No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA80-092CDGConnelldesigr-,• group PLANNING i1,,‘ DESIGN I N C O R. P 'O R- A-T E D' - r+ IIYIwREN ON October 8,1999.OCT 1 2. 1999 . . . li City of Renton ; BUILDING'brRSION Planning/Building/Public.Works:Dept. Development Services Division 200 Mill.Avenue S: Renton, WA 98055 Attn:'Jana Hanson, Director.of Development Services" RE: Uniglobe Emergency Generator Enclosure-Request for Minor.Modifications .. To Approved Site Plan( SA-092-80),Valley Office Park—2. 3 A,-80 0612 Dear Jana;. Per above,we are requesting a modification to install a new emergency generator for the above referenced tenant.The attached plans indicate the proposed location and physical construction of the enclosure.The proposed location is a grass landscape area between the office building and the on-grade parking lot. The generator/enclosure will be partially below grade to,limit the visual impact ofthe new equipment.The designed enclosureiwill conceal the emergency generator from public View and will be finished.to match that of the existing building.The'generator itself will be a pre-engineered/self-contained diesel`unit provided by our generator consultant. Our permit. submittal is for the enclosure only with electrical/mechanical'/generator,as design-build under a separate„permit, The purpose of the generator is to accommodate Uniglobe's critical systems in the event of a • power failure or emergency conditions.These critical systems include phone and:computer - . communications to locations around the world.The generator would allow Uniglobe to maintain operations that"cannot be disrupted"and are deemed"critical"to customer services. • If you have any questions or need additional information,please give me a call. Sincerely, ' - . Connell Design Group,Inc: Me A.Maertz A.I.A. 22000 64th Ave..W.,Suite 2F• Mountlake Terrace,WA 98043•.(425)670-6706• FAX(425)'774-8219 r -- CIT. OF RENTON 1 , ti Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator October 13, 1999 Mel A. Maertz A.I.A. Connell Design Group Inc. 22000 64th Avenue West#2F Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Subject: Approval of Minor Modification of Valley Office Park II Site Plan City File#SA-80-092 Dear Mr. Maertz: Thank you for letter of October 8' requesting a modification to a previously site plan. As you know, the City of Renton Municipal Code permits me to grant minor modifications to approved site plans. Your proposal to site an enclosed emergency generator to the south of the existing "South Building", as shown on your revised site plan (Sheet A1.0) and elevations/specifications (Sheet A2.0) dated 10-8-99, is hereby approved. You are now eligible to obtain your building permit provided your plans comply with all Uniform Code requirements. The existing electrical permit obtained by Holmes electric will also need to be finalized. If your generator's fuel tank is integral to the generator, no additional permits are required from the Fire Prevention Bureau. If the tank is separate from the generator, a separate Fire Prevention Bureau Tank Permit is also required in addition to the Building and Electrical Permits. This is an administrative determination. To appeal this determination, a written appeal-- accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 attached) of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. Please feel free to contact me or Laureen Nicolay at 425-430-7294 should you have any questions regarding this letter. incerely, Jana Hanson Development Services Division Director c: File#LUA80-092, 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 MI This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20%cost consumer BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE IC ° WOO 09 (. 1mmulOOhJ Exhibit C Environmental Checklist September 5, 1980 ce---, 'Nchristopher grown p 9688 rainier avenue s. attle washin ton 4lel72345678118 VALLEY OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL PARK lJ RECEIVED 1) ENGINEERING DEPT. r' '' W %C) MAR 141980 c5 J, k THE AUSTIN COMPANY b 4' 1ATING Si Traffic Studies March - January 1980 i christopher brown 9688 rainier avenue s. wattle washinRRton te1:7234567 98118/ March 14, .1980 Mr. Jake Fox The Austin Company 800 S.W. 16th Street Renton, WA 98 055 Re: Valley Office &Industrial Park Traffic Studies Dear Mr. Fox: I am attaching the two traffic :studies concerning current vehicular transportation issues and traffic characteristics associated with the street system serving the proposed Valley Office and Industrial Park. The first :study, completed last January, bo:und at the back of the report addresses transportation considerations, currently adopted municipal improvement programs, and ele- ments associated with :trip generation, trip distribution, capacityconstraints, And potential mitigating measures: that can be adopted for the full development of the Valley. Office and Industrial Park. The second study, placed at the front of the report,: focuses attention primarily on "incremental loading":. In this •case, incremental loading is construed to mean the—implementation of other office buildings identical to that recently con- structed. Further, this second study addresses capacity. • constraints on Lind Avenue primarily associated with the . intersection of Grady Way and also the bridge crossing Interstate 405. The latter study notes that traffic signals will not be required at the intersection of Lind Avenue and 16th :until after a second office building is completed. Also, adequate capacity exists on the 'bridge over Interstate 405 if a second office building is completed. However, intersection improve- ments will be necessary at Grady Way and Lind Avenue if a second office building is undertaken. Such 'improvements'. ' include roadway widening and redesign of signal systetas.* w Mr. Jake Fox March 14, 1980 page two If a third office building is constructed, there will be insufficient bridge capacity. The bridge over Interstate 405 will need to be widened to four lanes or alternatively another bridge -constructed in order to relieve this bottle-neck". Essentially, on the basis of our,, studies we feel confident that you can implement a second offic building without sub- stantial 'investments on the road system. However, following the implementation of a second building, substantial invest- ments will be required if adequate capacity is to be met in the absence of other mitigating measures aimed at reducing peak, private auto travel. If you have any questions with respect to the report, .please feel free to contact 'us. Yours ul C. V. Brown, P.E. CVB/ap Christopher brown 9688 rainier avenue a s attle washin•ton te 7234567 118 VALLEY OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL PARK Existing Traffic Characteristics Signal Warrant Analysis Incremental Capacities March 1980 i Y THE AUSTIN COMPANY VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK Existing Characteristics Existing or current transportation characteristics are important in that they provide the fundamental parameters associated with the development of future or projected peak hour traffic demands. Traffic characteristics associated with the existing office building constructed for the Boeing Company by the Austin Company on Lind Avenue S.W. south of 16th Street were gathered from on-site, field observations taken during the week of March 3 - 7, 1980. Estimates of the total work force presently on-site were provided by staff of the Austin Company. Summarytransportationcharacteristicsaredescribedasfollows. Total work force 1,400 (March, 1980) Future work force 1,600 A.M. Inbound vehicular demand 1,129 (6:00 - 8:30) A.M. Outbound vehicular demand 35 P.M. Inbound vehicular demand 81 (3:35 - 6:10) P.M. Outbound vehicular demand 1,086 Both a.m. and p.m. vehicular movements generate a significant peak hour demand within the peak time frame. These are : A.M. (6:30 - 7 :30) from the north 438 vehicles/hour from the south 176 vehicles/hour P.M. (4:00 - 5:00) to the north 386 vehicles/hour to the south 153 vehicles/hour Non-vehicular. traffic observed in the afternoon included : Pedestrians 53 Bicyclists 12 Motorcyclists 2 From a sample of 253 vehicles, vehicular occupancy was deter- mined at: Driver only vehicles 83% Driver plus one passenger 15% Driver plus two passengers 2% Occupancy - 1.182 persons/vehicle Seattle CBD occupancy = 1.21 persons/vehicle) 1- t Considering "passengers" against the total work force, such ridership amounts to about 15.4 percent. Note that the Boeing Company currently reports ridership in the order of 27 percent at other facilities. The higher ridership at other sites is principally due to familiarity with the system. This is expected to be achieved as the new office building matures. Vehicular flow rates in 15-minute increments are described below. TABLE I A.M. PEAK HOUR INBOUND DEMAND Time From North From South 6:00 - 6 :15 40 16 6 :15 54 22 6:30 118 47 6:45 141 57 7:00 90 36 7 :15 89 36 7 :30 102 41 7 :45 54 22 8:00 63 25 8:15 - 8:30 54 22 Total accumulation 1129 vehicles Outbound demand, insignificant Note : Some construction activity still present on-site. Above vehicles include construction and utility vehicles. TABLE II P.M. PEAK HOUR INBOUND AND OUTBOUND DEMAND Time Outbound Inbound NB SB Both D—irections 3:35 - 3:45 5 0 1 3:45 7 11 4:00 87 34 9 4 :15 92 18 20 4 :30 152 78 10 4:45 55 23 6 5:00 55 19 3 5:15 ' 92 19 6 5:30 118 88 7 5:45 44 16 4 6:00 - 6:10 26 9 4 2- Parking accumulation during the working day was obtained bycountingvehiclesparkedatthreeseparatetimeintervals. Accumulation was determined at : 11:00 a.m. 1,220 vehicles 1:00 p.m. 992 vehicles 2:00 p.m. 1,185 vehicles Average accumulation was 1,132 vehicles, Note that vehicles on the parking lot included those asso- ciated with construction and utility systems. Non-vehicular demand during the afternoon was observed between 2:00 and 6:00 p.m. The data, from Wednesday, March 5 is described below. TABLE III NON-VEHICULAR DEMAND Time Bicycles Pedestrians 2:15 - 2:30 0 0 2:30 1 0 2 :45 1 1 3:00 2 1 3:15 2 1 3:30 1 4 3:45 1 1 4:00 0 1 4:15 0 18 4: 30 0 8 4:45 0 8 5:00 1 0 5:15 2 6 5:30 1 2 5:45 - 6:00 0 2 Total 12 53 Two motorcyclists were observed. One motorcyle included two riders. Pedestrian and bicyclist activity appears to account for 4.6 percent of the work force. In concert with car pools, non-driver related employees amount to almost 20 percent of the work force. 3- s ti Note that at the present time there are virtually no ped- estrian amenities or facilies either on Lind Avenue or on the overcrossing of Interstate 405. Indeed, the lack of adequate pedestrian facilities on the Interstate 405 over- crossing may constitute a fundamental hazard. This should be brought to the attention of both the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Traffic Signals Traffic signals can only be installed at the intersection of two roads if traffic signal "warrants" have been satisfied. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways , published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1971) was adopted by ResolutionNo. 2490, Order No. 132, on March 20, 1972 by the Washington State Highway Commission in accordance with Chapter 47.36 of the Revised Code of Washington which grants such authority totheHighwayCommission. The newest Department of Transportation publication has revised the above document (1978) although, for all intents and purposes, traffic signal warrants remain identical (except for Warrant 6) . The titles are self-explanatory. These are: Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 3, Minimum Pedestrian Volume Warrant 4, School Crossing Warrant 5, Progressive Movement Warrant 6, Accident Experience Warrant 7, Systems Warrant Warrant 8, Combination of Warrants For the intersection of Lind Avenue S.W. and S. 16th Street we consider Warrants 3, 4, 5, and 7 to be non-applicable. Further, we do not believe Warrant 6 has been met. This is particularly important since the subject intersection has been recently been modified to a "4-way STOP" . The two applicable warrants are "Minimum Vehicular Volume" and "Inteiruption of Continuous Traffic". Briefly, Warrant 1 requires 600 vehicles per hour (total both approaches) on the main stream and 150 vehicles per hour on the minor approach. Warrant 2 , conversely , requires a demand of 900 vph, total both approaches, on the main stream and 75 vehicles per hour on the minor stream. These volumes must be reached for 8 hours. 4- ti Currently, traffic volumes between 6:00 in the morning and 6 :00 in the evening are: Time Total Main Stream Minor Approach 6-7 123 51 7-8 477 120 8-9 388 123 12-1 358 90 1-2 460 134 2-3 385 141 3-4 568 163 4-5 620 336 (warrant met) 5-6 455 449 Note: Time interval 9:00 a.m. - 12 :00 excluded from study as non-significant. At the moment, traffic signal warrants are not satisfied. Indeed, only one hour of the mandatory eight hours is met. Probably, traffic signal warrants will not be met at the subject intersection until traffic volumes are increased by about 60 to 70 percent. Before concluding this portion on "signal warrants" a final comment might be in order. The operation of the existing traffic signal at Lind Avenue S.W. and S.W. Grady Way consists of three distinct "phases". Boosting the capacity of this intersection will require the institution of both'. intersection widening and the incorporation of an additional phase. In any case, a multiple phase signal at this intersection will be in contrast to a 2-phased signal at the intersection of Lind Avenue S.W. and S.W. 16th Street. This, in turn, makes appropriate coordination extremely difficult. In turn, this will make the linkage operate less efficiently. It should be noted at the present time that the traffic signal at Lind and Grady Way (during the evening peak hour) is the significant bottleneck , and not the capacity of the present 4-way STOP installation at Lind and 16th. The latter intersection has a capacity of 2,800 vph (with balanced demand) and 2,280 vph with unbalanced demand) with capacity expressed in terms of the total capacity all legs. It feeds all that Grady Way can take. During the lowest hour of the eight highest hours of the day, the present office facility contributes 237 vehicles to the traffic stream. However, of the necessary 600 vehicles per hour demand required on the mainline for signal warrants, an existing shortfall of 242 vehicles exist. If another facility of equal size were constructed with access on Lind Avenue, such a facility would only contribute an additional 237 vehicles per hour, at the most, during the lowest hour of the eight highest hours of the day. Again, this is not quite 5- I sufficient to bring the subject intersection in line with signal warrants. Thus, it may be concluded, that even if a second, identical facility were constructed, traffic signal warrants would not quite be met. This should not be construed to mean that a traffic signal would not be required. A traffic signal may be required in order to produce safe and efficient traffic operations during the peak hours. However, from a legal frame, traffic signal Warrant 1 or 2 will not be satisfied. Likely, reliance would need to be placed on another warrant. Also , as noted earlier, consideration must be given with respect to potential opera- tions on the entire linkage between S.W. 16th Street and Grady- Way. In the interim, it is sufficient to state that traffic signal warrants will: not be met even with the implementation of a second office facility. Traffic Operations - Second Facility Given the implementation of a second office facility with characteristics identical to those of the system presently in place, an estimate of traffic operations can be made given no changes to the present street or signal configuration. At the present time, 15-minute, total intersection demand at Lind Avenue S.W. and S.W. Grady Way can be stated in terms of present demand versus surplus capacity at "saturation flow" rates. With today's traffic this is : Time Demand Surplus Capacity* 3:00 - 3:15 424 268 3:15 505 187 3: 30 664 28 3:45 650 42 4 :00 692 0 4 :15 627 65 4: 30 644 48 5:00 569 123 5:15 577 115 5:30 608 84 5:45 456 236 6:00 654 38 Surplus is based on saturation flow with Level of Service F. 6- 0 Y Nbte that the above table does not include the potentialimpactsfromtherecentlycompleted0/W office facilityonGradyWayoneblockwestofRaymondAvenue. This officefacilitywillcontributeanadditional109vehiclesperhourbetween3:00 and 4:00, 112 vehicles per hour between 4:00 and 5:00, and 45 vehicles per hour between 5:00 and 6:00. Consequently, surplus capacity will be reduced between 3:00 and 6 :00 to: 416, 124, and 428 vph. Over a three-hour interval, there is sufficient surplus capacity to accommodateprojectednorthbounddemandsfromasecondofficefacilityprovidedthepeakhourisdistributedoverafullthree hours as opposed to the present two and one-half hours. Further, it is also based on substandard Levels of Service F) . - With changes in geometry, this quality of traffic flow can be boosted to Level of Service "C". Incremental Capacity Incremental loadings are proposed assuming uniform increases in employment of 1,600 persons per facility. Given current ridership patterns, including transit usage, inbound and outbound vehicular demand will amount to 1,280 vehicles per facility. During the p.m. peak time frame the northbound demand will amount to 910 vehicles and, assuming a similar distribution as presently existing, the evening peak hour will increase by 453 vph. This will be followed by a secondary peak hour amounting to 362 vehicles per hour. The peak hour is ex- pected to commence at about 4 :00 and end at about 6:00 although some additional movements will take place before and after these times. Each additional increment, thereafter, will add a similar demand to the system. Note that a substantial data delimitation exists. It is most unlikely that incremental loadings in terms of total employment will maintain uniform ridership levels. As employment levels increase, alternate modes of travel will be selected. Indeed, the "modal split" will change. Likely, transit and car pool ridership will increase substantially. Perhaps by an additional 20 percent. However, for the 2nd increment, it is assumed that the peak hour will increase by 453 vehicles per hour during the heaviest peak hour. Essentially, for each new increment, we are assuming that the modal split remains unchanged. For capacity purposes, it is assumed that the south leg of the intersection of Grady and Lind Avenue is widened to provide a 3-lane approach. Fu"rthher , the righthand or third lane has 7- 7 7 a length of about 380 feet. The north leg of the intersec- tion is assumed to be widened to 30 feet in order to allow unhindered turning movements. Finally, it is also assumed that Grady Way has not yet been developed to a 5-lane section but aht 3-lane program by O/W Properties (approved by the City of Renton, March 1980) will be completed. This widened roadway does not change the characteristics of the west approach. Finally, for the second increment, the signal system is rebuilt--at least in terms of signal control to provide a 4-phase operation. Figure 1, next page, portrays the relative capacity of existing and incremental developments expressed in terms of a flow rate on the south leg of the intersection of Grady Way and Lind Avenue for the northbound direction. Increment 1 is the projected demand and also the available capacity when the existing office facility is fully occupied. Note the changes in signal operation per attached capacity cal- culations. Increment 2 assumes the development of a second office build- ing. Again, available capacity exists at the bridge although intersection improvements will be required in order to develop capacity at Grady Way. Increment 3 considers a third office building. In this case, the capacity of both the bridge and the intersection are exceeded. To summarize the impacts of proposed building programs, it can be stated that the implementation of a second office building can be accommodated with the existing roadway network, complete with the existing bridge, although minor modifications will be required on Lind Avenue between 16th and Grady Way. Typically, such modifications include inter- section widening. For a third office building, alternative strategies must be , pursued including either bridge widening on Lind Avenue or the construction of an additional facility discussed previously. Conclusions With respect to the proposed Valley Office and Industrial Park developments, it may be concluded:- 1. Traffic signals will not be warranted at the inter- section of 16th and Lind Avenue on completion of a second office facility. 