft.- ' 2+3 2+3 . A2 261 ,342 Sq .Ft. 1.4.4 A = . 296,230 Sq,.,Ft.. 8.2 2 A 1 ,548,21.4 Sq.Ft. 85.6 A = 3 322,88.1 Sq.Ft. . 91 .8 1 A1+2 = 1 ,809,556 Sq.Ft. 100.0 Al+2 = 3 ,619,1„11. Sq.Ft. 100.0 h = 40' A2+3 = 776,.104 Sq Ft A2 = 522,682 Sq.Ft: .. 14.4 • Al 3,096,,429 Sq. Ft. 85.6 A = 3 ,619,111' Sq.Ft. 100.0 . • 1+2, 1•.0 . h = 35' J= 1 °30' h = 40' = 2° 0 Focal Point H = 90 ' • - 1100' L. h = 35' (D_ 1 °30' NOTE: Angle QD is a scaled value from profile drawing. : = L-1100 L = H/Tan oc = Tan"' 90/1100 = 0.0818181 = 4 40'. 39!' e= 4° 40' 39" -1 30 00 3 1�' 0' 39" tan = 0.05551476 90 L = Tan = . 1621..2' -� = 1621 1100 = 520' '.um- . ._. Ih = 40'. � (D= 2°o0': 4° 40' 39" :. 2 . '00 00 2 40' 39" tan = 0.04676524 90 L = Tan = 1925' = '1925. - 1 100 .= 8251 I. . 1.1 APPENDIX F UTILITY LETTERS • THE CITY OF RENTON p AVERY GARRETT, MAYOR ZA t ,: O off . c.27 o FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 44' MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVENUE l(IUTH RENTON.WASHINGTON 98055 • AL,5.3333 D SEP"( V • CHIEF M. C. WALLS • ASST. CHIEF: DICK GEISSLER APRIL 19, 1974 • DAVID P. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION RE: CITIZENS SERVICE. CORP. 1409 5TH AVE. SEATTLE, WN. LAKE WASHINGTON SHORES DEAR MR. 'THOMPSON: THE EXIT FACILITIES YOU SHOW' FORTHIS 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 ATE ITHER 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, R. GEISSLER, ASST. CHIEF . ' RG:PR