2. Traffic signals will probably be warranted if a third office building is constructed. 8- 2978 ...-_-..-_____--___-Bridge widened to 4 lanes, Capacity. . .2978 vph . N.R. Y. Existing 1470 Bridge Capacity, 2 Lane 0 4) Grady Way @ Lind, Capacity1223p z w/- 3 Lane Approach Note: Facility refers to Austin Office a Building @ Lind &770 0 x 16th. 730 C4 s Capacitycit is forwo a P Y Level of Service cn s w a r U a H E I 4 O a r r•{ •r•I ri di 0 U 04 r-I U] r'I Un 0) O W O M O rr"i •r4 >1 0 - 13 W i r1 0 V b rd w w tn.. E 4 FIGURE 1 9- 1 3. The capacity of the existing bridge crossing Interstate 405 is sufficient to accommodate projected demands from a second office building. 4. The intersection of Lind Avenue and Grady Way should be improved to provide a 3-lane (northbound) approach if adequate levels of service are to be maintained with existing facilities in place and fully operating. In the interim, traffic can function during the peak hour although not at high levels of service. 5. The implementation of a second office building in concert with intersection improvements at Lind Avenue and Grady Way will not adversely impact traffic con- ditions. Widening the north and south legs of the intersection to provide three lane approaches will ensure adequate levels of service. The signal controllbr will need to be replaced. 6. The implementation of a third office building will produce traffic volumes in excess of both inter- section and bridge capacity. Alternate strategies will need to be explored for accommodating such traffic. 7. The implementation of a third office building should be sufficient cause to mandate transit service to or thru the site and, because of this, produce a reduc- tion in peak hour traffic demands. Possibly, a third building can be accommodated with appropriate geometric revisions and maintaining the existing bridge if the current modal split is improved. 10 z APPENDIX CAPACITY CAPCULATIONS r SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS 9174926 7.2- Lt.0 PROJECT' AL///7 TIJ/?{ /!l` M /C/. ` 7(_7 S4,--i INTERSECTION / % a2//i l ' tie) ri 2C1frlBASICCONDITIONS'1itb _METRO POPULATION__/_. . a. . PHF IO" / It1 NOTE AREA: CBD OBO BELOS RESID RURAL Circle One C • SIGNAL CYCLE _K SEC. A/C ea!- /, +s . .. PHASE I PHASE PHASE PHASE it/ 4 ... f V ....L- Pr • qt) y j X W Iv- R fi S 07 m W W 2 2 2 m Q Q Q Q ' G/C = 0.9 G/C =6./0 2 G/C = O. ) .9 G/C = Q.O.2 G • SEC. SEC G = SEC. SEC G = SEC SEC. G = SEC SEC APPROACH • T= / x R= x L=VI- BUS STOP _/t4 MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHV TFEETREFERENCEREQ'D USED CD CD REMARKS 1=ti/12 /J,9 °•lO 0. /0 /2 b. /s'c rl4 14V- a.9(--7 0-?4, .1-/j6)ry9 vy 44 J=A/ /2 D.// 0 . y 6 720 4/7 APPROACH . . T= / x R• S x L=Vx BUS STOP///A MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHV 1 FEET REFERENCE REO'D USED CD CD REMARKS Lif,L/ 12. /;74 Q'.7 p. F57 If, 2,'"? zip/ 02I/ 0Y3 1Q05 /z 790 li APPROACH -..-. . T• i x R=r0 % L=4S % BUS STOP ill MOVEMENT W CHART FEAET REFERENCE REQ'DG/CUBED CO CAPACITY CP DHVT REMARKS ° v j 0,- APPROACH - T= / x R=0% L•8 % BUS STOP /r/,j MOVEMENT WA CHART FE[T REFERENCE REO'DG/CUBED CO CAPACITY CD DHVI REMARKS° i— s l Z IPA 0-07 Dry 9/' 5'?? 9 2 P • d' O•O /2 O /$ D; I", r -G 1 4 4-/ 0. 17' ‘a ? Y2 0 DESIGNATE EACH APPROACH MY 1.1:'II'EN; I-M Oil l-Y (I- Ok l-HAY); WU:.• N.P. (NH PKL.); ENTER OH1•'c BY_.__.t MARK A.M.• OR COMP. (CUNPUS I I'I 1•F-AK.) N LANE LENolis » Dr U); PRICES -- 1' 1• Ti; YIUENI:U AI'PKUAt:ll I.EN(:THS -- U.. Ob. ETC. CHECKE- - - -TUR t/e e /11/ //rlv/n I74? , ? t/9 4 C. i.:,) AI#7 c 7--- T e9 c} . D/'eraX/ //9/ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS PROJECT A7213-7-1/• — i4C G/74-! 1 7J4 (2)7S —"GjZ 9S INTERSECTION C'' %' — Z l f —II DD ZS 1BASICCONDITIONSOJT METRO POPULATION PMFA. 4 Nor[ AREA: CBD FRI OBD DELO* RESID RURAL NG ICorti, One I C • SIGNAL CYCLE//VSEC. A/C• /VA%•... PHASE I PHASE 3.., PHASE '5' PHASE 47 d l le fil cr f WID W S a a I a a Q G/C G/C= G/C • . v 6•/S' G/C = d ./2 G • SEC. SEC G •SEC SEC. G = SEC SEC G • SEC SEC. APPROACH • T• ( % R= % L= % BUS STOP __. MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY F FEET REFERENCE REQ'D USED CD Cp DHV •REMARKS J^-/v r-fr 9- b.3 o 2- /22 v /%'j /227 o A z APPROACH ..... . Ti / % R• % L• % BUS STOP MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHV T REMARKS rFEETREFERENCEREQ.') USED Cp Cp J REQ.') 2. 41- —E 2 1 V D. 9 0.7O /090 / o p /Op7 6G. 1.- - 1' /2 APPROACH Ti / % R• 14 L• % BUS STOP _. MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY DHV I FEET REFERENCE REO'D USED CD CP REMARKS A 4/ D a 1r P O P vL/26 01C — APPROACH T• / % R•L• Y. BUS STOP MOVEMENT WA CHART G/C CAPACITY FEET REFERENCE REQ'D USED CD Cp DHV REMARKS t btV /2 d/3 0.24) W0 1//) P2 0fie Z A/—f 1 0•/7_ o./L /9U 72 F'_ /P7 //i9/i rt J co/ Rom. /ef DESIGNATE EACH APPROACH HY 1.F1EI.k;.1-W Uk 2-W (I- ON 2-NAY); PKG., N.P. (Ni: PKG.); ENTER UHC'• BY •htMARKA.M., OR COMP. (CUNI'U$I II I'I..U:.) TURN LANE LEP TNS — D„ HI; IIUL1S -- T2. T3; WIDENED APPROACH LENGTHS -- Da. Ob, ETC. CHECKED C e 4)01C/ . iN e c,7/ VV- 6 S'//0w Ste— /Qne enOL e/7.2e.'7 f APPENDIX FIELD COUNTS TRAFFIC VOLUME SummARy CITY PA.7A DATE/m/V4. 71°DAY INTERSECTION OF .2>i/D AND R - Rir.,HT TURN TIME Crt) TO ( Crt) 2./t7 S- S 11-!A IG HT AHEAD L --- LE 1 TURN FROM NORTH ON FHOM SOUTH ON FRCOO N RGM 'NE".37 ON TIME L SR 1 S R 1, S I L S R FM -57../5 i3- Y2 Z 1 ' .99 13 Y ‘‘ I/1/ yrio /7 29 CS s .% 7/ // • 78 er 7 2 -2:46 .17 //0 7‘ & JUl aiir ; 37-0 /28 g'crt, 4. 29 9_7 8° 7 i9 8° LJb I So /4z/ 2y q o /3g (2“,j36 /V) 2q/ 62- 273t7 I-2.21 , e'Y 87r 717 g 9/ Yr Z8- i 22 ‘,/ 41 /2 (7 /57 // 5-*- .r-*Yo ,20 7/ 2 2B ,//.6 cit 711 15-7 Y-v-r' 22 20 ?Al _21 17Z /01 // 4‘, 0 7 7C /6/ 7 16 2/ j/e. S ,17_1 7 1cy Ike/K. 32 D 10 )91' ,94316- 63 3t/ .3asôg q'i 567 73o 5/7 I 978 I i( 26 71 27 a) 59 /2 i e-(-7.0-/ r:T.r) 7 ry I ? Li c•yr fi qcr 4/r r‘ r., rf---/-/9- /4- 17fr-.4'°"5 4_20 72 as ry. 0_ e 67 03,, -93 17 .2// 35-ortt o_451 31 3_1041 k Wb taiII . _ I • 1 I TOTAL I 1 I L.. • ..- TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CITY 3",)hf7 DATE 7tP° DAY_4-4c' INTERSECTION OF LA AND • /C'`4 o.> R — RIGHT TURN TIME 2- // TO D 7/47 S— STRAIGHT AHEAD L— LEFT TURN FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST,ON FROM WEST ON TIME I 1 L SR L SR L S R L S R p7,'w - ,'/. S 31 a3 a `fD a 9 34 5"* 0/136_ 3 , 6 16 -v4 CaC4/ /2, .23 F, as- $ 3/ / 3 3, /3 3 A c2;9'- 3:o O , // a y / 3 // 6_6. 0 0 -3 . /4 A7 3 AiouR to a. .24, 97 , 77 .8' /sue y a . /_ 72, 99 /4 0/6 ifPP o/ 9,47 77 a/ fyr 17; 3yi' 3 is 13, aF /$' 74 46 G 0 7 ,2Q , 1 Pry 3:3a , ( . 39 .26 7 , 76 D 0 , `f 25 3D a 3 3,30 - 3: 5 _ /3 3/ , jo3 41 / // . a7. 37 3 1; 3:Vs 'a0 , 11 , 37, // 9/ b /8' 33 , of /7 9 Novi d 7LQ / 93 /3,5-7 7/ a 9, 6 , '/ 36 _/o 7, //6 .2 y > 4-PP / £ 149 3/c/ 37 6 3 oo ' 41,,5"' /9 37 '2/ 99, 75 3 5! /7 /'/ PR • Li;is- 4/;3o // 33T 7 8y .2 3 21 4' 7 /9 4 36 V:vs g 3/ /7 // . 9ci 2 0 3 , 39 7/ /3 /6 a Sad / 3 a 5 O C) s a I ' /6 ._ a y Had? tom-I._ 9 /3 v ' ' 33/ / I Z i1PP o L 37a 7111111I 334 1111EIMERM221 3 di 3 ME/ /D PM s;/S-S'3d 42 ,2 8$ /9 37 S;30 S:5 // 3 37 / 5:3 /3 /3 kv to+at 37 .Il b '-/ /s /7 , r: ill /I /'y IF TOTALwii igg 247 1y3 I yq' ti TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CI T Y e 1 DATEN DAY_.G'e _ INTERSECTION OF L/A'7) AND l6 R — RIGHT TURN TIME /Vbah TO 7 •'er) S— STRAIGHT AHEAD L— LEFT TURN i FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST,ON FROM WEST ON TIME • IMIE1111 L • S RLL S R I L S R 2- r2:/$' i 2t 12 /7 0 16 C G 2 / 5 :go I Y2 22- /0 71 ii2Ya, ,Z_' Ilim127 o 9 2, t oN 2:ys./. P 6 2 5 S 7 4 3 <_- /D A 41 °/ i 2'Z o6 f 1 Io 1 t o-/MM I 9_7 2/ a to 2° 2C 7 2- yc;t 3a I c 7 P/ G 9 az7 A 3t /.yr I o 7 J f /7 4 o 22 27 2 4" NT y ,2'o 7 C 9? /I /21 /z I 22 .2 i 5 9 2 9-- Afp val 99L 2 6' 71 I I --. 110 lir,i I_ 1111I ffnI l ril I aMjMI TOTAL IME-1- _ I . christopher brown p e t s966a88 rainier avenue a tel:723567 fashin't8118 VALLEY OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL PARK Vehicular Transportation Issues A Traffic Study January 1980 ti TABLE OF CONTENTS Study, Introduction 1 Employment 1 Transportation Considerations 3 Existing Traffic 3 Projected Improvement Programs 3 Trip Distribution and Peak Hour Demand 7 Vehicular Demand - Peak Hour 12 Adjacent Developments 12 Horizon Year DDHV 15 Capacity 15 Conclusions 16 Recommendations 18 TABLES I Employee Residence Distribution 8 II Hourly Variation 10 III Hourly Variation as a % of Average Daily Demand 11 FIGURES 1 Study Boundary 2 2 1979 A.D.T. 4 3 1979 D.D.H.V. 5 3A P.M. Peak Hour (1979) 6 4 Trip Distribution (% of all trips)9 5 P.M. Peak Hour Demand (site gen. traffic only) 13 6 Horizon Year D.D.H.V.14 7 Redefined D.D.H.V. 17 4 VALLEY OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL PARK . Vehicular Transportation Issues Study, Introduction The transportation effort discussed in this report concerns the area generally defined by S.W. 7th Street - SR-167 - S.W. 43rd Street - West Valley Highway. The principal purpose is to describe current traffic levels, existing constraints, projected peak traffic demands and estimate the potential capacity on those highway and arterial facilities leading into the area in order to assess the ability of the area to absorb additional, significant employment along with attendant vehicular travel. Figure 1 indicates the general study area boundary along with potential significant employment centers. Note that Sector "B" is a facility presently nearing completion. * This office building has 200,000 g.s.f. on 15 acres of property. Sector "A" could include a similar facility. The remaining sectors, "C" and "D" have less opportunity. In particular, Sector "D" may have adverse soil conditions along with a drainage way which could inhibit an equally dense employment center although, potentially, the area could be developed as a business park utilizing, for example, clustered buildings with random open space. Employment For planning purposes, the total area available for develop- ment is depicted on Figure 1, as previously noted. The 77 acres have a potential building capacity of 1,027 ,000 g.s.f. Based on the Parkway Plaza Office Building with an employment density of 7.12 persons/1,000 g.s.f. , maximum employment for Sectors "A" , "B" , "C" , and "D" would be 8,736 persons. However, it should be also noted that ranges in employment density frequently exist. For example, in the Andover Park area, density extends from: Minimum . 1.04 persons/1,000 g.s.f. Maximum 13.70 persons/1,000 g.s.f. Similarly, recognizing that Sector "D" cannot be developed as densely as others, planning concepts suggest an overall employment base of eight thousand. Again, this is probably on the "high side" and is used to present a "worst case". Scheduled for occupancy in February-March christopher Brown 1- 9688 rainier avenue & to att 56 ' him• .n TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY CITY 7 DATE _c'`! DAY____ INTERSECTION OF ,1//117J AND /e(744 R — RIGHT TURN TIME IC. 2 Ji1f TO g?o ,/M S— STRAIGHT AHEAD L -- LEFT TURN FROM NORTH ON FROM SOUTH ON FROM EAST ,ON FROM WEST ON TIME L S R L S R I=R L S R i 1 6-'C'7° a2 20 ' // 0 _ o _ r 1 0 / G 6:'Yo-jy( 4' jY Y/ * 7 2/ / O F F Y 0 c kfil LW- 7-et q 0 0 Y 2 414, ./A/ /3• 407 to/ __37 0 a 6 aS 26, /6 o 4p/,voI sz/ . 0A 57 . 38 7' - ?/s 9' 9e 39 /s ?1 6 , / _ P /2 - 7 / I 7/c- .° I %S) JS 27 o * / /7 t9 /I 2 vitA 7Yo- 7: 4 , /67 99 / 4'& 0 2 JC 7 ? s 7 / 17 , 22 7/ 1264 - / . 31 a70, s11, //g a . 75 o P- //. Of‘ 7 god 2 72 , _ 21 2 fi - /P a /2 P. 2 ,41-2 2F . 7 . 2/ D b 0 /' 1. 1, 2 /2 er . - P./ Q z‘ /2 I !F o / y . // 2y / F qr- ?:o.° _ D / y , /9 /v z 9 /( o• C 7 o ; D -a 67-/ 7‘, 3 y,' A S7, 0 / 49 423 TOTAL 4'c /, , O1 o/rr'epu`<{ ok 15: 1 Ca6 mon/lillieem 4..A'(1.: GO i.. IC!. 1 ' I 7 7 C E (9•,; r mii• i i q u •• it I. tijr• it, 1-.-ag 2 Offs Os t L,.. A; ii - "--- E---a man . , ,.... a 1 . I or ill' i ; 0:1 its .1- ? inliiiiiGig 1.-::.:* ri- 2.`1i- 'N 11 iiiiir \-, P.--\ WWI Is.. I I 91 rH. .. ..., INIMIIIMGRINiiiallWre 1N111.1k - 1 ck. 1 70 1-c.v. ENV z •'• - • 0 •1111111111FIEC5r,alimIllaB.'itilliiiiII.FIlb/W"R 0•' R R •• , • iabk-- 1/4 v.04 1••" I. R ..! a;g111Millill •ImuMb. i „ f• ;! 1.- \ . • t • 7. 7 ',1111111111 t • IIIIN Iiiiii-.';:l1.t .'. '• 4 ii i,. 7"..tillik 111. I . e Z _. Z,/ 72' 101.•• ..._1 I 7.. \ i i I uri. - . i I- •• - - a• t: • :ill.,•• .....4• ; \ - !, . A, 1 iiiia •_.., I= 410":1. i p• . r 4... \ . 1 •••a : • I 1.a .. 1 ® © r• il 1 • •• .• v 12 . _ '• .., - I." ' % ' •lit 3401 k 1r t ,..... % .. ... .... I. . i .. N. • 4 1 b.• obis , ,..t1,51;17 ••• •••••::. N 1rip:i4:.;; ,,,:-..., •. -i :'0#140 ....:2! .\.• ...' Ar - 1-i , .:--. Ia •••••••• rit , q i i. .z_.., .t.._,. .. 111 i Li est fl •, :!. • . .;".f*to ..., I., . .. . . •' • ve..rahiZ. K I 1. A r 7r 6...'.VW: •' - k• 3 4111%...... .... 4". -'' \ i r E .' agilli II 4.' I 'I • s s . . 1......- ..,... • - v...A, i s.I 7.,. i ' • is 11. s ,1 • . ., 1 , 1 e .-.. ' ,... 3 i i •••.i ili ' I ---C-- . ilT" .1 ...r.... ' I; . I. t r.• •••• • i a•i ; . 'a '"',2, • 3. L': 3 i- 1 g- 064 s.........••••1••• 7...-t-s. .. .„.1.7-1..L....-••••• t...••••••-.. - aria • 4 C.,...= 17-...,.-.... 1.....-.1.ft:-.2,...,. r i A 4: .: '.. I. ......• s.' V°k.'.V.1.±.3' t I lik 4 .., t.. , 1 c.....f .•.. z-v-z. i ........x... .. 61111011.'t . '. -.'• • s•...--..—.. 1 .. ''. •'" II ••••.4. .-' .ra'' 1. A; -4, - ....7.--7: 3 7.7;••: i -.,,„.„. _4, t ::_i•4,-; II . 1.1 g 1 `'.It)'"1 CITY MAP 6..RENTON 1 i•ilLiit :g -..-....... : ... 417-=',Ii. ••.- - - " • , -.•:- -t_ _ _ __ _-;_:... • -: -•••-•%.4: ______:__ _; , _____ _ IN 1 I--1 * • P, t - KING COUNTY- I --- - I - ..... i..-2••"--.;)!--,\ :." iv. .; . •,..... i - 6t ay. i!, . , ...... •- i• • • IN •• 1 „••• • --, i It,.i•4941.,TIP.St..TI 111..11•••N cuMMISSI•••• s • I 1 I . r;74 A ir.i.!MI N I o ea 1114.11W4.11 map..vs..fin III.'• 0 i MI•i.• •.•••••i••,•.11 .• Sl ,I.11%4. •.:4.1.^:•:Pallio. .• I o 1. • Transportation Considerations For a "worst case" scenario, transit and van-pooling are assumed to be nonexistent. With ride-sharing, a practice gaining substantial support, subsequent increases in vehicle occupancy suggest a rate of 1.3 persons per vehicle although this rate will not be achieved initially when a building is newly occupied. It can be achieved and maintained with effort on the part of the occupant. Existing Traffic Current traffic demand in terms of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and the peak hour demand, expressed in terms of Directional Design Hourly Volume (DDHV) are shown on Figures 2 and 3. Note that the evening peak hour is the heaviest peak hour . Thus, Figure 3 represents the p.m. peak. Traffic data presented on Figures 2 and 3 was obtained from field studies conducted during December of 1979 and January of 1980 . The data does not include the influence of new office buildings presently under construction in the immediate vicinity. Projected Improvement Programs The City of Renton adopted a "6-Year Transportation Improvement Program" on December 3rd, 1979. Within the study area , major arterial improvement programs are proposed for : S.W. 43rd Street from East Valley to West Valley Road. Valley Parkway from S.W. 43rd to S.W. 16th Street. Valley Parkway from S.W. 16th to S.W. Grady Way. Valley Parkway from S.W. Grady Way to S. 140th Street. On the secondary or minor arterials, the improvement plan calls for improvements on : S.W. 27th Street from East Valley Parkway S.W. 27th Street from Valley Parkway to West Valley Road S.W. Grady Way Bridge from Longacres Dr. to W.Valley Rd. S.W. Grady Way from Lind Avenue S.W. to Longacres Drive Lind Avenue from S.W. 16th Street to S.W. Grady Way On the collector arterial system, improvement programs are scheduled for: East Valley Road from S.W. 16th Street to SR-167 ramp S.W. 16th Street from East Valley Road to Monster Road S.W. christoopher Brown lam 3- av9688rainier enue & attle washi • •n 7234567 6:118 i 70600 i 5-4"Pet7 60 w b1 r GO Course C I 3 i w 18 rTNa •T D G 2 t6S60 - n III a,en«•e 24i 1 , I 0' Golf Cours• f a 1 ! \ , i v ARLINGTON 9 W s INDUSTRIAL 21 P Su AREA f!•1/Psi TOM pU.Cl ldru 1 T 7" NG CENTER A•nwnri..afr r• 2r s SCNITN RENT 4D R£ f.f s Trwtmenl Pont s, INTERCNAN 16 CHANGE 11H'+ 1. ' NI- 421 ,icit'-- ,.,MLEINRIVER \ 151r. e. a 1N66op ta I/no 2900 3200 it ' it fiFW O a f r O 6 ' ` I 1,40043 An) Z ILONGACRES In m s a c NI •: N I HL _ L _ . V e Iw ST I I one Ram I F • S Ur141? r I' I K....._.- I 19 f s 1; 25 30 IlarrKaO• ItN I I. CLI A GaL r U KNI A R••er.o r u = 4,,a Po.tirl Sub S4tgn 7^gt, 1CI1 Y SZ: ST I I flrnWa y t EK` I RENTON CITY LIMITS a I TUKWILA CITY LIMITS 1 I nwa 1 g o el I I a o' . , at 1 O I 1 Aks.. st,,,,,, .. i.. ) I Tl1KIMiLA II G Y I I I w f ` I tfC srlr o' n A ST ,' T k 2 25 3o JD3110 f+; 136' ai 1 3!1413) b SO YALLtn l ST, 2 acMCN1!wAivv TpICiIHOSPITAL = r O l: alum it IN ITEIt/W/ AANGE I 5000 O° - 0 MAN ST) /02Z0 i tom • Z 1111 tw u la RENTON CITY MATS 270Tv s c_ KMOo1, A JNT CITY LIMITtyI Q (VAC) y -. e 225!r i DENTALS It 40/ 9 4- g FIGURE 2 k c. 972 A. a T- Gun Course IA er 2 7Tw %1f fr 7T1• IS Cluonouse f 241 193 , e I g' Golf Counts x i I E C e. .T 1 o EARLINGTORR VP fo+ s%N INDUSTRIAL t/C S. te y.s AREA sT fI + 1 1St/ TOM MGYCEuuR M PfRenWnrffrZZT s 1 ;tI SOUM RENT NTrostmenlManiINTERCMAN .t: wrowBENRIVER t ERCMANGE 9. f— C st GBQO rt ' L 1Rw eT I M I f Itlrw - 1 b0 l Th Gm; I r I ' W may 0r F f I `LONGACRES I 1 Z Z I en mnNN m iI i—r C fo f fur •it ii f Or Tr Rscln I 1 J 1 g i; 1 Tral L — - - .... — — iLj I 19 i° F I' 42 ZTJ WrrKbf f` iLl TABM11 wtf 1 Y fICLI I pRf11...Dlr Zii( Po.er tub Stf twn 7 t Imo I. 4 fT C I RrncWe i .. tCSRENTONCITYLIMITSLTUKWILACITYLIMITS1a •4 ll404 a ll i o 6. t II 1 t TUKWILA lI 0« 0 411 I I I k 3' 1 A j x et f uTw °' j +' i i I • fi r ST ITe T f' 1 n 2 e Z 22 25 30 u S,. ® i 3 1 31 4 hQ PO 1in 5a V•AUXV IT t O[M[IIAI. 01 t ° a 1 f 1°1 it . r p SO I.IfO1rI fT1 — I.ON Cl f 4 f I/ 1 f . aL RENTON CITY IMIT S t• / OSa 1f1 ORILLM KENT CITY LIMITS 1l i 4. 1 a e 4 G rrTµ to t Jo .L . nTt_ s— P/C URE 3 579 D. 12141. I/ limplcPour) T 4. 11.1 602 KKK fff i 4.11 Q° Alb l o 112 roe a° iee, 1115- 31 61" 0 11 p . Note: The data on this sheet show peak hour turning movements and principal "approach" volumes. The data represents peak conditions in the interval prior to the opening of the new Austin Building on Lind @ 16th. e1 J tki 14t 49AIP I tib 44/ J'f' S-74 -J'/ 1- IC) 1 19 v.0 \ ' 1' Zg 13 8p 5 3 J 53 5 j 1.1' s9 1 alIvSfrw - 6 21_ 1"o v/'8 Ib?353 r C/i13 • -Z 85 FIGURE 3 A 6- chri8toptier Brawn i-a- a)P.M. PEAK HOUR (19 7 9) 41 j 9688 rainier avenue 1: e washing n jto7234567 _ 118 lAdjacent jurisdictions have scheduled various improvement programs that will have some positive if not measurable effect. On the state highway system these include: Relocation and reconstruction of SR-515 (1980) Resurface SR-181, SR-516 to I-405 (1982) Construct 1/2-diamond interchange; 212th St. at SR-167 (1983) Ramp improvements; 84th Avenue at SR-167 (1981) In the City of Kent, improvement programs, generally street widening and arterial construction are proposed for the East Valley Road, 80th Avenue S. , N. 4th Avenue, and N. Central. King County has no improvements scheduled on the current 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan for the general area. Generally, capacity to the south via existing corridors including SR-181, SR-167 , and the arterial facilities between these two routes will be improved. To the north, the signi- ficant barrier will be Interstate 405 and Grady Way. These facilities have been addressed in the City of Renton's Improvement Plan. Design studies are currently underway including the Valley Parkway to Grady Way and the Grady Way structure over the C.M. St.P. & P.R.R. The Lind Avenue structure is given a very low priority. Trip Distribution and Peak Hour Demand Trip distribution has been estimated on the basis of previous employee residence surveys (C. Brown, P.E. Parkway Plaza Office Building Traffic Study, Jack Benaroya Company. 1979. C. Brown, P.E. Boeing Everett Facility Expansion DEIS and FEIS City of Everett. 1979) . Adjustments have also been made to reflect potential housing starts south of the project site in Auburn, Federal Way, and the northern portions of Pierce County. This is described in Table I, Employee Residence Distribution. With respect to potential peak hour demands, data from a large scale employment center has been utilized. Major employment centers, recognizing the peak hour impacts in terms of congestion, utilize "staggered" shifts. For example, Table II which was derived from traffic demands at the Boeing- Everett facility, shows several peaks during the inbound and outbound time intervals. For example, 7:15 a.m. accounts for the largest inbound demand. The next largest takes place at 8:15. For planning purposes, the data of Table II serves as an appropriate estimate. Essentially, major employment centers served by congested streets are "extended" .peak hours. The greater the demand, the longer the peak hour. M 4 TABLE I RENTON AREA - OFFICE FACILITIES EMPLOYEE RESIDENCE DISTRIBUTION Percent of Total Location Percent Southwest Snohomish County (Edmonds, Montlake Terrace, Lynnwood) 3.0 Other Snohomish County 3.0 Bothell 1. 0 Woodinville 1. 0 King, County, North Redmond 1.0 Redmond, City 1.0 North Bellevue 3.0 Mid-Bellevue 5.0 Medina, Clyde Hill 2. 0 Mercer Island 2.0 Kirkland 2.0 Issaquah, North Bend and Vicinity 1. 0 Seattle, North of Canal, East of I-5 . 6.0 Seattle, North of Canal, West of I-5 6.0 Seattle, South of Canal, East of I-5 9.0 Seattle, South of Canal, West of I-5 6.0 Renton, CBD and East Suburbs 6. 0 Renton, South of CBD 8. 0 Kent" 4.0 Kent, East Hill 5.0 Auburn 4.0 Federal Way 3.0 Des Moines and Normandy Park 5.0 Burien 5.0 King County, East of SR-167 4. 0 Tacoma and Pierce County. (Fife, Puyallup Vicinity) 4. 0 The data of this table will be applicable for future years. Housing availability will, in all likelihood, become more oriented to the south. 8- to ,kr-ThcLo00a--. 1, .,, : Pr. ri 1::, 14 man a••• 1 A " .I.1 -I c_....*.. fit 4.1 r..... .1 Esa 1. -.- 0 c, IMP •6 CQ *ckz. \` 15. r•-•ikt A i blia um.. I'M0 I I a NV- 1i .401alth .•*1.••••••••c.. •Altiliiit — 8 1 iii.I.-t ; 401E0 •';'• .. .c. .„ Aiiiji.c. . co/ c. 7 PI' ••• ' . liguipiiir xie,i4,1., ,IrAIIIMINI 1 ' __ 1 k% •C pr),E:2 f s ' 4 A...;,11 ..::•_-1. 1'. ".' CV.'111ISSIS 4#4&2 IT.4..\ ... 7 1 ieulachiirmr•IlliiMillni4.1-N‘k..., to ••=:::!,,,e e ,c.i. c -ca. minfiffai-• •AiTiiinsianstaiiiii.. eN: 4••• R.St .. ,CI 1 1 cialp......... ".• 111.11,iIIIMILiglar Min Ki•`1-- Is A -, 061111.11fia '4111111 . •. - \ • ' 4 o.. .47.4„. .1 II 4-41m i ..:Nem 1.111 i:'' min VENN 1 IN - -"41-11 'NI iiiiii 1-1,.....-...... ,• I.w.I. 44.0 1: I I.. 1.*: I C..i.i• ligt ti2 IPIOai a F i W all • r •le A\ ') 6, 401 IL 0 _.. P.••••• t \1....— z.:;.... * . 4 : Nis i i" , re.0. r' i ...y6orlo.'c: 1 rr- t •••. -.:44111611511• . t. gr s. . • • • I or f . .• 11/4.... ... eri ,..„. . *. 17 - Er 1 i i WagiV!••.;; "*....,,,'-•• •i F 4141.b......_ 1 " --t, i 11-- -. ' tit/• = ?"'" i- he/z. • ::: ft f•.:••• " 4 i Illa f i 1 k. .......1 . lk \ .' e'0. •1-• 1 t•• i 4 I. . .. io. s. ..., :. .i ra,'Waif '' r .= .-- f% ri--. •Ii.tt" ,' • \ I .1K: : 1.. -- I.._ i .1.i• •-0•; 1 . l i'l /-- 1 ,4.•40 k .\:;.... t 1 -:,'' i I :L,..,......•.., ... a... 1:::.....„ 1. . .; .,. .. ti ,.,. I ..• 3 I 2. i.,\.,..:••.• C: i . .0s•,..11...y 11111... t, s7,,. /...-- \ lit ..... S, c., 1,'. V is r\ /s:.• / 2.:•7 Imo .....1 46V' •: N-----'" r.,•r :: c. I .... 711111 t. " 5 .•••:::: 4 ..e.....). p•...* • i 5 1 CITY MAP 10.-'. - P.y Cr. i i ; r,. s;:. -, II. ..i - i le RENTON KING COL NTYas 1t • . . i.• ;•,...;‘,..„4„..... • 1...‹.1.-N g 1;,..y.:".•"? .\ g ! 44. 0 . ---11 44. . ...., ......• • I . ., vo.sHima....4T.•11 HP di*VI IMI.11SW** 4 !•... •-• l• ,..,.° • ':\ / . • -:- DP.PARIMIKI t P HlaiN•PAYS PI••••INI••••r.'%MI..% I - :3•••101•41 NI•tI 11••••••1••i.ferl,... t 1:IPA:tiltiliPtAl .0.0.1:•:S1P•II(..• s 4 • a TABLE II HOURLY VARIATION INBOUND Percent of Average Daily Demand Time Percent 15min Hour 6 :15 0.30 6:30 1.97 6 :45 5.19 7:00 8.20 15.66 7 :15 22.96 7: 30 6.49 7 :45. 1. 61 8 :00 1.34 32 .40 8 :15 14 .12 8 :30 1. 67 8 :45 - 0.57 9 :00 0.88 17 .24 OUTBOUND 3:15 1.58 3:30 1.21 3:45 16 .01 4 :00 3.02 21 .82 4:15 7.49 4:30 3.35 4:45 20.99 5:00 6.10 37 .92 5:15 1.77 5:30 1.77 5:45 1.68 6:00 0.56 5.77 Source: Everett Facility Expansion EIS The above table represents the inbound and outbound demand on the parking facilities. Expected variation on the arterial street system expressed in terms of inbound (across the screen line towards the office Park) and outbound (away from the office Park) is described in Table III. Note that this table extends for the 24-hour time interval. 10- 4 TABLE III HOURLY VARIATION AS A PERCENT OF AVERAGE DAILY DEMAND Time Inbound Outbound 12-1 0.7 3.3 1-2 0.2 0.7 2-3 0.3 0.4 3-4 0.1 0.3 4-5 0.6 0.3 5-6 2.4 0.5 6-7 16.9 2.9 7-8 21.4 5.0 8-9 6.0 3.6 9-10 3.3 3.7 10-11 3.5 4.7 11-noon 4.3 6.1 12-1 4.6 5.6 1-2 4.5 5.5 2-3 7.4 5.7 3-4 .6.5 13.7 4-5 5.6 17 .0 5-6 3.0 8.0 6-7 2.0 3.4 7-8 1.9 2.6 8-9 1.5 2.0 9-10 0.7 1.6 10-11 0.8 1.3 11-12 1.8 2.2 Source: Estimate from support facility relocation, Boeing Scientific Research Center, South Park Area Traffic Study (C. Brown, P.E. October 1978) The influence of both the inbound and outbound morning peak hour on arterial facilities is evident in the above. From about 6:30 a.m. until 8:00, the average demand is in the order of 19.2 percent of total daily demand. In the after- noon, extending from about 3:15 until 5:30 is in the order of 15.3 percent. Some latitude exists in that the inbound interval from 8:00 to 9 :00 a.m. is relatively light. Also, after 5:30 p.m. demand is light but, even today, is increasing. Note that the afternoon peak hour also tends to include social-recreation trips in addition to those originating fran a place of employment. Finally, Table III also indi- cates the lack of other types of activity in the area (such as shopping) in that there is very little demand on the system apart from the peak hours. The balance of demand tends to be thru trips or those trips associated with the delivery and pick-up of material. 11- Vehicular Demand - Peak Hour Table II indicated the hourly demand at the project site. The a.m. peak hour will have a maximum demand of about 32.40% of total daily inbound demand. Conversely, in the evening -peaktheoutbounddemandw11amountto37.92% for the hour. Assuming a maximum employment of 8,000 persons, the maximum mooing demand will provide for the accommodation of 2,592 persons. With an assumed vehicle occupancy of 1. 3 persons per vehicle, the maximum morning demand will be 1 ,994 vehicles per hour. Note that this does not assume any viable transit operation which would serve as a mitigating measure. In the evening, the maximum hour will provide for 3,034 person trips. Again, using a vehicle occupancy of 1. 3 persons per vehicle a maximum demand of 2 ,334 vehicles per hour is anticipated. Figure 5 is the representation of p.m. peak hour vehicular movements. This figure, based on the trip distribution described in Figure 4 , assumes the continued congestion of I 405 at SR 167. Accordingly, about 22 percent of the demand will be oriented to I 405 via Grady Way and/or S.W. 7th Street through the Central Business District to either the Maple Valley Highway Interchange of I 405 or other access roads. Note that improvements to I 405 would shift the 22 percent from surface streets to the SR 167 - I 405 interchange. Essentially, current congestion will lead to diversion to other surface streets. Adjacent Developments Adjacent commercial developments along Grady Way will impact Grady Way, particularly at the intersection of Lind Avenue. Fbr example, the O/W Office Building , situated just west of Raymond Avenue at Grady Way, has 97,000 g.s. f. leasable space. This office building is expected to contribute 3240 vehicular trips per day, all of them onto Grady Way. The morning peak hour will include about 296 vehicles and the afternoon peak hour about 264 vehicles per hour. Because of the impacts of this development, the owners are in the process of developing plans for the "3-Laning" of S.W. Grady Way in the immediate vicinity of the project site, extending across the property towards Raymond Avenue. This is considered to be an interim measure, is being financed entirely by the owners, and is only an interim measure pending the 5-laning -of Grady Way through an LID. The LID is expected to be commenced by the end of 1980. Additional developments currently under consideration include two major proposals in the vicinity of the Earlington Golf Christopher brawn12- i 9688 rainier avenue s. attle washinAgn tel:7234567 1 i . --' v 4•-. - . . . - '-" ...:.. -----B,..,,,, .t f•4,. 4 k , , ., 0 ,4. 1...e41 0 * ........ 4:,,,,! ! Ill..,.," ... 1 I\ : ,.., IIt1I • ..... ,. , . .1 i.• ' -it•• Tr..:.•e •?: li -.- ; " " ..-;,..1: fd . .... . it. • • , i. ... ., , ! , 11... : . .,.. .ARO Ettws .•• 1,; f. TAP t ! • iN • 350 iliplEcittEir ,,. 3. - # s... ... x. c • I/pits . 17 .L- i i 1111 Ag12- 1111C111211P--. ' --....I 7- • t iiielfr.'. vrigoripirg • ' ;.iL.... .... •••••• ii,F,43.. \ s 1 • girl I . 1 1'i6411 4 i;.! .z i ‘• • s . . ....1 amr. ! r r.1. . -.-..---1 ,• .. 4ei " ..1.r. ." 1.. i ..11111,t 4• f CD Ia .,a..;4 ; t •Izo 1 . • 7- ,...— y hi le- ---,:....---_-„,...._ 1 ...,..,,i., i.e. Ae. , 40 .. ,. 4........•: loo3 RENTOR35-0 S . , .-"" -* 1 ' Oil -I ik.' a .r.......7:::.,\.• I• i • • . 5.•:\*';,.. •.• ,I• -- —7,---:— : 'kill,.1 , . ., , 1 i ::.. I#7°is• . -"_,.. . ;,..r.. — oct•-.0. , . - ill...v.;•t. ))... ii.1 .i i' e.•... 1 t •., • 1 s • "' ,.......••• '" ' • t 0* . 44. 1 T' 7 r 7./75... 1 I' I2..-. 0 t r 1 ' 11• •.riiii 0 •••—••••••e .. dr.I i....• trZL..H....7' "; .1.•7 • 41-.....;'.-1-..:'Z.7.... s- 1 I *%• ‘14:1'; !'i r'.'" I'i i i 1 .r Eiilf I . ,..... ... .---'7: i I7rn ,•- x ___,___, 1r.) ...;, ri i i x--- 1 • , • I_f1 ...1... -.,. '•: r. si VI ;;I's-f 7 t t•1.Z 3 i i li 1 I •• N. • t t 1 i g i tied7 a 1 li Air-*. ft-,,••• —— -- —7-----1 ' -.'. 1 , • 7.i.ii; \ 87117 I1IIIT ' .l ...... 260 I • t • te7 i PI a a RE 5 P 44 Reok liour- . e/r7c; / Ji/e 6e/7etr/ec/ 7iegc 0/7 4I) Christopher brown pe c......v., ,, 9688 fainter avenue 8. e-attic washin'ton te:7234567 6. 4118 R V 11 g' 0 tab 289 3... cR ws- I 41' S79 v? 74"8 1‘08 - 44) 6r 11 0._ iAlik,c,10 7,c4 75,,yeic ot;,Aae;7./, . /4470 v„04 Note: No capacity restraints have been imposed on the system.E'257--gie._ Grady Way @ Lind Avenue will not operate with volumes shown. Alb I kki l't 110 1$ 0 g tib v 2Lai)i15 4t/st sr a. 1,45 744- -- if.1_6‘ lipHorizonYear", is term used ID p to indicate time when all ly 6pDpropertiesarebuilt-up. 0 1 ti1 zPi 1-1.• i \fte 4 y,M' Sf .r.w 6c„ 2` 1N9 o ti g 8y ') 36 3 3 ill 232 11 FIGURE 6 chri to er brawn p14- HORIZON YEAR D.D.H.V. 9688 rainier anue & the washin tongEHet;,te1:7234567 118 Course. These projects include, as mitigating measures, the extension of Pawel1 Avenue to Grady Way. Consequently, GradyWaymaybecomeimpactedfrommorethanonedirection. Horizon Year DDHV The p.m. peak hour, as the heaviest peak hour of the day, is the principal concern with respect to developments in the South Renton area. P. M. peak hour distributions are portrayed on Figure 6. This data has not been adjusted to incorporate either capacity restraints or the influence of transit or other mitigatingmeasures. Similarly, this figure does not incorporate possibledemandsfromotherdevelopmentsthatmaytakeplacealthough the data does include expected demands from the O/W facility. Capacity On the basis of Overall Intersection Capacity (Figure 20, Public Roads Vol. 34, No. 10 , October, 1967) adequate inter- section capacity exists at the East Valley Road and 41st Street S.W. and at the East Valley Road at 43rd Street S.W. The tacit assumption in both cases is that the approach lanes are 36 feet in width in order to accommodate the heavyright-turn demands as shown on Figure 6. Adequate capacityalsoexistsattheintersectionofLindAvenueS.W. and 43rd Street S.W. Again, little development outside of that under construction is assumed and no mitigating measures are included. The principal concern is the intersection of Lind Avenue at Grady Way. With a heavy northbound demand on the south legoftheintersection (1910 vph) in concert with heavy demands on Grady Way, the intersection is not capable of operatingatanadequateLevelofService. Indeed, even excluding theintersection, the northbound volume of 1910 vph exceeds the capacity of the two-lane structure, estimated at 1470 vph. Given the proposed widening of the Lind Avenue structure over I-405 , its capacity can increase to 3460 vph. It must be recongized that widening the stucture will not change the capacity of the intersection of Grady Way ar Lind Avenue. This intersection is the key. A brief analysis was conducted at the intersection of Lind Avenue and Grady Way with the demands noted on Figure 6. To accommodate the northbound peak movements, the south leg ofLindAvenuewillrequire, at a minimum, two right-turninglanes, a single thru lane, and two left-turning lanes, for a total approach width of 60 feet. This is not feasible nor desirable. Christopher Brown pc 15- 9688 rainier avenue & gat washin• .n A second test was performed which assumes an additional overcrossing at Raymond Avenue S.W. between S.W. 16th Street and Grady Way. The second overcrossing essentially allows additional left-turning and right-turning capacity in the northbound direction or, stated another way, shares the turning movements. Redefined peak hour demands are described in Figure 7. In terms of capacity, it may be noted that adequate Levels of Service will prevail at the intersection of Raymond and Grady Way given a two-lane approach. The two-lane approach would consist of a Right Turn Only lane and a Left Turn Only lane. Each lane is assumed to be 12 feet in width so that capacity at Level of Service "D" would be in the order of 500 vph per lane against probable demands of 308 and 327 vph for left-and right-turn movements respectively. Constructing a second bridge across I-405 at Raymond Avenue would have the effect of reducing traffic demand on Lind to the extent that the projected widening of this stucture may not be necessary other than as a means of storing vehicles on the approaches at signalized intersections. However, the necessity for widening the structure should be subject to additional detailed analysis. With the implementation of a second overcrossing at I-405 with assumed traffic movements as shown on Figure 7, the intersection of Grady Way and Lind Avenue will still be over capacity assuming a 3-lane approach road configuration. Again, this must be considered a preliminary estimate. Changes in signal timing and phase configuration could improve the short-fall in capacity. Conclusions The projected developments in the vicinity of Lind Avenue S.W. and 16th Street which would provide employment for about 8,000 persons appear to be feasible in terms of their trans- portation requirements with respect to corridor facilities oriented to the south, subject to implementation of road improvement programs by adjacent jurisdictions. However, adequate access opportunity does not exist to the north. This is principally due to capacity restraints. The capacity restraints include two distinct features; overcrossing capacity (I-405 structure) and signalization at Grady Way. Increasing the width of the Lind Avenue overcrossing of 11-405 will increase bottleneck capacity to the detriment of traffic operations at the intersections of Lind Avenue and Grady Way. Alternate capacity can be achieved by an additional - crossing structure utilizing Raymond Avenue S.W.- This will 16-eAr)'% Christopher 'Town po. 9688 rainier avenue a sciatic washin•ton tel:7234567 118 01 r 41'b f9 Grady Way 9B/ PI t„fqpy z —T rr 1 _ i CI tit giS o7 ^\ 5a 7B 34* t(24 ti 443 v or 07111/0n19/77, 1 vnlrr 23v7I a XX /hirlir '.' -trt7tn vi-7a/0-- Sa vf ro a Figure describes the horizon year DDHV with Raymond Avenue extended across I-405 to Grady Way. FIGURE 7 Redefined D.D.H.V. chritopher Brown pc Cr) 9688 rainier avenue a 17_ gthe washi ton t,c1 A34567 118 r shift traffic. demand to the west, provide adequate capacity over I-405, and improve traffic operations on Grady Way by distributing the substantial left-and right-turn movements. This traffic report does not address the key intersections of Grady Way and Rainier Avenue or Grady Way at the West Valley Road. Similarly, this report must be considered preliminary in nature, subject to revision, as other de- velopments are identified and their precise scope defined. Recommendations Appropriate recommendations for consideration are: 1. Include linkage of Raymond Avenue between S.W. 16th Street and Grady Way on the City of Renton Arterial Street Plan with potential designation of "collector arterial". 2. Modify City of Renton "6-Year Transportation Improvement Program" . 3. Conduct detailed studies for extension of Raymond Avenue across Interstate 405 with possible extension to S.W. 10th Street. 4. Study priority array involving the potential extension of the Valley Parkway between S.W. 16th Street and SR-900 with the Raymond Avenue extension acting as an interim opportunity. 5. Accelerate Grady Way improvement program between Lind Avenue S.W. and West Valley Road. 6. Investigate potential transit routing through area via Raymond/Lind couplet. 7. Investigate distributive network potential between Grady Way and Sunset Boulevard via Stevens Avenue S.W. or thru the Earlington Woods development. 8. Review access opportunities in the southern corridor when City of Kent plan is completed. 9. Review SR-167/43rd Street S.W. interchange configuration for potential capacity improve- ment programs. christ-18- p ; ICE VALLEY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PARK TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE 10v4 IlttaigoF3 Prepared for THE AUSTIN COMPANY Renton, Washington Prepared by ENTRANCO ENGINEERS R 100 - 116th Avenue S.E. 0 0 Bellevue, Washington 98004 1/ 9NN1NG TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 CONCLUSIONS 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 Roadway System 4 Traffic Volumes 4 Transit Routes 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity 5 Roadway Improvements 5 TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECASTS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Trip Generations 7 Modal Split 10 Trip Distribution 11 Trip Assignment 11 Traffic Analysis 11 APPENDIX i LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE PAGE 1 Trip Generation 9 2 Employee Residence Distribution 12 3 Traffic Analysis Summary 14 FIGURE 1 Existing Traffic Volumes 2 ii 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this report is to supplement the previous traffic study performed by the Austin Company for construction of office buildings on its parcels A, C, and D. The study focuses on the impact to the street network that would be caused by development of the Austin Company's parcel into office buildings instead of the warehousing and light manufacturing the City envisioned under the M-P zoning. This study also investigates potential impacts to both the existing street network and the future system as outlined in the City of Renton's current six-year street plan. As shown in Figure 1, the total area considered for future traffic generation, referred to in this report as the Valley industrial Park, is 585 acres; of this total , approximately 190 acres are known to have soils and drainage problems which will probably curtail their development. The remaining 395 acres were analyzed as follows: Case I : Existing traffic and full development of the 395 acres as warehousing and light industry (M-P zoning) . Analysis Ia - Impact on existing street network Analysis Ib - Impact on future street network Case II: Existing traffic and Parcel A office (12.5 acres) + 382.4 acres as warehouse and light industry. Analysis IIa and IIb - Similar to Ia and Ib Case III: Existing traffic and Parcels A and C office development (34 acres) + 361 acres as warehouse and light industry. Analysis IIIa and IIIb - Similar to Ia and Ib Case IV: Existing traffic and Parcels A, C, and D office development (62 acres) + 333 acres as warehousing and light industry. Analysis IVa and IVb - Similar to Ia and Ib 1 v tr.) ... .\ N\\,\. 17 SW 7 0175." r c.n a.)c) rn r--- ow, 4060 7-„--,63114°- b t\ ri 0,... j.....V t a" ASBC1c)Ac) 46... 1-405 E g rr.i.-^"--‘'..-.: 441116. 00, 000. cu SW 16th St.Pr 12749 ADT vpd31r6114:I 1690 P.M. PEAK HOUR vphlitOi A A.••- 1- SOILS OR WATER kAii* i 7 V.. mr.• .7...7 1 4 Awn."•-•"""TABLE PROBLEM AREAS f•• ) , A,e5.•7; EXISTINGLONGACRES111 ." ` -D-A.• I C. m FATtr.1 NI DEVELOPMENT AREAS 4 4 t •••. ..,,......... • I A le "..... 7:71 PROPOSED 1^. .1..` ^‘;,_ DEVELOPMENT AREAS 4• :**441 Aft/ A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL 1 ,.. L.•.1 . 1 4. DESIGNATION I 1- > - :^:.4 SW 27th St. F.., 7 7 .1 " 4 .• L Proposed) N 1/4 r‘,;•,.. 1.• i..........7.7t.„. 1.3 rvi...,......:, ,4 vis; 3 a) * * * * *p. , 4 tlnV v , 7 A a I, 1...' i. 1.. 471 4... A1/ 1; Iv 6 I:/ Cd 0 "•'• A 1. , C4 4) r--s- vc< 4 -•• „ ., ,. Lt)cl-I-, w.,' ... r ., T-1 a)L.e)Ili- r— v ..1 A 1). A y r i• ce 7-cs a)n I—I I' ) I. 1, La' 7,/ t a- VT-/,‘• ,"„'„43) j'r 4 A L 4 A I•-•' V 4 An. F... r41"7 4: .:‘, ', : 1r• Inr 7,4 , t, 4 If) m r • .4 C i c I7.• ra,)1/ / /7 r 0 11N FIGURE 1 - 1980 TRAFFIC VOLUMES x v Traffic analyses were performed to determine the differential traffic impacts between Case I and Case II , Case I and Case III , Case I and Case IV, Case II and Case II , Case II and Case IV, and Case III and Case IV. The analysis information is based on the most recent traffic counts available from the City, WSDOT, the ITE trip generation manual , and trip distribution previously accomplished for the Austin Company by Chris Brown. CONCLUSIONS Existing Traffic Volumes 1. Currently, the Grady/Lind intersection operates at Level of Service LOS) "D". 2. Widening Lind Avenue to four lanes with left-turn lanes at the intersection, and without any additional traffic contribution from the Valley Industrial Park, the Grady/Lind intersection is likely to operate at LOS "B". Case I 1. With the existing street system, upon full development of the Valley Industrial Park (395 acres) to M-P use, the Grady/Lind intersection would be jammed (LOS "F") . 2. Construction of the planned new street system would improve the LOS to E", or capacity at the intersection. Case II Converting 12.5 acres of M-•P zoned land (Parcel A) to office use would not significantly increase traffic over all M-P use, and the levels of service would be the same as Case I . Case III and Case IV With the proposed future street network, the Grady/Lind intersection will operate at LOS "E" to LOS "F" , depending on the actual diversion of northerly oriented trips. Office Development Only With development of the Austin Company' s 62 acres (Parcels A, C, and D) into office builidng alone (without other new M-P development) , the Grady/Lind intersection would operate at LOS "E" , or capacity, assuming all scheduled street network improvements are implemented. 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway System I-405 is north of the proposed site and runs east-west, carrying four lanes of traffic. I-405 intersects with Rainier Avenue S.W. with a cloverleaf intrchange. Rainier Avenue S.W. north of Grady Way is an 80-foot, five- lane urban arterial with six-foot sidewalks on each side. Rainier Avenue S.W. south of Grady Way becomes a four-lane, limited access freeway called the Valley Freeway or SR-167. Grady Way west of Lind Avenue S.W. is a 20-foot, two-lane road with shoulders on each side. From Lind Avenue S.W. to Talbot Road, Grady Way is a 72-foot, four-lane road. Lind Avenue S.W. north of Grady Way is a 47-foot, four-lane road with six-foot sidewalks, and is reduced to two lanes between Grady Way and S.W. 16th Street, where it crosses 1-405. South of S.W. 16th Street, Lind Avenue S.W. becomes a four-lane street again. East Valley Road is parallel to Lind Avenue S.W. and is a 22-foot street. It intersects with S.W. 41st Street served as a ramp terminal junction of SR-167 ramps. South of S.W. 41st Street, East Valley Road becomes a heavily traveled road intersecting with S.W. 43rd Street, forming a busy intersection. S.W. 43rd Street runs east-west carrying four lanes of traffic and is the primary east-west facility south of the site. Traffic Volume Traffic counts by the City of Renton and the State of Washington Department of Transportation were assembled and are shown in Figure 1. Some 1979 counts were expanded to 1980 level by utilizing historical growth trends for that particular facility. The intersection of Grady Way and Rainier Avenue S. operates at LOS "E" , or at capacity during the peak hour. On Grady Way at Lind, the LOS is somewhere between "C" and "D". Intersections of S.W. 41st Street and East Valley Road, and S.W. 43rd Street and East Valley Road operate at LOS "C" 4 to "D" as well . Most other intersections in the vicinity operate at LOS C" , "B" , or better. 1-405 in the area operates at capacity during both morning and afternoon peak hours. Transit Routes Currently there are eight METRO bus routes which provide transit service to this area. Routes 141, 154, 157, 240, 340, and 192 travel east- and westbound along S.W. Grady Way. Routes 155, 156, 240, and 340 travel north and south along Rainier Avenue S.W. Route 155 runs on S.W. 43rd Street. No bus routes are available at present on Lind Avenue S.W. , S.W. 16th Street, or East Valley Road. Roadway Improvements There are several roadway improvement projects planned near the proposed site. The projects are contained in the City of Renton' s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program dated December 3, 1979. Key among these is the Valley Parkway, which would run from S.W. 43rd Street northward to S. 140th Street, intersecting I-405. Other improvements as listed in the Valley Office Industrial Park Traffic Study, dated January 1980 by Christopher Brown can be summarized as follows: S.W. 43rd Street from East Valley to West Valley Road On the secondary or minor arterials, the improvement plan calls for improvements on: S.W. 27th Street from East Valley Parkway S.W. 27th Street from Valley Parkway to West Valley Road S.W. Grady Way Bridge from Longacres Drive to West Valley Road S.W. Grady Way from Lind Avenue S.W. to Longacres Drive Lind Avenue from S.W. 16th Street to S.W. Grady Way 5 On the collector arterial system, improvement programs are scheduled for: East Valley Road from S.W. 16th Street to SR-167 Ramp S.W. 16th Street from East Valley Road to Monster Road S.W. Adjacent jurisdictions have scheduled various improvement programs that will have some positive, if not measurable, effect. On the state highway system these include: Relocation and Reconstruction of SR-515 (1980) Resurface SR••181, SR-516 to 1-405 (1982) Construct 1/2 Diamond Interchange; 212th Street at SR-167 (1983) Ramp Improvements; 84th Avenue at SR-167 (1981) In the City of Kent, improvement programs, generally street widening and arterial construction, are proposed for the East Valley Road, 80th Avenue S. , N. 4th Avenue, and N. Central . King County has no improvements scheduled on the current Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan for the general area. Generally, capacity to the south via existing corridors, including SR-181 , SR-167, and the arterial facilities between these twe routes, will be improved. To the north, the significant barrier will be Interstate 405 and Grady Way. These facilities have been addressed in the City of Renton' s Improvement Plan. Design studies currently are underway, including the Valley Parkway to Grady Way and the Grady Way structure over the C.M. St. P. & P. R.R. The Lind Avenue structure is given a very low priority. 6 TRAFFIC DEMAND AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS A standard transportation planning approach for forecasting travel demand was followed using the following steps: 1. Trip Generation - Number of trips to be generated. 2. Modal Split - Percentage breakdown of selection of various transportation modes. 3. Trip Distribution - Origins and destinations of trips to be generated. 4. Trip Assignment - Selection of most desirable routes for trips. The area concerned is presently zoned to M-P (Manufacturing Park) with permissive use of office buildings. Since trip generation characteristics between manufacturing park and office building are significantly different, conversion to office building use would generate more traffic from this area than the M-P use would. The steps taken to estimate future traffic levels from the two land uses are described below. Trip Generation Trip generation rates assembled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for different land uses are adopted by this study and are as follows: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends PM Peak Hour Trips Trip Ends/ Trip Ends/ Trips/ Land Use Acre 1000 sq. ft. Trips/Acre 1000 sq. ft. Warehousing/Mfg. 50.0 4.5 14.2 1.2 Office 276.6 21.0 47.7 2.4 7 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends represents the weighted 24-hour total of all vehicle trips counted to and from a study site on an average weekday. Average Trip Rate for peak hour represents the weighted average trip rate between 4 and 6 PM on a weekday. The total area concerned consists of approximately 750 acres of M-P zoned land, of which about 110 acres have been developed into warehouse/office . Benaroya Business Park, Koll Center) , 20 acres into an oil storage. facility, 20 acres into a Group Health facility,. 15 acres into Boeing offices, and other mini-warehouses. The western part of the subject area, about 190 acres in all , may have adverse soil conditions which, along with the P-1 Drainage Channel and the Valley Parkway, could impair development. It is believed that development of this sector would not occur in the near future. The remaining sector, about 395 acres, may be developed in the foreseeable future. When the generation rates are applied to various development plans on the' subject area, the daily and peak-hour trips can then be obtained. Four different development alternatives have been developed for this study. Case I is a development plan that calls for all 395 acres of land to be developed into M-P use without any conversion for office use. . Case II is an alternative consisting of 382.5 acres of M-P use and 12.5 acres (Parcel A); of office use, for about 180,000 square feet of gross floor area. Case III assumes 361 acres of M-P use and 34 acres (Tracts A and C) , or 454,000 square feet of office building floor area. . The last, alternative consists of 333 acres of M-P use and 62 acres (Parcels A, C, and D), or 827,000 square feet of office building floor area. Table 1 shows the estimated trip generation for the various development alternatives. TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION DAILY AND PM PEAK HOUR OFFICE PM WAREHOUSE Square DAILY* PEAK HOUR CASE Acres) Acres Footage Trip Ends)Trips) I 395.0 395 x 50 = 19,800 395 x 14.2 5,610 II 382.5 12. 180,000 382.5 x 50 +382.5 x 14.2 + 180 x 21 = 180 x 2.4 = 22,900 5,860 dII 361.0 34.0 454,000 316 x 50 + 361 x 14.2 + 454 x 21 = 454 x 2.4 = 27,600 6,220 IV 333.0 62.0 827,000 333 x 50 + 333 x 14.2 + 827 x 21 = 827 x 2.4 34,000 . 6,710 d' 333 Ins and outs - trip ends Ga ren tl y p--ro posed f„ -Go 1 L 9 tt k-0 Table 1 indicates that at full development, the Valley Industrial Park would generate about '19,800 one-way trips per day (9,900 round trips) and about 5,610 one-way trips during the evening peak hour (the directional split is about 70%/30%, with the majority traveling away from the area concerned) assuming all the available land (395 acres) is developed into warehouse. Conversion of Parcel A's 12.5 acres of M-P zoned land into office use as proposed would add approximately 3,100 one-way trips per day and about 250 one-way trips during the PM peak hour. Traffic increases of 7,800 one-way trips per day and 610 one-way trips during PM peak hour may be, expected should 34 acres of M-P zoned land (Parcels A and C) be converted to office use. Adjacent development along Grady Way will contribute additional traffic to the street network. The proposed Earlington Park consists of 109.31 acres of manufacturing park, and is expected to generate about 6,600 one-way trips per day and about 1,020 one-way trips during the PM peak hour during Phase I of the development. Phase II development would generate an additional 8,015 one-way trips per day and about 1,050 one-way trips per PM peak hour The 0/W officebuilding located just west of Raymond Avenue at Grady Way consists of 97,000 gross square feet of leasable space. This office has been occupied for a few months and the traffic contribution from. this office would have been detected by recent traffic counts. Modal Split In transportation analysis of forecasted traffic volumes a certain percentage of the trips are assigned to different modes of transportation. such as transit, bicycle trips, or walking. In this study, however, existing METRO bus routes operated on the periphery of the area concerned; lack of pedestrian amenities will make transit use or walking unattractive for prospective employees. In addition, to reflect "Worst Case" conditions, none of the trips to the proposed site were assigned to transit or bicycle, walking modes. 10 Trip Distribution Table 2 illustrates the Employee Residence Distribution Pattern •as contained in the Parkway Plaza Office Building Traffic Study and is adopted by this study. Trip Assignment The trip assignments were made on both the existing and improved street network. The key roadway links scheduled for construction which would help in alleviating traffic impacts are improvements to Grady Way; S.W. 16th Street; S.W. 43rd Street; and construction of S.W. 27th Street and the Valley Parkway. Without S.W. 27th Street and the Valley Parkway, approximately 20 to 35 percent of the site traffic (20% northwesterly and 15% northerly) would probably enter the site using Lind Avenue off of Grady Way. This would serve to aggravate an already congested condition along Grady Way and Lind Avenue. Traffic Analysis The critical movement technique is used by this study to examine a group of intersections to determine those most able to absorb the traffic increase from the proposed project. The intersection of Grady Way and Lind Avenue is- expected to be affected the most by development from the Valley Industrial Park. Therefore, this intersection is selected for an in-depth analysis by this study, although other intersections were evaluated to determine future traffic impact from the site. 1% TABLE 2 RENTON AREA - OFFICE FACILITIES. EMPLOYEE ,RESIDENCE DISTRIBUTION Percent of Total ) PERCENT Southwest Snohomish County (Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood) 3.0 Other Snohomish County 3.0 Bothell 1.0 Woodinville 1.0 fi King County, North Redmond 1.0 Redmond, City 1.0 North Bellevue 3.0 Mid-Bellevue 5.0 Medina, Clyde Hill 2.0 Mercer Island 2.0 Kirkland 2.0 Issaquah, North Bend, and Vicinity 1.0 Seattle, North of Canal , East of I-5 6.0 Seattle, North of Canal , West of I-5 6.0 Seattle, South of Canal , East of I-5 9.0 Seattle, South of Canal , West of I-5 6.0 Renton, CBD and East Suburbs 6.0 Renton, South of CBD 8.0 Kent 4.0 Kent, East Hill 5.0 Auburn 4.0 Federal Way 3.0 Des Moines and Normandy Park 5.0 Burien 5.0 King County, East of SR-167 _4.0 Tacoma and Pierce County (Fife, Puyallup Vicinity)4.0 The data of this table will be applicable for future years. Housing availability will , in all likelihood, become more oriented to the south. Source: "Valley Office and Industrial Park," Traffic Study, January 1980 ' by Christopher Brown, P.E. 12 At present, the intersection of Grady Way and Lind Avenue operates at LOS D" and approaches capacity (LOS "E") . Should Lind Avenue be widened into four lanes with left-turn lane atintersection, the subject intersection is expected to operate at LOS "B". Future traffic increase from Case I development (all M-P development) would. . overload the subject intersection unless proposed street improvement projects are implemented. After the improvement, the intersection is likely to operate at capacity (LOS "E") even without any of the office building construction. Development of 12.5 acres of office building of Parcel A alone as proposed by' the Austin Company at present time would not significantly downgrade the LOS at the intersection provided the street improvements are implemented. In fact, development of 34 acres of office building of Parcels C and D - alone, the intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS slightly, worse than "B". Should traffic with origin to the northeastern (15%) direction be diverted from Lind Avenue to the S.W. 16th Street and Valley Parkway, the conditions at the Grady/Lind intersection would be significantly improved. Table 3 summarizes the projected traffic volumes on south approach on Lind Avenue at Grady Way intersection for various development schemes. The table also shows what level of service may be expected at the intersection under various conditions. 1 13 TABLE 3 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS--SUMMARY SOUTH APPROACH LIND AT GRADY ONLY PM PEAK HOUR MAXIMUM TRAFFIC DIVERSION (15%) ON EXISTING STREET NETWORK . FUTURE STREET NETWORK FUTURE STREET NETWORK* Approach Approach Approach Volumes Percent Volumes Percent . Volumes Percent vph) LOS Increase vph) LOS Increase vph) LOS Increase Current - 1980 790 D 630 B 550 B Case I - Warehouse .(M-P)2,280 F 188 1,690 E 168 1,340 D 144. Case II - M-P and Parcel A 2,410 F 205 1,810 F 187 1,420 E . 158 920) F 750) B 630) B Case III - M-P and Parcels A and C . 2,750 F 248 2,070 F 229 1,620 E 195 1,260) F 1,010) B 830) B Case IV - M-P and Parcels A, C, and D 3,360 F 325 2,570 F 308 1,990 •F 262 1,870) F • 1,510) • E 1,200) C 2,410 - Predicted peak hour volume for land use indicated. 910) - Predicted peak hour volume for existing traffic plus proposed office only. Northeast direction traffic being diverted to Valley Parkway then S.W. 7th Street and bypassing Lind Avenue and Grady Way. APPENDIX A Traffic Assignment on Existing Street Network SR 9 Cl) s 1 SW 7th St. r• Av Nre3ell N a, rz>c• gc 1-- r•4 s:')/ 419.--, 6\r•-• NI"))/. 56 \b CV 1) Ottl St. 1---- 0N0291019ci- e----' 0/ 0, pP--Bpi° ics.,S. cti::)/..„,.. , Allikihms. I-=405 E 2 r,',11T---1.41, VF ft$ toe 2980' cb— r----viC go; i fSW 16th st. I.:s_ A 237401 ADT vpd P.M. PEAK HOUR vph zioriP SOILS OR WATER J, kt.4 a* i 1A4,. 4 4 1 TABLE PROBLEM AREAS 1_1..1. 1 r., 1 11) , r• "... :::t1t t 1 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AREASi., ,Lj." .:::,• I r A k, 1 La. ••,•.,•,,,61:••=,•:ar.... • r PROPOSEDr:::DEVELOPMENT AREAS A..a 7AP .,,, •' • V ., A• .1. • /ref 41.6 4 ,. L , i, A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL t, ,.. i ,.. DESIGNATION 1 Z A 4"L.%• 4 L r. ••• _. , 0. V A ‘..c A 4 c,... I t• ., t•Lc. 3-)-, v 1 r- .-a 4 33- gi fg. AV,7 c. 7,„ •Ar .4" N Gd r..• en'L.. j„ a. A r.... • 1^ ^ r A r• r C4 v r A .., A 4_ 1 "4.aigri- 4 41) a-r. CO-v 4 C -I > A• A A to A r i: CC A r qc 4) 4><A co 1=r:.A A r.1, r ,, , ,, ..,CYr7.,:t• rA ..1 ,.2 1" 4 A A >< 4 • 1)Ay"d4 C g..>\ 7c)\ ••'• 1 CO CD t• A.1 "r. 4 4%* 1. o4.. Is. ry if, 1/ 1/iPv( /17 ' c ol ,-,,., ',••• -cli- .--•oct rri 15801 14>Z4Z `')1. 31 // sz.• r c:.?Ah'cb/47' N,' CASE la - FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE TRAFFIC ! 1 I 4 1 SR 900 1 I 1 21. z• SW 7th St. 1. 1 Fre5til tn cii c:. rq z. 1 - 1b. 0 Sr 241 c> iyz 4,----N 4/ 4 6002,b w t• 1 IP - 3969400-_\ 1 pA8-.D141°.: 1; PEdAK HouR vph cv i loth sa 0 A3, 4 _,• 4 c, c,;esQ„, ,..,9 ,....... 900,c-,1 uv-s 'N,;..,... '' irgi 1-4054.. Lni ..... . 446.0,31.415) di 10.0 die. lii41--11."......---------------1------------.,.. SW 16th St. / .n:s7 0 f i A 1 Air ...4111, 1"411...A V MIt 3‘.% SOILS OR WATER . ir. ' ' t 4 V TABLE PROBLEM AREAS LONGACRES ,i. ,... LD":..:::•...I r4 Lol C ...DEVELOPMENT AREASa v A ••••1 ••• in i 4 471, 1 -•••c' " PROPOSED 4 , 4 > „ DEVELOPMENT AREAS A 7 7 i'• ? 4 • . • 17c. 4,4. 4, 1 , il• ,A illliV 74,,,,-(p, AUSTIN CO. PARCEL Ii ,,, i v 7 1 4: DESIGNATION A >v,,,,,„ ,,,,,,...• 4. I+P.4 4 i- v. , • r, 7 7i, Zs 4 • L. • V A 3,..,.. A ,,, r.- • . r .1 A L. 7. L ts i• • , ,. c il 1 V ,v • A.P. V A f.'..3 ,•I CD\CD 1 C4 0) a v t 4. A t CO 7::1 rr:v v ....7 IPA7, A C L. I' t. r: d• L.4 re3 v 111 Ce p..r) A T . r. C*4 Ctl 1,• V c .1. .1 -. r. •r•- r 4 . 4Ij lD ci) 4, .. - eL , 7 r--1 cr) r .3 4 v AvrC ce To- 1, r., 4) v) I. ,, ,> L 7 ill 4 r,...a w > r ICC v r i r A < P CYcL ... L.i A - 1 4 E %. e• A 4. - • 1A r,7 4 i r„.. : >I V'/••• l's I a 7 - ,,L•t•V••. 7 ZaXii/‘t/// • 7/ tN I CC?4 gl\ oc313/ 1 e. 1 PO\ 1)X13‘1830 A .9 ° •'""" r1:11/ \)`• ye //470 coyo V cocb fr.c:$ (0/N. Is,• r CASE Ila - FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE TRAFFIC' J S_., eg p N SW 7th St. toL. fo a a; N o Grady 0 Oth 0' ,.. -- o -.. 99•o_ a,r4,70),^0/70®®' N. I.,I_405 a 30_ SW 16th St.// A. 2; ADT vpd • 80iP.M. PEAK HOUR vpht ....41010 c A SOILS OR WATER y* TABLE PROBLEM AREAS4o ®: EXISTING LONGACRES D: r ::•1 ':• i,. DEVELOPMENT AREAS a M (.4 A , v < ..— - - PROPOSED A < ` , DEVELOPMENT AREAS 7 L J) V Ltl .1• d , AUSTIwA N CO. PARCEL DESIGNATION P P r A , < V r lL., L P y , P L P r J ) 7 A 6 L J y A L.c A t V i, .. P L J o o\N ry APJ rVA '< a 9 Off.1 yB' b. rrL N: ` •yywi A plMI,- r- r ` i" P< J ^ AP 1 d is. .. : t < rcA r. tp • r—y<,< AV • 4 ) A' VI r r. ^ y A y r t• re 3 i .1 A a c Pt. P L a r, rw < w ny r^< c I, A >< L 1 P" 9 r L Ly. t I' , 7 7 , A < • 9 O ririaL4riefili r/ ' /. ;, . / 4 -.' .. '' Pr o '1;1\•oa crit\pPri/y. 22001 sty 0 v•280. 5 o 7' O moo' CASE Ilia - FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE TRA.FFIC1 SR.90 0 SW 7th St. N cri a) n tV6N1 • . . a.) Lir5i• op rn• ' fr•tr.' et> . 0 ,.................4"...'°°/. ,• rb- u,N01 ./..9---"'".. 1 . fl• NX 7. 130_:\ 41,, oth , - e94.---1 r... .,:41 .ozgt,3 cto .. POlibb.1-4051.\:).. .cn -,,,z. c(§,,,‘• •• a Et." .: . 1P1-P\ SW 16th S' • „.'.....7s- 300T ADT vpd e5 -. SQ. I P M PEAK HOUR vph •0 12t.i. ..1 .0 •0•,. if. SOILS OR WATER '46gA-_,,,,I • ' I.., '„, ,-• A A••• 4 1 4.'d..• A. tom...,..... I. 1a.'.iV,,-%A-..-.:.-.• A. 1 _..**.*. rr*-,„** c, 4'•, I TABLE PROBLEMOBLEM AREAS GACRES , r C O L *** r .. :.:. EXISTING 1D :: ::: DEVELOPMENT AREAS ,erIL 7', 4 , ,. 1 - 1 4 14.•< •••.:.•••4.A.d.`."•'••••''''**- •• .....'..'"' • PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS 1 7 w, V „.. A• A fir •• A .' DESIGNATION A ry , , v., i• - r(rAv: :,-,-:: : 1 A .., C r V • . 14 7 ....I' 4 . '' I.N ,- ..• ,.. , ..., c„ in c•4 ‘'-'\- . v a .. ., NI ,7• r. 1 • • A rj1-• :,..4 L.,‘- t .......•-•••-1:70•i 0 M! tad e..'''' < sy s.. r. '"' 1 ^ li, c j , r---- • - eis < , 4 .. 4 0-•• up . cu L. w- 7a.0 r • • r-4 Ive, ‘... 11.A i) A ,. . „.. , ce 177n:s , 1. rv ,, "x 1.• 4; c ,) L 7 I. 4 r•',.1 A > V kr t. ,-13,- ,,, ,,, , Ir ,n„ r 1 4 ...% 0' 1 v t Ar-A L- I AA< r4".-' ' 7 .. 1 r i,. i ' L• 4, 4 s,V A., i") 7' 7 P.:7 4 40.‘:::.: ._ . 1 ..• Ir 1 r V r 7.., 10 04;1ri• r 7 ,1 •. . IV , "eel, 'Y ./416fr:11i• • I ‘ , A 4 0 co-\ ' . ' ic, cil 0?,,,,\, ' co l>,/ to ,D; trl—' ' • ; " ' . ' , 2711101 Cril' 4, ./,//'10 /// am5'40t A i'\'' szzi,''. ' - ' v.,, CASE IVa - FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE TRAFFIC i 4 APPENDIX B Traffic Assignment on Revised Street Network 4 Z.P........._0 I 1 I V; I lb I CZSW7thSt. IA N1 a) GIN/CVr'lII 1° / e 4;C b 1 3 oth St- f\ 0 9i1 Oi , 1 fr; gl 4'..'4 Ali 1-405 E L2 Ln.- 1 ,,itilli,.. YFF.1111"- 1 ci 9280 , 1 1 a)1-,- Ill. 890 i ADT vpd dt ,,00 - SW 16th St. ss .. cti 3\ 4. 0 a• 50 I P.M. PEAK HOUR vph Arrol 2o A ' 1-',-i wi -- — , SOILS OR WATER A'711# 1 1444'''''L i 1 q v 4 ....pv 4.••••••TABLE PROBLEM AREAS r, .. ... EXISTINGi 1 < A , A :..f .._, c, LONGACRES I, 11," 1) 11;;;1 41., D C••::...." t DEVELOPMENT AREAS i... ...1 3 ,.. ,,_,T. v PROPOSED r I" 1 ',•' ' '. DEVELOPMENT AREAS r A A4 7 7- 2 4 ,..7,„A 1 ':' J.' P.A! AUSTIN CO. PARCEL DESIGNATION s 1§°' t),0 I N'e9 / SW 27th St.4550 P A----. l', ("---- roposed) t ,_ 7_Np: 1200 . A 4.......a., C .4 al\C4 et I v - 10 t 3:1u, 1-, rst rd C•4 r..a r's 1 ory7r. Ic r al in ad• NI a). r•-•• s- ''' < A -.1 , 4 .., 0.4.- la l 11<,.., L I-. ,--1 a)ti)I < < .. < 4 , „. co- 4 4 . . ,, , , cc its 1:..r. v„ra,,,.4,<..,r.1 CL) Cf) Y & > r/' " 4 kt0_ C TY 1.-• 1.7.71 A ,< , 4. : fp t• 4 r L. 4 c r..'':< s'')0 --:' •.•.1 v i7r. 7 1..- v 4 Ps(5341::...•. cz., II 230 , r_ s-''' ,..'' h,e 9I./A: i,' /). cemx,ip,ti.N./.... /•AW90, / 7o,/ 4/ 1i1Qi/ 4? ala 7 / / 4 7 , / i : y4 790 gi V0 / 1 0ccrT4 n, qz cb 41 1 1 CASE lb — FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE TRAFFIC i N SW' i u., 7th St. cn 1426 a'..- otc, ypo'\. Graay a io sW St.. 190 Oth r20l hcri . / 1-405 E o 3450 li SW 16th St. ' 8910IADT vpd 2520 P.M. PEAK HOUR vph 411 e^ SOILS OR WATER 7111t w; r4. TABLE PROBLEM AREAS IQ ><< .•: .... ® p 1 EXISTINGLONGACRES :. A D _i .... N rp.Cr:DEVELOPMENT AREASo, , J.''''.' . r.. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREASP 17 :4 a w% r A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL. ts.d < y r. ' • DESIGNATION j (" el1.. V,`r V J . •• P o/ SW 27th St. If;f0, r. to701::.. 6 1310 :' C,° i° (Proposed) CJ v r 3 vv , c w e O O O O cn L. 7 r. ^O co Gh. v r.... au\ cn- tQ n <wy c` > au,fV1 S L c > w d 1 viw w > 1 r L J r. Q"1 c -v c J > w:it. ri 1 J A y A . r , ce 1i:wV' ‘A 7<J r. C Yr. L. c> L > lut 1 w w > c V r w> _ A < w 3 4,r• cA < , >< J y c J A 4 44 r" AA >< < < ,• 4,4 c.,›A cw•dA>r* r 7 >v A aT'V V c w J` • J s I 7 C L J 7r> v > o de/j ad 7,i/i4 moo tpM1ri 910 ci° ;h i9j, ,.>p/ 4240 1. 1 CASE Ilb - FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE! TRAFFIC; ex; v.,. nr f \ SW 7th St. f.r) a). ct r. 1--- 0 ck• • radl00 cg//f .)(,_ '• N/0 5)--------#.° 1..°#. ty:g- a-.) tog\ c‘.". ' h c3_° i* sf< 4,..., Ss N. ..• Ill Q4cc:4; 4)4\,.„---/ ° pj 1-4 0 5 2: co Al Cr) 11 ,...............m...-•••••:"".-."--"."."."‘- ..."' ,-. CD 4110 -.....0.--*"..-----••• •------ ...- SW 16th 12001 ADT vpdSt- nj il lio P.M. PEAK HOUR vph 0 •••••-AI ,. d....r.t''''''''' ' r..` SOILS OR WATERt a P. 4 ' r•TABLE PROBLEM AREAS kg LONGACRES L t—"r•` 11,. A, LLDA.".••••L1 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AREAS8 r• 4 g•t, r ...:".4 ... , . PROPOSED A.1 `,-4 ' •-• DEVELOPMENT AREASA7 ••I L u.< 17 .1 4 I r 4. AFArt A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL a. . 4 4 v a• i 4.. • DESIGNATION rA• SW7tt I ed) Ni11)N\ 111;:r„, <. 13 50: c Ar(Popos v , c1.. v„.—.\. dID\ r c•-i• ..-•C1) •4 1.- r t 4 .,t 7 r0r 7 Ai 1 CO rn CL 4 4 1.. L. .1 03 t13 A ^ 'r 0 CsiCd5.2 v c A A ... I r T-. C . k_ < r < ' .,I I•••• LO 1 1 A..% 1 . 4 1. L J en-. cu 4 , p,. C). s' -1 4 V A V r. r 4 CC 1- 413 L. v r c A A p. a) P• En z L. ,< „..> L > La ktta-1.1.4 -11"4-1' › 11 ' V A „ J. a 1:, F,... .. ,, ,A >< 4 • 4....... • fi ,,C A....,, 1j\ ;•- %/ •4 A CI U% •-•••• ::: INI 1 VI 4 1. 1< le ll‘\ 7 //d/ 7ei/ y 4 41 0 7 07;\cz, i=', r--- cp 1. )? ".' . .•'..,` 7•P'' 1 id 0,)\o / 4 43 4 1 iyz,,, o Pi n) Aq P.... A.7 x CASE Illb - FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE TRAFFIC 1 I 1 SR 99.9 ____. to cr SW 7th St. C LA • \ \ / y)cic,; in m ai cu • 03 m o •10, CO c, 14,?' oi vi c• cv ,N , ze Ipo-Will g cei ' . sP/' 0 .46._ 1-405'\ rsi n4 ,/ 11111 I. Wr- cc itid SW 16th St. e i). 1760, ADT vpd 200 I P.M. PEAK HOUR vph I r fij El SOILS 611 WATER e 4 . r., v r. ,.. " .. CZ) CI EXISTING r LONGACRES I-avt,.OV A A D ...-•-1 ... r40Lo in in DEVELOPMENT AREASI .-1, rs1 I A ' l4< e,< 1.. r- .....- PROPOSEDav i ., 4 ..DEVELOPMENT AREASaA7is I " -.,r 4 - 1 arc/ L 1 p, A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL 1 ,. DESIGNATION14; 1 V -;. >V 4. I. 'ft • 1 2. , . t. " . IlSW27thSt. 1, 5• 0\-, . 6950 : o,.‘• -..-------• •T-"\ifq /,. . 11150 : 4, 1 ,coo\ (proposed 7-.. 7 00, i,-00 cp\o, N A;,„ a v. a CO\r; o e'\ 0 yip.,"( ., ,„, i 0, 0 v••• ii,,) /".-3 1,,r r44. ,t, c 0 Ail C•4 r- C‘in N; r4Ac I, , 1r- 1 43) I's•..S- v< Ct.I/ r4 a mi ''' r ... -3 I-7- 1—I CLli V) 1 c 4 , ,.. MS' r.-.1 v J A to A r f ed r-- 1 i: vr vA,<Ap. EnfilZUr. " I. sc I. >., , a LI ktr.,,. <- 73- 1 ..,,•' r A, , a L 4 r-- T4A >44 .....x.; it 3'7'A iN I 4 > ,•• 0- A ..• A tr N•!› 7i‘d/. 2,,-) 0 / 73s 9,. ,i,„cp.,, -,d 13601 0, E,- 270 1..' , 41, . /,'90/ JF UM Q0 CASE 1Vb - FULL DEVELOPMENT SITE TRAFFIC r APPENDIX C Traffic Volume Comparison SW 7th St. lc,a d. cu. m c., r.--,:z;( Grady ti20 \ 3 67 0 SW Ttc 'L I_405 r- 1.1. S.-1.... SW 16th St. oIADT vpd i 1 222 -+P.M. PEAK HOUR vph i .. 0.,.... A SOILS OR WATER r.-,..r.r", A A •L J v TABLE PROBLEM AREASnA I r / . r < r ) L A• ...L .. EXISTINGLONGACRES c, A C DA` .E :::N DEVELOPMENT AREAS L. j,-1.------- PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREASr < > snw, J' 4 w, y a,' A AUSTIN CO. PARCELra< wdA L 7w L.DESIGNATIONV > V Al a L ' r A a < b r nr< 1 ' V, 7 r J 7 7 , r' ) , V•V A v< A A. • I. >A < ry V yr n A d 4 1 •w v n}p D rAv7 r7Af n + 0 1:3 FL )r V a w A S r v<J n < d w I • ri. r A r r A v r 1• ti CCry <Aa<Aw 4) N r ir 4V: A< , A .1 v ) P 4 A L A A r^ I t. tn: A<.L ; r w7 r ` l y r 7 v c w a 7 ^ tI L 7 L, r > ,,A 5 Op r Vr v V; L Q I! I d d/ial 7 / 1 4) . a// M to r CO t:Li zoo C1•3 1 l/ TRAFFIC INCREASE BASE Ila OVER CASE la 1 1 ;12' SW 7th St. a) C1COCO Ln cc o 0.:o Grady o o. 9 c• I St. 11tiQS flth 6a, f6lp E Nco•ti Len ` I 17 oo'l___._._.____:_,-......------""' 110__I W 16th St• 780 .I ADT vpd j P.M. PEAK HOUR vph r r A SOILS OR WATERe4t/ y TABLE PROBLEM AREAS LONGACRES <" DAB'• o EXISTING E ;••N . . DEVELOPMENT AREAS I" I ' ` at.••••..• • n PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS isn )r ri A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL 1 ' DESIGNATION r 7, ) b • 11, r t n I7 " 7 7 L J- r v n y r A • • Icr > A L > L"> r••• : e' ‘. > L r V V 414\ 'fA\b r L <1 > I_)V J 7r t•A L A p 0 0 L' v v .. r , 1 cr4trq cz f n Nn I 0' c > a y r i < r < ^ J r-•• to I' .1 > A, V, V rdai I..^> AvAvrC L c rvr cw><> r V) 1, L >< ,•r> L7 L11 1• 'a '' J A > r Cr L 1 i y r7v Ac •' n I. l^r I A L. < 4 0 i( tCr f P// f(f !f% //(4Jr. i: 1°.\ r spY620Itycoti10 /9 so/ 50 OZ TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE Illa OVER CASE la 1 S N 1 SW 7th St. P r o ` a 0 rally ten,,• ,93 a.) 301° OO ,*lcrol 2lik1ONI SW 16th St• t}p { ADT vpd 3' 4- Pi. 40_..1 P.M. PEAK HOUR vph kg / . r .• JLw SOILS OR WATER J v TABLE PROBLEM AREAS EXISTINGLONGACRESL v< 0in 'egg yy' CC V DAJ DEVELOPMENT AREAS 1 v 4 r17 Q 4;.w PROPOSED 7w " < < ' • DEVELOPMENT AREAS 7 v < v c 4• LI A A , A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL I. DESIGNATION r A > < V r- I i L J < A v ; < Ar< •., r V I7,r J 7 7 , 4 14 • v v w V< A J r: A r L ,>y<, v ryI r < >< v J r 7 Q Q'g` I.A t" < " Lv L N 1 1.31 Av7r ^ A cej I,vca , A n r < w v r-`• l0 N r- c c J c J , w• t/I as- 6 v ' A V A . r i C‹ 7 L ,< 6e> I, > kr LI 3 Iry r 1> r w < A Ck 1v c w< , 't 3 I v > r' w L 4:r is A! 1 A >4 4 v I J wvvrl7 T> I"7 r `r L K.,,,o\., :: cco) ,,, / 1 ,c(i 1 tz5 0,\?7\ Bo 3 A. i , ,„, cb tzt ' TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE IVa OVER CASE la SR 900 7; 1 SW 7th St. V 15NNoiioC NNa). ai M `hi O ' raay4OO630 , 6 1b 1010 5_ • i5/ - nth 90 ` 3k o0 ED \14°/blibib, 1-405 • r- N SW 16th St. • ` 11 E340 ADT vpd lr 20 P.Mo PEAK HOUR vph itIW‘ . P SOILS OR WATER wr A A . 4 TABLE PROBLEM AREAS LONGACRES D 00 EXISTTNG I •••- N f DEVELOPMENT AREAS b7 . PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS _A P J 4 a..) AUSTIN CO. PARCEL vr ' DESIGNATIONV ) V^>d > L r w D L 6 , J< r ww< a 1,r : r , A I: r < 47 Ja Q a vlaJ . 0\4; L I rwv7r'^ wr Y, 7 V n J 1 r P 411 n R< < J c 4 > n• 3 I v , 4Y LL^ vrw><,r. Cr)_ f Al Y. r• .. L. w > Iv >cA w L'1 w r. t <ww )< < L 1 L : r L IL, r>< r ^ w s.c P L. v gr4c i I C31 3 9 / N ti O yL. // , , 370i ca 30 , i oil V TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE IIIa OVER CASE Hai. SR 9p p if V) al 1 SW 7th St. 3 in to1111: 4!;:jrtO ? no o; A5A •Grady Q yam a a j30s tip ; 3 5Wth 20601 ippL?i ?0 `ii °)/ OA)116.- fgri SW 16th t. 4 gam` ADT rrpd fl/IA 70-_-I_P.M. PEAK HOUR vph rir A SOILS OR WATER A y TABLE PROBLEM AREAS r.oL ) _-, V r`d<' ` n+ ..., 1, o pI EXISTINGLONGACRES6- -SAL;••• fnrIp i DEVELOPMENT AREAS J` J.....—e:. .-- PROPOSED A ' < ` ' A A J L Y• DEVELOPMENT AREAS J' vLV , • v , ' IA AUSTIN CO. PARCEL J. DESIGNATIONçiE•r:. A b a L r try 1. 1 P v A p, 4 c.., 0' C)\C:7 s. I,. . . . .t 4. .0, N. 1,y< t :' L A,JAI WI cil r—i v<< AV c + a n, as. V A v r c 1.accA ry r c A><'1 A Ali N I, L >< vta ) > 1L,( 1. 4 •'LJ A > c kr- V IA arA< J a L + y r A L J A 1. L. I r se, LV 7 L I, ,r T. r 4A S r. 1 J V Q o •V, 7 7 a I r- i„tp 11ab880Rscl-oo 1 13 I TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE IVa OVER CASE Ila Si.?900 • N SW 7th St. i 1 0. . °$,,Graa`J o 0 _ oSW ath 11Z o • _ °80 rcZO / o r 1-405 . . - E r1, 2f rd 9Y . a 800 3000 SW 16th St. 300 .. y IV)* DADT vpd P.M. 'PEAK HOUR vph 4 R r SOILS .OR WATERJLA A L rA. y` ' TABLE PROBLEM 'AREAS r <c c EXISTINGLONGACRES ,`Ly J< ^ E DEVELOPMENT AREASA ,r ^ .:: chi c A;„j„^< _ . ----- -- PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS J'Y[V r^,? ILA L A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL L y a1 DESIGNATIONV > V^'7 4 7 L • r ^ > L Y r • ti 7 >VL rV ry O\f,', F '\ ' rV >< J 7.7 V J Y7r rAL q t P v 7 r A ,. V r J r-- r V Ay ";c IX 1-3• Y L fV L Ar> A L-, A r., 7- IL r L y IJ V o L. r y M y 7 L r J 7 L j I' > ^ LJ 1 , r 1.- . i‘f‘i{(a/ f . . o a 34. . . _lo ._., , , ., . .. . r .. , . . . . 510 ; 7 as P.1 I\v)djs / 40 I r //..`"i>. .*.°. 7)0, >e. /' . o o f wry TRAFFIC INCREASE- CASE IVa' OVERCASE Ills I • SR 900 li LA 1SW 7th St. Q Q oaa` r,..„,:§‘,............„,,::':'15,, ,,..-3 au i/n0 SO k C‘i. pth St' s a S . 170 ' zz---,N° r, 405 b Ito y o=. I SW 16th St. 6 g7p ADT vpd4001_....,•_-_--------..- i1 s8j F.M. PEAK HOUR vph kig i I,,. S; ORAREASILSOR LONGACRES DA,;::: 1 ;:: c ; EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AREAS v r c r- b;,s __I,. PROPOSED IA 'I .,. ' Z/A DEVELOPMENT AREASAA.V I 7 v d `47: J , Airg A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL L Lv ' 9 a: DESIGNATION VA'a 7 L L. r < ^ v NA 4 r to- C A • / SW 27th St.7 4530 ' Proosed) 0i ' '3 : c;r., _,-..>. ...,-. ;:,, 0,,A\ r" Y IA V O ^ w7A AP V, rglc; O. v^ra^ Aaw nI tO r v a A V A V r C Q' r, CS A yr cA7<aw I) j L 1„.4 Vc) 1. 7 LI Ctd ^La w 7 r I.vr:s rA < w Irk r raAca ^< AA 7< < L. 1•, A v c r./A r.• r7<r J c v16:,v 7 1 v -t` 7 r V r i://f/111 '/ic\ke2 7/////I I I c, :\ ic,\*\ 120 1 ti 'ofl-* 43 p N. TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE Ilb OVER CASE Ib'\ 9ss.SR cr) ct; N. qzr r.......... SW 7th St. 1 IA 03 Ln, it) , Nvel ri A 2 s‘A isyt„..„1.!......,,,--- 0 ri,..j. gal ri°, 1,?.°....;', 9 , elPiiiiii.... /_405 11L.--,40-----rolorpr 1170 1 4". 400..........„.f ----"--------- .... 7 SW 16th St. .,,,,. 0 ..( 51 11114 6,31A0 490 ) ADT vpd 40 I P.M. PEAK HOUR vph Aq ...1-1,- f. SOILS OR WATER 4 • 4 A A 441 r El A .0•Pr•ir.....`.... 1 . 4 VI TABLE PROBLEM AREAS 7'.' ...I. ... C.r, EXISTINGLONGACRESl'11:1'46.4,•:::.:.t ........S' g 4) DEVELOPMENT AREAS 1,, „ .... .....4' 2 v 4?• i. V0. i PROPOSED• DEVELOPMENT PARCEL SW7 i 0 DESIGNATION N (Proposed) i .„ 5 T , 47.T.4'\ 14\ C'"Clo T'.. r•-• ..— C:G I \ 1_ '' ar,,:.4 7: LI::01 •-• Ce S-- vcA '1 , Av 1.-•• tip a) v" Ii<t:1 v r RI. 17:1 I: .r r 4><a p. C1)V) l• I...A, N4 11.1 0.... 4 1%. A A 3. r atr ri.,,.. A. , TI•IJ z1,..<74:: :< L. 11. : 7 A C::::L. .: 4 r 7 4,....„ A 1fv7 , NC:A*1 JZ. a• c I.n kl//°, , V//// v Yr 4:, cz 0 4 cu:ni 7; ta" 0 43.-)4.;.'" TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE Illb OVER CASE lbj • V ••• SR 900 . iii 1 Le; e; SW 7th St.Tr N lec, oi a; • a; • ,In m P:ki):..................„..add c 4( 30' V tz) .z.) It----, 1\i • 171) 5Q.i 1270 \ ADT vpd 13t:• 00- St:r.— A. 6: 1•°•°, . I405_ SW 16th St. c"—_ 1p211° 1- Pr 41111.% -'.. Ay 44Q \P.M. PEAK HOUR. vph 401:1000 T)0 1 A. A- t- • Ai 1:t1 SOILS OR WATER 4 ‘ A 4/.. , r TABLE PROBLEM AREAS 1 r• > ,. ", LONGACRES . ,. 4,1 -• J .,... lc)r,...cm EXISTING V s.-- 4 •.... ler.../c7,1 (NI . h DEVELOPMENT AREAS 4 ,1 , 4 -1 4 m. .,, - • r a.aa................... . PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS4 44.4%4 A. I..c A . 17".„‘,v ri'-a?'• 4 a ' Arf• 4 " 'f- ', A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL • I:- ,, . v , i _,I DESIGNATIONs. 7 4 , m 1, I Ic(51s1.7 800 N. r C/ C ' 40 ' A sopp. 0, roposed) il 115)1/1*24:4 CP\ fiC C2\f,n\, • 1:3 ,./ A< 4 7 . a) t''''I I• r't` t. t 1C)ut v 7 -/. 4 4 • t• 4/ r 1 1-* r•-• 1::;.' Fill,AL 4:<,.. 4..• ,L. A r-• 1 S- ' a" -, 4 433 r*Co 1 < 4 r 4., v 1 a a 1 y r I- r-te-r• . a)>' vt 4 4 l• A %. r r-it, 2_,,, .17 A.y.4(.).,1 W.cr) 4 11.. ,„, ‘..,.) I. 7+ ert: .I.i•-' i:si.- 1 ^ ',. icyr. >,,..,,, 1. A, a 4.L 4 a) L2vey ' r- ILA A >44 g• • 4 . 70. ,,,,a, r i . ; 1-4›..\,v„,..... rya f n. *• yr i/fif 7 1 1 7 / / i'- 0/rA \o\ o 1 t,,,ss, 0. /VAjt — „ ,- /.•.e - / .,.., 1 . c/O',47 TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE Illb OVER CASE Ilbi " a; Z. SW 7th St. Cl; S.' r N r90k_O 7.----- e:Will glis.7,rdiii6., urriasi.... A....... .141- 405.\ 1------------:------ 2- 0,T IP 170.,i, A ---- -------- ... stsi 16th St. ".• ;3_N41111 14;* 31//;,/ ii° A 570 ADT vpd 50 P.M. PEAK HOUR vph ipiriw V.- . r SOILS OR WATER 11. IA7^ ` 4^ '- Li/4771A .......,,,-.-''''''' I 4'd TABLE PROBLEM AREAS 017 7 EXISTING L ONGACRES Ir',- "1 A D 1.'-1 .:'' CC) ID '''''C••• •••h. DEVELOPMENT AREAS 1n 4 ,r c i .1 V d-........ r A 1:::-.I PROPOSED I'' 1 4 4 > • 1::::1 DEVELOPMENT AREASAA - AUSTIN CO. PARCEL r 1;v :,":„%.-'I DESIGNATION c.A r > .C. 1 I. v r• 4 4 , e5S>c) SW 27th St. I X: "zio0j :. Proposed) N , .0 /- 150 i : A --...........•. 2‘ CD.\ o•-, <3(1'-' J 4 C)\VI i\CO, 7:3 1 .0"..,Ac 1, 4 4 J, CD C31 ''''''''••••• ° rel\ r4 1\ a) > ,'4 1.• ,t, cis,t I-• al C4 % I __ I of s' V 7 r. Ar 1 Cfl Ifa. L. < t, a. x1:3 1 p ,•-' ^ - . r a. cc, 3.). r•- 1 11( ; V r L. 1.0 1 ... T-1 i.-. vj AV AVre CC I—. CO 11 "VT. CA><A, Au cn i• L ,LIr) r 3 cL I.jir qt- i '' 4A. ,. c, a) . r.:: I CA > c , g, 1,,^„,,..-;7> Vr 7 , v i ri„ff/Sr. „tks,„.): e:°:‘ f'/•''—/'/•. 7•• 2 1 ;), 9, ./ .1— a) 570 ,' 50 ' i\i'' ' • II '13714: TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE lVb OVER CASE •11:) SR 900 • U, QSW7thSt. N 1) ois'o,jai1. cnj aCUQOPoGrady a. 600 N 0 sg . Oth ° L oil ti o 900 al 16701sue--" y 130 SW 16th St. 90, ADTvpd J / so i A. P.M. PEAK HOUR vph 4 I. i,, L ^ SOILS OR WATER TABLE PROBLEM AREASwr `` w..rr— LONGACRES. _; `>D A`;: :. ::;o c..... EXISTING • in DEVELOPMENT AREAS XV . .-. ., '''- PROPOSED1•••• DEVELOPMENT AREASI, w • I-q 7 J 4 y< r d w 4Awf A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL r DESIGNATIONvwa, a r. J < r v_, `' P. SW 27th St. I 1\, 7r 1880 o (Proposed) 1o. L 140 A 1 N1i,/.6,. r J c J l C 1 v . CA< ^t N in' 6 w v 7 r w r y cO T' 4L' C7 o t >< y 1 a , N" c v c , i 11`^a r 8) r < r_•, 10 vIv w > 9 V r L r— - J w v w v r t' ram' lY 3• wr`y^ace( w.V) r` w > c i vcw < , c a r V A w t 4 ^ r L w N A G r> Jb> n 7 > N....1 v < (` r 4, 9.;if ' if r//, //; I fr ic:3)c, o a\ tfo° ' k?..\`' 40 744 .//.0. , x oo . 1,/ t TRAFFIC INCREASE CASE I V,b OVER CASE IIb j e.9.2„............pcSR11 11 Li) SW 7th St.\ czr r i. v.) ar s2,0 \ cradl b PC; c\, 4"-`• E en rn rn / ......._ SW 16th St. T. 9 0 0 ADT vpc1- i 1/4, e)/ Iny Aqt 401,15gi A P.M. PEAK HOUR vph tato 1 A 4 ar. SOILS OR WATER/0%%" 411.°. 1j- I,A ar. I. 1 ...1 V t .,•4......;%. TABLE PROBLEM AREAS c.,,P, EXISTINGLONGACRESI , . D ,..-•• ....g tri 7/ DEVELOPMENT AREAS 1 r. 4 , •••• ... rfli•• j. r r...-.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS i - 4 7 ' 14 ? : •• • ffg A AUSTIN CO. PARCEL I ';v :": 1, 41 ' DESIGNATION1 : l. P. •V yA 1 V Cc)41\CA\ 1Ofs -*•C •J r 7 L C:2\ W' I' \ I. i tL.n V 7 A 1:1 1 - V... I P.• 3' A t 4 p.43 r-- 4 r 4 4 t--.• k0 l< ::.: s. -. ..) ,, A ,„ „. , r— co 1,..,1:r. v: 1i...A,<.1 r. 4.)CI) krY6 , ", CIL I. :ir 1 I- A i• CU I. TA 4 A-4 ^ r..A ,< , . 4 ttl 1‘ 74- 1 r I. 7 A' 11...>;`,.1.p..1:-.-Ir. t v t C. cfIN i 1 L. vr.1: 0'; `• / 1 iy id/7;* , i t lc, 1/ • / _ 0 147P4h 1TRAFFICINCREASECASEIVbOVERCASEIllbi OF 'J t$ ® ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT z IA o RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 • 235-2540 04g2.. q#SEPIE BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR MEMORANDUM June 21, 1984 l TO: Maxine Motor, City Clerk FROM;/r'Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Austin Company Application, File SA-092-80 Valley Office Park II) The applicant, the Austin Company, has not followed through with this application for a. rezone. There has been no action on the application since March 26, 1981. Therefore, this application file is being transmitted to your office for placement in the permanent records. RJB:JMS:dm I I! J, Tf co- l T E AUST N 800 SOUTHWEST 16TH ST. COMPANY C y l `ii RENTON. WA 98085 PHONE: 206/226.8E100 TELEX: 910•423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS 223-01 AU-ST-IC-T377N3 March 26, 1981 Mr . Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner The City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton , Washington 98055 Subject : ERC Review/Valley Office Park II SA-092-80/ECF-602-80 Dear Mr . Blaylock : We are in receipt of your letter dated March 16, 1981, indicating that the Environmental Review Committee wishes additional comments from us on certain mitigating measures relating to the site development plan for the above mentioned project . Upon reviewing our previous correspondence , we find that we have addressed the majority of the issues (see letter attached dated February 6, 1981, Exhibit A) ; however , we take this opportunity to expand on our statements . 1. Construction of a pedestrian walkway on Lind Avenue Southwest between Southwest Grady Way and Southwest 16th Street . Lind Avehue , for the most part , has very narrow and steeply sloped shoulders which would present a problem in design and construction. This condition would , no doubt , warrant a post and cantilever type design. The bridge over Interstate 405 has three (3) foot wide sidewalks on either side which can' t be widened without reducing the roadway. Considering the small amount of pedestrian traffic which we have observed , we feel that this improvement could be delayed ; however , should the City of Renton feel differently, we would agree to participate in the cost of the sidewalk installation according to our pro-rata share of property owned in the Valley which would benefit from such an improvement. 2. Providing a traffic signal at the intersection of Lind Avenue- Southwest_ and Southwest 16th Street . elf). Mr . Roger J. Blaylock March 26, 1981 Page Two The signalization will apparently become necessary at somefuturedateasthesouthRentonareadevelops ; however , atthepresenttime , according to traffic studies as preparedbyChristopherBrownP. E. and Entranco Engineers, Inc . , theactualtrafficflowfromthevalley, plus a projectedtrafficflowfromtheproposedofficecomplex , would not warrant a traffic signal . Again , however , we would supportthecostofinstallingasignal , should it be deemed necessary. We would also assume that the cost would bedividedonapro-rata basis. 3. Widening of the southern leg of the intersection at Southwest Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest to includeleftandrighthandturnlanes . The Austin Company recognizes that the intersection of Southwest Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest is one of the ails facing the community. We would agree to participateinwideningLindAvenueSouthwesttoincorporatethe turning lanes on the south side although, according to thetrafficstudiesmentionedabove, it is felt that unless Grady Way and the intersection of Rainier and Grady Way areimproved ,- the work at Lind Avenue would be a needless expense . In any event, the work south of Grady Way on LindAvenuewouldbenefiteveryoneinthevalley, includingLongacres , while work on Grady Way and/or Rainier would benefit the entire city. 4. Location (approximate) of storm water drainage channel from property limit at East Valley Road to intersection of LindAvenueSouthwestandproposedSouthwest19thStreet. We are enclosing a sketch of the channel which we proposeforyourconsideration - see Exhibit B. - We thank the Committee for this additional opportunity of addressing the mitigating measures . Should you have questions regarding our response , please feelfreetocontactme . Very truly yours, R. D. Hemstreet Assistant District Manager EXHIBIT A f THEAUSTIN BOO SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET RENTON• WASHINGTON 00056 COMPANYTELEPHONE: 206/226-0600 TELEX, 910•423.0082DESIGNERS . ENGINEERS • BUILDERS February 6, 1981 ti Mr . David R. Clemens Acting Planning Director City! of Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Subject: Proposed Austin Company Development Application SA-092-80 Environmental Checklist ECF-602-80 Dear , Mr . Clemens: We are in receipt of the publication generated by the Environmental Review Committee in reference to our proposed development of Lot No . 1 of the property currently owned by Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc . The property is located between Lind Avenue Southwest and East Valley Road , and bounded on the north by Southwest 16th Street and on the south by Southwest 19th Street. We take this opportunity of thanking the committee for its position of openmindedness in offering us the opportunity to respond to certain measures which were deemed significant to the environment. I Since the concerns were listed in numerical order , we will respond to each according to the numbering system identified in the publication. 1. From the traffic study generated by Christopher Brown , P. E. copy enclosed) , we understand that the traffic does not meet the warrant__ critieria_ for a- traffic=signal at the intersection of Southwest 16th Street and Lind Avenue Southwest at this time, even considering a new four (4) building complex . However, should the traffic signal be deemed necessary, now or in the future, due to the further development of the valley, we would certainly endorse the improvement through paying our fair share of the costs. We assume these costs would be based upon a pro-rata of land owned in the valley. Mr . David R. Clements February 6, 1981 Page; Two 2. Ie concur that the intersection of Grady Way and LindAvenueSouthwestcouldbeconsideredabottleneck; however,the overriding consideration is the traffic flow on GradyWayitselfandtheeastandwestintersectionsoneithersideofLindAvenueSouthwest. We foresee that thecongestionatGradyWayandLindAvenueSouthwestcould bealleviatedtosomedegreebyprovisionofturninglanesfromLindAvenueontoGradyWay. As the valley develops ,this entire matter will become worse. We , therefore, wouldagreetoparticipateinimprovementasstatedunderaformulaasestablishedinitemNo . 1, above. 3. There is genuine concern , from many points of- view,regarding the pedestrian traffic now flowing on Lind AvenuefromSouthwestGradyWaytoSouthwest16thStreet. Many ofOuremployees, as well as those of other employers , utilizePublictransportation. During the winter months , thearrivalanddeparturetimesareinhoursofdarkness. Fortheprotectionofpedestrians, clear ., distinguishableWalkwaysshouldbeestablished . We are in accord to pay our share according to a pro-rata distribution system as mentioned in No . 1, above. I 4. We understand the eventual need of improving the bridge over 1-405; however , we understand that improvements to thebridge, without extensive work elsewhere to alleviate traffic would , no doubt, be fruitless. Again, should this development proceed based on the ultimate needs of theRentonValley, we would participate to the extent thatwouldbereasonablyexpectedofanylandownerinthe valley. 5. We understand that any development on this site must accommodate the storm drainage from other sites- untilL01.D. 314 becomes a reality. Therefore, we will address the problem as an integrated part of our development program. It is understood that when L. I.D. 314 is implemented , or other measures are taken, the importance of this matter will materially diminish or vanish altogether. 6. As a part of the initial development, a sidewalk along the east side of Lind Avenue Southwest from Southwest 16thStreettoapointapproximately600feetsouth , will be provided. 1 Mr.! David R. Clements February 6, 1981 Page Three 7. We plan to provide shower and dressing facilities at the extremities of at least one building for the benefit of joggers. In addition, a courtyard sidewalk system will beavailableforpassiverecreation, together with benches forthosewhowishtocontemplatenature. We feel that the existing walkways on Lind Avenue , west side, are sufficientforthepresentandfuturejoggers. We hope that the mitigating measures, as addressed above, willallowtheEnvironmentalReviewCommitteetoissueadeclarationofnon-significance. Should the committee require additional supportive information concerning any of the mitigatingmeasures, we would be most pleased to discuss them. Very truly yours , 64-r, Paul's S. Chiado Vice: President and District Manager PS C:d t Q/ I 1‘ P jt.______________._---------j- • • - 5,..y. v..A1:.,:*!:---"- -Eriggrft ftp ..... , I 7/......... n 1 1 s_111[.. i-'-----*--' 111.13•2123 I er coararamr 1.0•ZRC.211 1 kti..479 n u..,111.1.1 ri Gt.=MC ti 1 1 1 i 1- 11 - ILI Q (/ PUCQ; Ir-----..-. ir 1.. 0 le. x. 0.01...11k111. • I MP co-oamareva 15 I E.— -] I / i -, 3P.4 5 its.es 4 Il I voe ip .- i 1:=3 I qp i 1 0 c_p0 k"11 i -" I n°Pt CeolL Veit r • . 1 r=1 C=3 C=i i Z 7-eigcr ki,S . z K.. 1 4 O. I al 0 eanneayst ecorotacma. 4t atm.as MTN CetlaosArt aZ; yr,. 5 ChWitWeee, - ' IN i----'-e - if el I 1 71-7..- 7-- - 7: 4.e'' 41!',4,471,- -, ,4F.4 -e'44--4,- Stri II r. A., 1'.,,.-: r r r -,7, 1.11106. ——1t'OP 436,t5 CA,Atel. i 11 "410, 11:, (4 U71 1 ; 1 g. CBI• 161INTOft I. 450 . I iiir Pill i i 1.4]. t - " ---i - PLATE . 1. 7 I Ilt ;It" An THE AUSTIN i COMPANY I I 1\ oaoaemairio•ePISZINIVM•out 1 December 30, 1981 Mr. R. A. Grafer, Project Manager The Austin Company 800 S.W. 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Grafer: On April 20, 1981 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Final Declaration of Non-Significance for your proposed .four two-story office buildings located at the southwest corner of Lind Avenue S.W. & S.W. 16th Street. This Declaration was provisioned upon several mitigating measures (see attached). To date no particular agreement has been reached on these items. Unless you contact this office by January 20, 1982 to resolve these matters, your application (SA-092-80) will be considered an expired file and a new application must be submitted. If you have any questions, contact this department at 235-2550 or 235-2540. Sincerely, Roger L. Blaylock Zoning Administrator RLB/SM/mp Encl. V Affidavit of Publication 1, STATE OF WASHINGTON A•!' COUNTY OF KING SS. 0p 3g$ 4 Nc- gocagim § P. .- aQMicheleRoebeingfirstdulysworn(` ° c. ur co she Chief Clerk a m E Noath,deposes and says that is the c2o o=*- oco THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE,a newspaper published six(6)times 2. c c 0 g.0 °'I' au week.That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has beet !o o CC N o i Dr G. for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred tii fr A d,0. 2 a I G printed and published in the English language continually as a newspapc a,-j a c,N w.§.a col 72 published four(4)times a week in Kent,King County,Washington,and it now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at ti 0., V)o aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper.That the Daily Recur N • F ui F- o ooN z Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superb 9 c.;z• w m o z Court of the County in which it is published, to-wit, King County, a- ° 2 01 c° • co m.c >S7^o-mac-m UtOQZ WwmiCO N=Washington.That the annexed is a.2[Qt.7.C e m 0 w o / p F.5—n- Z-aYor 0 R6L 82 E 0-k—<< o °&ra a d 0 0 0 W) as it was published in regular issues(ar E co a) 0 co N not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a perk 0)., to Ow 8.15 o 1 rL= toc-0 WJ- ,No of consecutive issues,commencing on th 3 u;' o fs c ci 20 day of April 19 81 and ending th 3 a m¢ m o.. E cut Z8cboo'O day of 19 ,bothdate"'g` m§g ZLL o inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub o 28 o N a..W E ccn .dscribersduringallofsaidperiod. That the full amount of the re, 82.912 • eO ymoV z cc 6 eoOb W 39.96 orn30mo (? oao.. m O m•a8Qt my OQOchargedfortheforegoingpublicationisthesumof $ whiclo c 0 0,s m....= c c_c o ti Et e has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words forth• E ~ N o co 0 0 0 o 11.1 Z c o c.U v c ni Uri U: first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequen c •o,o o h ° c 0 ti. o •m c ro 5 w v c w c w-m co W F ainsertion. o- o 0 n `- 0 c'C ec a=0 o m W cA c Eo, a o c' U. m 0 o c o o w- cxQ c L - c'.;o"mocamo " wny O,-. 1I,! 1 Qmm ° F tWQ`i3— E2—o w °m p, g t 3 D (9 o U 5 o- Z- Qh .E' Clerk 0, 0,, ... c cm=' •LL m oUto°O -¢,S a a. ..- c= 0 0,0 E Q OniU a".cg 6t— oc•-WOa E cal .E coo 3 m5 cc ace:° W,43 >.E V6A 20a Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23 day of z o o V Q W(~ 73U mAit , 19 8l o Q aL oz1-z2= mW o C/:,?,„C / Wgz.Ncm g ..0 UZgZV¢ o c a.., Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, O¢0 -'>'E c i ¢' residing at King County.Z 5lZ Z w E c fO N zWj>-O o e c a¢Au urn wowwz m0,..9m0°9 Passed by the Legislature,1955,known as Senate Bill 281,effective June 0 c 2 w 9th, 1955. Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. ge_/-Z .f-% 7 . 77,/47,-/,‘,77(...e.C.. .--e--or..---( 6 .€4 ..r4.) V.P.C.Form No.07 Rev.7.79 Y /.— 1 Pi' ' ' Ai' '14y `47 4-"' 4 : $" tom, ` r' f4, f if' S •"R. '::fir r'.. Bµ, 1, t tg k. P. .. R`!s a' s [ '*` •e"t ,,c SSi, E Try ti, myr , t • ^"+ .„ c # j :; fit ` " litY,'y, it ' S'4 *.[,, - f:',. jilk f ,.. R h• i PROPOSE gc ACTION SITE APPROVAL FOR FOUR TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING COMPLEXES, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS L LE NO A. SA-O92®8O ENERAL LOCATION A '°: ;0 OR AO••RESS SOUTHFASTIORNER OF SW. LIND AVENUE AND S a a iTH STREET DaTE Et Twoy P !NTT 1 F INFTE .6 Er E '.4 A,CTOON. THE CITY ®F - E a9TON EN'VORON NTAL REVIEW MITTEE C E..R.r,.3 HAS E I' .4E0 THAT THE P is k*SET, A TODRI2 0$ it ES m HAVE A Ie I I tT A? V .' E IM A TH E IRDN— E.QJggp 49 p9. Er V ONME , .L IMP T TAB NT3 ILL AN APPEAL F THE AEI VE *ETERMINATI 1' `Aif OE FLED VVIT,:v THE ' T id,—EARI XA.\ -'RIMER Y 6:CO [P.V6.9 MAY 4TH,A 1981 FOR FURTHER I FO IVIATION CO T..A CT THE CITY' OF RENTON PLANNING' DEPARTMENTENT 23S-2560,3 DO .NOT REIVIOVE TI-VIS ifv TOLE rr', `t' u ,,., ICI PER .A T"' 1_3" I AT D NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declara- tion of non-significance for the following projects: 1. BROADACRES, INC. (ECF-032-81) Application for special permit for excavation (10,000 cubic yards) and grading to allow development of training track (20,000 cubic yards) for race horses and construction of pathway within existing barn area for access from barns to training track, file SP-031-81; property located on the northwest corner, north parking lot , and southeast barn area parking lot of Longacres Racetrack facility. 2. CITY OF RENTON (ECF-038-81) Application for environmental review of Adult Entertain- ment Land Use Ordinance The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has furhter issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following projects, subject to conditions : 1 . NORTHWEST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY (AUSTIN COMPANY) ECF-602-80) Application for site approval for four two-story office building complexes, file SA-092-80; property located on the southwest corner of S.W. Lind Ave. and S.W. 16th St . 2. STONEBRIDGE COMPANY (LOUIS MALESIS) (ECF-026-81) Application for special permit approval to construct a 30-unit townhouse apartment complex, file SP-025-81; property located on the east end of N.E. 16th St . and east of Kirkland Ave. N.E. 3. CHAMPION HEIGHTS (LANDMARK ENGINEERING) (ECF-034-81) Application for tentative plat approval of six-lot single family subdivision, file 028-81; property located at No. 26th St . and Pelly Pl. No. Further information regarding these actions is available in the Planning Department , Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by May 4, 1981. Published: April 20, 1981 SI"-- THE AUSTIN 800 SOUTHWEST 16TH ST, RENTON, WA 98055 COM PANY PHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS 223-01 AU-ST-IC-T377N3 March 26, 1981 f ; Mr . Roger J. Blaylock p 1g1 Associate Planner U 3 wJ The City of Renton z 200 Mill Avenue South Renton , Washington 98055 r+. Q' Subject : ERC Review/Valley Office Park II SA-092-80/ECF-602-80 Dear Mr . Blaylock : We are in receipt of your letter dated March 16, 1981, indicating that the Environmental Review Committee wishes additional comments from us on certain mitigating measures relating to the site development plan for the above mentioned project . Upon reviewing our previous correspondence , we find that we have addressed the majority of the issues (see letter attached dated February 6, 1981 , Exhibit A) ; however , we take this opportunity to expand on our statements . 1. Construction of a pedestrian walkway on Lind Avenue Southwest between Southwest Grady Way and Southwest 16th Street . Lind Avenue , for the most part , has very narrow and steeply sloped shoulders which would present a problem in design and construction . This condition would , no doubt , warrant a post and cantilever type design. The bridge over Interstate 405 has three (3) foot wide sidewalks on either side which can ' t be widened without reducing the roadway. Considering the small amount of pedestrian traffic which we have observed , we feel that this improvement could be delayed ; however , should the City of Renton feel differently, we would agree to participate in the cost of the sidewalk installation according to our pro-rata share of property owned in the Valley which would benefit from such an improvement. 2. Providing a traffic signal at the intersection of Lind Avenue Southwest and Southwest 16th Street . R 13 \\\\W 4/' 6 Mr . Roger J. Blaylock March 26, 1981 vING r, Page Two The signalization will apparently become necessary at some future date as the south Renton area develops ; however , at the present time , according to traffic studies as prepared by Christopher Brown P. E. and Entranco Engineers , Inc . , the actual traffic flow from the valley, plus a projected traffic flow from the proposed office complex , would not warrant a traffic signal . Again , however , we would support the cost of installing a signal , should it be deemed necessary. We would also assume that the cost would be divided on a pro-rata basis . 3. Widening of the southern leg of the intersection at Southwest Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest to include left and right hand turn lanes . The Austin Company recognizes that the intersection of Southwest Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest is one of the ails facing the community. We would agree to participate in widening Lind Avenue Southwest to incorporate the turning lanes on the south side although, according to the traffic studies mentioned above , it is felt that unless Grady Way and the intersection of Rainier and Grady Way are improved , the work at Lind Avenue would be a needless expense . In any event , the work south of Grady Way on Lind Avenue would benefit everyone in the valley, including Longacres , while work on Grady Way and/or Rainier would benefit the entire city. 4. Location (approximate) of storm water drainage channel from property limit at East Valley Road to intersection of Lind Avenue Southwest and proposed Southwest 19th Street . We are enclosing a sketch of the channel which we propose for your consideration - see Exhibit B. We thank the Committee for this additional opportunity of addressing the mitigating measures . Should you have questions regarding our response , please feel free to contact me . Very truly yours , i( 9- &--2471--a;q4 R. D. Hemstreet Assistant District Manager RDH:dt attch . EXHIBIT A ai- THE AUSTIN BOO SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET M V RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 COM PAN TELEPHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0B82 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS February 6, 1981 RE . t(=. 6V_D (-)1,k 0 Mr . David R. Clemens WO 9 1981 Acting Planning Director 1S-1/::--;" City of RentonPlanningDepartment 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Subject: Proposed Austin Company Development Application SA-092-80 Environmental Checklist ECF-602-80 Dear Mr . Clemens: We are in receipt of the publication generated by the Environmental Review Committee in reference to our proposed development of Lot No . 1 of the property currently owned by Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc . The property is located between Lind Avenue Southwest and East Valley Road , and bounded on the north by Southwest 16th Street and on the south by Southwest 19th Street. We take this opportunity of thanking the committee for its position of openmindedness in offering us the opportunity to respond to certain measures which were deemed significant to the environment. Since the concerns were listed in numerical order , we will respond to each according to the numbering system identified in the publication. 1. From the traffic study generated by Christopher Brown , P. E. copy enclosed) , we understand that the traffic does not • meet the warrant critieria for a traffic signal at the intersection of Southwest 16th Street and Lind Avenue Southwest at this time , even considering a new four (4) building complex . However , should the traffic signal be deemed necessary, now or in the future , due to the further development of the valley, we would certainly endorse the improvement through paying our fair share of the costs. We assume these costs would be based upon a pro-rata of land owned in the valley. f..l deb) 01,\ w s® 19g1 Mr . David R. Clements February 6, 1981 Page Two Ci4 NG ©EQ 2. We concur that the intersection of Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest could be considered a bottleneck; however , the overriding consideration is the traffic flow on Grady Way itself and the east and west intersections on either side of Lind Avenue Southwest . We foresee that the congestion at Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest could be alleviated to some degree by provision of turning lanes from Lind Avenue onto Grady Way. As the valley develops , this entire matter will become worse . We , therefore, would agree to participate in improvement as stated under a formula as established in item No . 1, above. - 3. There is genuine concern, from many points of view, regarding the pedestrian traffic now flowing on Lind Avenue from Southwest Grady Way to Southwest 16th Street. Many of our employees, as well as those of other employers , utilize public transportation. During the winter months, the arrival and departure times are in hours of darkness. For the protection of pedestrians , clear , distinguishable walkways should be established . We are in accord to pay our share according to a pro-rata distribution system as mentioned in No . 1, above. 4. We understand the eventual need of improving the bridge over I-405; however , we understand that improvements to the bridge, without extensive work elsewhere to alleviate traffic would , no doubt, be fruitless . Again, should this development proceed based on the ultimate needs of the Renton Valley, we would participate to the extent that would be reasonably expected of any land owner in the valley. 5. We understand that any development on this site must accommodate the storm drainage from other sites until L. I.D. 314 becomes a reality. Therefore , we will address the problem as an integrated part of our development program. It is understood that when L. I.D. 314 is implemented , or other measures are taken, the importance of this matter will materially. diminish or vanish altogether. 6. As a part of the initial development, a sidewalk along the east side of Lind Avenue Southwest from Southwest 16th Street to a point approximately 600 feet south, will be provided. 1 Mr . David R. Clements d - / 1 February 6, 1981 e4 4 Page Three N/j11VG DE'i 7. We plan to provide shower and dressing facilities at the extremities of at least one building for the benefit of joggers. In addition, a courtyard sidewalk system will be available for passive recreation, together with benches for those who wish to contemplate nature . We feel that the existing walkways on Lind Avenue , west side , are sufficient for the present and future joggers. We hope that the mitigating measures , as addressed above, will allow the Environmental Review Committee to issue a declaration of non—significance,. Should the committee require additional supportive information concerning any of the mitigating measures, we would be most pleased to discuss them. Very truly yours , Paul S. Chiado Vice President and District Manager PSC:dt t 1 ACCE.SyR_SE_VIA_Y:_IN_______TER.StATE_LISL._4_0..:S . . L_______-_—_.. 1-...r.",..li...,-_::-___-__:-...1 --------• - -:-.-=______77.--____---.. .. --. To BEL"..-vut- ' 41-- - 1-----.T.a y....--.-.-.-.--.---.- ...-.)VI . COMANV 1.040,04119 1 1 s A C=1 HOLMES 3 LWILFI i it._ 7 a. I Ora•'MIMS i Z...1-!-":-— -______ _. ;•-,,,,_-..—_-..--.-_,Sy1_ 16144 ST.—-..- ---.- k_ KIVOMoTtvt ii Ift/Clet i I,k2V:CILJ 1 I 1:1 ' I I I a i 1 X 52,, 1 0 1 0 0 0 ! 1 V.D. e I PII. Islop 4 711 ; r5e9X C l,11.. c=i ca 1=7, I i rex/c 7 41 I 51 r 0 •• I v 4°Z.'""`"ert.7.7"- 4 0 e is.b' I 01/4 5% i 0 Z; 3 Chl#49.0)5L i; lEx,24 p/Re 5 I- 11i -1.7 0 Alr-ArArAr 4W 0 SW 191h ST I 6 on, ,l;n OA' 4. 1/7 .,:" airmato -7. u 7 . TA 07/ i i49/scivAte4,6- ,21124” 4- 1 I N-/P7. I. N-,!,11fi:NT z 7 •11.,1 EXHI Btik., iII JL_ f 14. _SITE PLAN ss• 1 PLATE 1 L I . 11, I \ THE AUSTIN i COMPANY DEM •CNCIINIMI••otmosies avr MTHE AUSTIN 800 SOUTHWEST 16TH S . yy//,, / RENTON. WA 98055 V COMPANYPHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS z23-o1 AU-ST-IC-T377N3 C March 18, 1981 r 16: City of Renton 4` M .9 Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South IP " "`""""""'"' ....• Renton , Washington 98055 sk: • d Attention : Mr . David R. Clemens Acting Planning Director Subject : City of Renton Wetlands Study Gentlemen : During our meeting held in your office on February 19, 1981 , we discussed with you various topics concerning the ultimate development of our land . One of these was the pond situated in the southeast corner of our property immediately north of proposed Southwest 19th Street. It was stated that you hoped that we would be able to find some means of developing the southern portion of the plot so that all or a portion of the pond could be preserved . While this could be a possibility, its fit into financially viable solutions for development is dubious . For this reason , we included in our booklet, addressed to the Environmental Review Committee and dated February 23, 1981, alternate methods of handling storm water runoff and the disposition of the pond . It was felt that the proposed solutions alleviated the Hearing Examiner ' s requirement to maintain an easement on our property. The property where the pond is located indicates the remains of fence lines which lead one to believe that this property was farmed at one time . The sole reason for the pond being formed or enlarged , as we now see it , stems from a probable original underdesign and recent blockage of the culverts under Lind Avenue . Our proposals would cure the situation. Because of the above , we are surprised to learn that the re-issue of the "Wetlands Study" still refers to our property as a possible wetlands preservation. City of Renton March 18, 1981 Page 2 We have also discussed the possibility of trading our + five 5) acre plot south of Southwest 19th Street , adjacent to East Valley Road , to the City of Renton to be retained as wetlands in return for your tract located at the southeast intersection of Southwest 19th Street and Lind Avenue . This would allow the City of Renton to accomplish its aim as stated in the "Wetlands Study" , dated February, 1981, Page 21 - Unit B --- East Valley Wetlands. The prevention of placing speculative fill in the valley, as presented at the Town Meeting of March 3, 1981, would greatly hinder efforts to develop any type of construction project due to the unacceptable time elements introduced by beginning a project with the fill application. It is our experience that clients are simply not willing to wait long periods of time to locate in new facilities when the need arises . The City of Renton and Austin would be equally disappointed to have this potential migrate to other surrounding communities . Again , we thank you for the opportunity to express our feelings regarding the development of the City of Renton. Very truly yours , R. D. Hemstreet Assistant District Manager RDH: jd 1 evw OF R4, THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 9€055 I4% 0. amars o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9,® 235- 2550 o gr sEP Etsi'® March 16, 1981 Mr. Richard Hemstreet Austin Company 800 S .W. 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 RE : ERC REVIEW VALLEY OFFICE PARK II SA•-•092-80 ECF-602-80 Dear Mr . Hemstreet : The Environmental Review Committee has re-evaluated their pro- posed Declaration of Significance issued on January 25 , 1981 , for the 200 ,000 square foot , Valley Office Park II complex and modified and clarified the mitigating measures to read as follows : 1) Construction of a pedestrian walkway between S .W. Grady Way and the proposed complex ; 2) Signalization of the intersection of S.W. 16th Street and Lind Avenue S .W. ; 3) Improvement of the south and west legs of the inter- section of S.W. Grady Way and Lind Avenue S .W. ; and 4) Designation of a storm water drainage channel across the southern portion of the 40-acre, short-plat site . The Environmental Review Committee would appreciate your written comments prior to the issuing a final declaration . The item has been placed on the agenda as a pending item to be brought up as soon as you reply . Letter to Mr. Hemsi et SA-092-80/ECF-60 2-1.., Page Two;, March 16, 1981 Any future development of office complexes in the valley beyond this complex will severly tax the transportation facilities . If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at 235-2550 . Sincerely , VVolot,(:11 :711:511.16-& Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner RJB :gh THE AUSTIN 800 SOUTHWEST 16TH ST. RENTON, WA 98055 COMPANY PHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS 223-01 AU-ST-1C-T377N3 February 17, 1981 Mr . Roger J. Blaylock Associate Planner City of Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Subject : Environmental Review Committee Dear Mr . Blaylock : Thank you for your letter of February 13, 1981, concerning our proposed development of Lot #1 of Short Plat 085-80. It is our intention to develop Lot #1 (12. 3 acres) and design arid construct a four (4) building complex on the property housing approximately two hundred thousand (200, 000) sq ft . The space will be equally divided amongst four two-story buildings . We intend to construct all four (4) buildings in a single phase . In addition , the property will be designed to accommodate the necessary parking to meet City of Renton requirements , and to meet mitigating measures for landscaping and recreation as per our previous correspondence. The traffic studies , previously submitted , indicate that the impact of the four (4) building complex has such little effect on the current roadway system that changes are not required at this time . We have also stated , in previous correspondence , that we would be willing to participate in future roadway improvements , on a fair share basis , as the valley develops . We thank you for the opportunity of submitting this additional information, and trust that our response will allow the Committee to render a decision of non-significance. Very truly yours, e745,1441,d(0--- Paul . Chiado ElEig1:7f11 Vice President and its.) District Manager 4 PSC :dt DET,--,% OF I A y 0 SHE CITY OF RENTONt$z M CIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n IMMO BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0- 235- 2550 P0, 917'4'0 SEPT February 13, 1981 Paul S. Chiado Vice President and District Manager The Austin Company 800 Southwest 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1981 Dear Mr. Chiado: The Environmental Review Committee during the past four months has been considering environmental determination for Austin Company' s proposed project. It is unclear at this time what that specific project is. The Committee would like a clarification of the project and if there are any phases involved in that project. In addition, if there are phases involved in that project, please be specific and designate which mitigating traffic measures your company would be willing to undertake at each phase of construction. The Committee would like to make a final determination at their meeting of February 18th. Comments can be submitted back to us until 5: 00 p.m. on February 17th. Very truly yours, Lfi R gLr J. /Blayloc _erert, Associate Planner RJB:wr a THE AUSTIN 800 SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 COMPANY TELEPHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS February 6, 1981 7. ® } 77c)-u Mr . David R. Clemens FEB 6 1981ActingPlanningDirector 1 City of Renton tt Planning Department 9 v 200 Mill Avenue South 4y9 S Renton, Washington 98055 i/ DEA Subject: Proposed Austin Company Development Application SA-092-80 Environmental Checklist ECF-602-80 Dear Mr . Clemens : We are in receipt of the publication generated by the Environmental Review Committee in reference to our proposed development of Lot No . 1 of the property currently owned by Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc . The property is located between Lind Avenue Southwest and East Valley Road , and bounded on the north by Southwest 16th Street and on the south by; Southwest 19th Street . We take this opportunity of thanking the committee for its position of openmindedness in offering us the opportunity to respond to certain measures which were deemed significant to the environment. Since the concerns were listed in numerical order , we will respond to each according to the numbering system identified in the publication. 1. From the traffic study generated by Christopher Brown , P. E. copy enclosed) , we understand that the traffic does not meet the warrant critieria for a traffic signal at the intersection of Southwest 16th Street and Lind Avenue Southwest at this time , even considering a new four (4) building complex . However , should the traffic signal be deemed necessary, now or in the future , due to the further development of the valley, we would certainly endorse the improvement through paying our fair share of the costs . We assume these costs would be based upon a pro-rata of land owned in the valley. Mr . David R. Clements February 6, 1981 Page Two 2. We concur that the intersection of Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest could be considered a bottleneck; however , the overriding consideration is the traffic flow on Grady Way itself and the east and west intersections on either side of Lind Avenue Southwest . We foresee that the congestion at Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest could be alleviated to some degree by provision of turning lanes from Lind Avenue onto Grady Way. As the valley develops , this entire matter will become worse . We , therefore , would agree to participate in improvement as stated under a formula as established in item No . 1, above. 3. There is genuine concern, from many points of view, regarding the pedestrian traffic now flowing on Lind Avenue from Southwest Grady Way to Southwest 16th Street. Many of our employees , as well as those of other employers , utilize public transportation. During the winter months , the arrival and departure times are in hours of darkness. For the protection of pedestrians , clear , distinguishable walkways should be established . We are in accord to pay our share according to a pro-rata distribution system as mentioned in No . 1, above. 4. We understand the eventual need of improving the bridge over I-405; however , we understand that improvements to the bridge, without extensive work elsewhere to alleviate traffic would , no doubt , be fruitless . Again, should this development proceed based on the ultimate needs of the Renton Valley, we would participate to the extent that would be reasonably expected of any land owner in the valley. 5. We understand that any development on this site must accommodate the storm drainage from other sites until L. I.D. 314 becomes a reality. Therefore , we will address the problem as an integrated part of our development program. It is understood that when L. I.D. 314 is implemented , or other measures are taken, the importance of this matter will materially diminish or vanish altogether . 6. As a part of the initial development, a sidewalk along the east side of Lind Avenue Southwest from Southwest 16th Street to a point approximately 600 feet south, will be provided . c. r Q Mr . David R. Clements February 6, 1981 Page Three 7. We plan to provide shower and dressing facilities at the extremities of at least one building for the benefit of joggers . In addition, a courtyard sidewalk system will be available for passive recreation, together with benches for those who wish to contemplate nature. We feel that the existing walkways on Lind Avenue , west side , are sufficient for the present and future joggers. We hope that the mitigating measures , as addressed above, will allow the Environmental Review Committee to issue a declaration of non-significance. Should the committee require additional supportive information concerning any of the mitigating measures , we would be most pleased to discuss them. Very truly yours , C-7:? 0?615f4-24r- Paul S. Chiado Vice President and District Manager PSC:dt Public Notice Public Notice NOTICE OF for the following projec;: ENVIRONMENTAL 1. NORTHWEST COM- DETERMINATION MERCIAL REAL ESTATE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY(AUSTIN COM- REVIEW COMMITTEE PANY(ECF-602-80) RENTON,WASHINGTON Application for site ap-The Environmental Re proval for four two-story of- view Committee (ERC) has iice buiidinb complexes;fileIssuedafinaldeclareonoSA-092-80;properly located non-significance for the fol• on the southwest corner of lowing projects: S.W. Lind Ave. and S.W. 1.MT.OLIVET CEMETERti 16th St. CO. (ECF-567-80) Subject to the followingApplicationforspecieconditionsforproposedde-. permit to fill and grade 11. daratlon of non-signifi- acre expansion area, file canoe: SP-047-80;property iocatec a)Traffic impacts at S.W. north and east of existing Mt 16th St.and Lind Ave.S.W. Olivet Cemetery, east o signal. N.E.3rd St.in the vicinity o b) Traffic capacity im- 100 Blaine Ave. N.E. provements on S.W. Grady2. PACIFIC NORTHWES1 Way and Lind Ave. S.W. BELL(ECF-630-80) c)Pedestrian access from Application for Shoreline S.W. Grady Way and Lind Management Substantia Ave.S.W. Development Permit, file d) Contribution to 1-405 SM-86-80, to install 18 incl bridge improvement. steel OD casing pipe within e)Appropriate open drain- the Bronson Way Bridge, ago and wetland preserve- property located on the lion. Cedar River immediately f) Perimeter off-site im- west of City of Renton provements. Municipal Building. gg)Plans to mitigate recre- 3. RENTON VILLAGE atiional impacts. VETERINARY SUPPLY Further information re- COMPANY(ECF-646-80) garding this action is avail- Application for rezone able in the Planning Depart-from GS-1 and R-4 to B-1 to merit, Municipal Building,perinit parking for commer- Renton, Washington, 235- cial uses,the R-137-80;pro- 2550. Any appeal of ERC party located on east side of action must be filed with the Talbot Road South,south of Hearing Examiner by Feb-FAI-405 and north of Puget ruary 8, 1981. Drive South. Published in the Daily Re-4. DURWOOD BLOOD cord C'vonicle on JanuaryECF-001-81) 25, 1981. R6348 Application for rezone from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of ten townhouse condominium units,file R-O0i-81;property located on the south side of M.E. 14th St.approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Ave. N.E. 5.CITY OF RENTON(ECF- 001-81) Application for exemption from the Shoreline Manage- ment Substantial Develop- ment Permit, file SME-002- 82, to allow maintenance dredging of 1.2 miles of the Cedar River (75,000 cubic yards); property located from the mouth of the River to the Logan Street bridge. 6.W ILUAM TSAO AND CO. POITRAS)(ECF-005-81) Application for site ap- proval to allow construction of a 12,000 square foot shopping center including three stores,file SA-008-81; property located on the south side of N.E. 4th St. approximately 600 feet west of Union Avenue N.E. The Environmental Re- view Committee(ERC)has further issued a proposed declaration of significance 1I-o92- t3 T 410ryh r{ ESA y'r. y D. 4. .'A •1111 4L' ' '1 I 0 N PROPOSED ACTIN PROPOSE} PECTI-NRA 'ION IGNIFICANCE — SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS GENERAL LQCATI N AND •io R ADDRESS PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF S.W. LIND AVE. AND S.W. 16TH STREET e-ERSONF.3 OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON EWE',`DNMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE C E.R.C.3 :AS is ETE MINED THAT THE PR * POSED ACTION, k ES NOT, HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIREDN-. MENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, DW!LL 0 ILL NOT, BE REQUIRE * . A °. APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY S:DO P.M., FEBRUARY 8, 1981 FAR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF REI V PLA'`, NING DEPARTMENT 235-255D DO N 0{T REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION I , EaTHE AUSTIN 800 SOUTHWEST 16TH ST. RENTON. WA 98055 COMPANY PHONE: 206/226-8800 TELEX: 910.423.0882 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS 223-01 AU-ST-IC-T377N3 January 22 , 1981 Mr . David R. Clements Acting Planning Director City of Renton 200 Mill Road South Renton , WA 98055 Subject : Correction to , Application for Site Approval Number SA-092-80 , Filing Date 9-8-80 Northwest Commercial Real Estate Company Renton , Washington Dear Mr. Clements : The above referenced application is for development of Lot 1 of Valley Office and Industrial . Park , Subdivision No . 2 . Item No . 4 of the application contains a typographical - error of 28 . 3 acres to be developed . Please correct this to read 12 . 3 . acres . We will appreciate this correction being made prior to being presented to the Hearing Examiner . Very truly yours , TH AU 'TIN COM> NY 14;6. Wesle Butcher Project Coordinator cc : on Nelson oF Richard C . Houghton C0 P,riF 1f D o JAN 26 19,91 DEP A CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION SITE APPROVAL OR OFFICE .USE ONLY ile No. SA- Filing Date pplication Fee $ Receipt No. nvironmental Review Fee $ PPLICANT TO COM1DLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH .6 : Name Northwest Commercial Real Estate Company Phone 72 -RRnn Address ROO Southwest 16th Strpat RPni-nn . wacl,inston 9805.5 Property location Southwest co u-r of Sov±hwest T,i nr9 AvPnnP anA Southwest 16th Street, Renton, Washington Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) Lot 1 of Valley Office & Industrial Park, Subdivision No. 2. 1z .3 Number of acres or square eet -4.1 Present zoning H-l . What do you propose to de elop on this prope y? Office Rnilc9ings The following information shall be submitted with this application: A. Site and access plan (include setbacks , Scale existing structures , easements , and other factors limiting development) 1" = 10 ' or 20' B. Parking, landscaping and screening plan 1" = 10 ' . C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning on adjacent parcels) 1" = 200' to 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ACTION: Date Approved Date Denied NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON , WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following projects : 1 . MT. OLIVET CEMETERY CO. (ECF-567-80) Application for special permit to fill and grade 11 -acre expansion area , file SP-047-80; property located north and east of existing Mt. Olivet Cemetery, east of N.E. 3rd St. in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Ave. N. E. 2 . PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL (ECF-630-80) Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, file SM-86-80 , to install 18 inch steel OD casing pipe within the Bronson Way Bridge; property located on the Cedar River immediately west of City of Renton Municipal Building. 3 . RENTON VILLAGE VETERINARY SUPPLY COMPANY (ECF-646-80) Application for rezone from GS-1 and R-4 to B-1 to permit parking for commercial uses , file R-137-80 ; property located on east side of Talbot Road South, south of FAI-405 and north of Puget Drive South. 4 . DURWOOD BLOOD (ECF-001 -81 ) Application for rezone from R-1 to R-2 to permit future construction of ten townhouse condominium units , file R-001 -81 ; property located on the south side of N.E. 14th St. approximately 130 feet west of Edmonds Ave. N.E. 5 . CITY OF RENTON (ECF-002-81 ) Application for exemption from the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit , file SME-002-81 , to allow maintenance dredging of 1 . 2 miles of the Cedar River (75 , 000 cubic yards) ; property located from the mouth of the River to the Logan Street bridge. 6 . WILLIAM TSAO AND CO. (POITRAS) (ECF-005-81 ) Application for site approval to allow construction of a 12 ,000 square foot shopping center including three stores , file SA-008-81 ; property located on the south side of N. E. 4th St. approximately 600 feet west of Union Avenue N.E. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has further issued a proposed declaration of significance for the following project : 1 . NORTHWEST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY (AUSTIN COMPANY (ECF-602-80) T' Application for site approval for four two-story office building complexes , file SA-092-80 ; property located on the southwest corner of S.W. Lind Ave. and S.W. 16th St. Subject to the following conditions for proposed declaration of non-significance : a) Traffic impacts at S.W. 16th St. and Lind Ave. S.W. signal. b) Traffic capacity improvements on S.W. Grady Way and Lind Ave. S.W. c) Pedestrian access from S.W. Grady Way and Lind Ave. S.W. 2 - d) Contribution to I-405 bridge improvement. e) Appropriate open drainage and wetland preservation. f) Perimeter off-site improvements. g) Plans to mitigate recreational impacts. Further information regarding this action is available in the Planning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by February 8, 1981 . Published: January 25 , 1981 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a final declaration of non-significance for the following projects: 1 . LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY (ECF-640-80) Application for special permit to allow grading of existing stock pile of fill material , file SP-134-80; property located east of Benson Road South, adjacent to Eagle Ridge Drive. 2 . CITY OF RENTON (ECF-003-81) Application to allow widening of S.W. 43rd Street to five lanes with associated improvements; property located on S.W. 43rd Street between West Valley Road and East Valley Road. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has further issued a proposed declaration of non-significance for the following project : 3 . NORTHWEST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY AUSTIN COMPANY) (ECF-602-80) Application for site approval for four two-story office building complexes, file SA-092-80; property located on the southwest corner of S .W. Lind Avenue and S.W. 16th Street . Subject to the following conditions for proposed declaration of non-significance: 1 . Traffic impacts at S.W. 16th and Lind Ave. S.W. Signal . 2. Traffic capacity improvements on S .W. Grady Way and Lind Ave. S.W. 3 . Pedestrian access from S.W. Grady Way and Lind Ave. S.W. 4. Contribution to I-405 bridge improvement . 5) Appropriate open drainage and wetland preservation. 6) Perimeter off-site improvements 7) Plans to mitigate recreational impacts. Further information regarding this action is available in the Planning Department , Municipal Building, Renton , Washington, 235-2550. Any appeal of ERC action must be filed with the Hearing Examiner by February 1 , 1981 . Published : January 18 , 1981 Y. ! e 0 y'i4 N yak ." a .. r, b ;, ks. t yet, E w a 4" 0 }; ,4,.e s t< : a, 1 y A: ',./.., .AC. 4 : ,* PROPOSED ACTION PROPOSED DECLARATION OF NDN—SIGNIFICANCE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS GENERAL L CATIDN AND OR ADDRESS W ST ' F OE__ . IIJ S, W 1 H STREET PERSONS OF AN Er4V1 `;mqONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF ENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 6 E.R.C, ] ;'AS DETERMIIkt E:•!; THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION, ii;.` ES ODOES NOT. HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT 5invik3 THE ENVIRON— MENT.ENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTSOWL!. E1VVILL NOT, BE REQUIRED. AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVEVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HE a•.RING EXAMINER BY MOO P.M.9 FEBRUARY 1, 1981 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT 23S® S® Da NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHRI TIC2N r r. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE JANUARY 7, 1981 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10: 00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM PENDING BUSINESS: JAMES BANKER (ECF-623-80, SP-111-80) MT. OLIVET CEMETERY COMPANY ECF-567-80, SP-047-80) OLD BUSINESS: SA-092-80 - 7 VALLEY OFFICE PARK, PARK II ECF-602-80 Application for site approval for four 2-story office building complexes; property located on the southwest corner of S.W. Lind Avenue and S.W. 16th Street NEW BUSINESS: SA-136-80 FANCHER FLYWAYS, INC. ECF-645-80 Application for site approval to allow construction of aircraft hangar building to consist of 13 units of nested "T" type hangars for small aircraft; property located on the west side of Renton Municipal Airport OF 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 0 ammo BARBARA Y. ' SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 09,0 235- 2550 099TTD SEP1Ets0 MEMORANDUM January 6, 1981 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Gene N. Williams, Assistant Planner RE: Valley Office Park II, Site Approval There are a couple of concerns that should be brought to the attention of the ERC. First of all, the short plat which includes this property has not been filed. So there is a question of whether this application should be considered until the plat is recorded. Secondly, the Hearing Examiner required the dedication of easements on the face of the plat to preserve the natural drainage and the existing pond on the site. The City should insure that this provision is met before considering a site approval, or the environmental determination for the site approval should require the dedication of .these easements. Also, in the site approval process, the site design should be examined to minimize impacts to wildlife that use the nearby pond. GNW: sh NORTHWEST COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY 800 SW 16TH STREET r ' RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 rh r. TELEPHONE 206/226-8800 December 23 , 1930 Mr . Gordon Y. Erickson City of Renton 200 Mill Road South Renton, WA 98055 Subject : Valley Office Park - Complex II Renton , Washington Dear Mr . Erickson: In response to your letter of November 17 , 1980 , we are pleased to submit the following additional information in support of our desired Site Development Plan . I .) We engaged Mr . R. Hintz, A. I .COP. , private consultant , to prepare a report addressing the question of recreational facilities and their impact on the proposed Complex II development . Attached please find two (2) copies of his report. 2. ) The remaining outstanding point in your letter pertained to drainage , with specific reference made to the remaining 16 acres. Northwest Commercial Real Estate Company has an option only on Lot 1 of the short plat now being processed . Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the short plat will presumably be developed some time in the future by the Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc . and the site development process entered into at that time . The entire Lot 1 is covered under a current fill permit and there is no existing wetland area nor any retention of off-site generated storm water . The effect of LID 314 on Lot 1 is very minor . There are several 12" drains crossing SW 16th Street and discharging onto Lot 1. The LID 314 will include a storm drain intended to pick up these existing drains . In the event that our proposed development is constructed in advance of the LID, these existing drains will be connected into our system as an interim solution . Mr. Gordon Y. Erickson December 23 , 1930 Page Two The proposed project will be designed in accordance with Renton and ,King County storm runoff retention criteria . it is planned to use surface retention in the parking lots, similar to the system used on the adjacent property in the Boeing Valley Office Park. The effect of LID 314 on Lots 2, 3 and 4 , which we feel is not part of this particular application , cannot be determined at this point as we are informed the drainage concept for LID 314 remains under study. We believe that the flooding occurring in Lots 2, 3 and 4 of our short plat can be attributed , to a large degree , to the abandoning of two-thirds (2/3) of the outflow capacity of the site under Lind Avenue and SW 21st Street when LID 302 was implemented . This situation has placed our property (Lot 1) and the remaining property of Valley Office and Industrial Park Inc . Lots 2, 3 and 4) in the position of defending the right to develop property which has been encumbered by runoff from others storm water . We hope the foregoing will serve to aid the committee in arriving at a decision that will not require an impact statement on our part to develop this plot now and in the future . Very truly yours, R. D. Hemstreet Assistant District Manager RDH: ja ROBERT F. HINTZ AICP LAND PLANNING CONSULTANT 11010 40th AVENUE NORTHEAST • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 • • TELEPHONE: (206) 363-7544 Dec. 8, 1980 Mr. Jake Fox The Austin Company 80o s. . lath Renton, Wa. 98055 Dear Mr. Fox: In response to your request, I have investigated recent trends in industrial recreation, particularly with respect to physical facilities provided by the private sector. It is understood that the city of Renton Mivi.ronmental Review Comm- ittee has expressed concern via the Planning Department, about the possible impact of increased daytime recreational demand resulting from the approval of The Austin Company' s Valley Office and Industrial Park, Subdivision #2 and subsequent con- struction of a 192000 square foot office building to accommo- date 1840 office workers, together with accessory open parking space for 968 vehicles. Walkers and joggers may be observed at midday using Land Ave. roadway and the surfaced walkway on the western side of that street. Lind Ave. carries very little vehicular traffic except during peak A.M. and P.M. commuting times, when traffic is heavy. However, as property is developed to the south, in- creased vehicular traffic spread over a larger portion of the day may be anticipated. Currently, noon time pedestrian activity along Lind Ave. is generated by employees from existing adjacent development, including the Boeing leased space, Group Health and The Austin Company. 2- Recreational facilities programs for industrial employees when supplied and sponsored by private industry are usually a direct result of company policy to improve employee relations and increase worker efficiency. The degree of involvement in such programs varies considerably from company to company, but generally is greatest with larger, multi-division companies having employees numbering in the thousands. Supplying of employee recreation facilities by private industry may be imposed by local government as a trade-off for approving proposed development, usually at the time the property is rezoned, but if not then, at any time a discretionary permit is involved. The theory here is that the proposed development, either directly or cumulativelyDgenerates a demand for the fac- ilities or services, and if the demand is not satisfied in whole or part at the time of generation, the increased demand impacts existing local government facilities or builds pressure for new facilities or services. A survey of existing company recreation facilities reveals that most have been provided voluntarily, usually stemming from company policy and a comprehensive employees, services program. Facilities for both passive and active recreation are typically provided, with better employee morale, health and efficiency the objectives. Employee services include cultural activity programs, service activity programs and social activity programs, some of which require no special facilities. Other large com- panies have provided private employee parks. The National Industrial Recreation Association cites the followins. companies 3- as having purchased and developed private parks and recreation facilities for use of employees and their families: Sunstrand Co. , Rockford, Ill. ; 3M Company, Lake Elmo, Minn. ; State Farm Insurance Company, Bloomington, Ill. ; Hughes Aircraft Corp. , Fullerton, Calif. ; and Dofasco of Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. In some cases the facilities are operated by an em- ployee association and membership fees are required. Notable local examples can be found with the Boeing and 1Teyerhauser companies, Puget Sound Shipyard, Pacific Northwest Bell, and SeaFirst. Local examples of employee recreation facilities provided by the developer as requirement for permit approval are more limited, but include the following: 1. Harbor Square Industrial Park, a project of the Port of Edmonds, Edmonds, Washington. Here a 25 foot strip connec- ting to a natural marsh area was reserved as required open space and a walking jogging path will be developed, all as a condition of the rezone by the Edmonds City Council, to permit the industrial park development. 2. Bellevue Business Park by Cabbot, Cabbot and Forbes. Rezoning for this planned 89 acre ind )strial park (the former Bellevue Airport) was conditioned upon the developers providing a surrounding buffer strip containing a jogging path, and a monetary contribution to develop as a recreational park near-by undeveloped park property. Not surprisingly, a survey of both planning and park-re- creation literature reveals that no standards have been estab- lished for office/industrial employee recreation. However a good deal of thought and discussion have been devoted to the 4- subject. Because of the wide range of variables that can be involved, it is improbable that any realistic standards can be developed or accepted. Most agree, however, that there is an obvious causal relationship between number of employees and demand for employee recreational facilities, both active and passive. The increasing emphasis on employee physical fitness and recognition of the benefits therefrom have stimulated the development of both programs and facilities on or near the job site, and accounts for the popularity of walking and jogging as an activity to break up the work day. Also, as a part of this investigation, interviews were conducted with planning and recreation officials from King County, Seattle and several other municipalities in the metro- politan area. None of the jurisdictions reported having a specific policy or standards applicable to private industrial recreation and none knew of such policies or requirements to be in effect in any other community. The Valley Office and Industrial Park #2 is located at the southwest corner of Lind Ave. and S. V.. 16th Street. The site and surrounding land has been zoned for Heavy Industry, but the development trend is to office, warehousing and light indus- try use. The structure and use proposed by The Austin Company will provide work space for 1840 sedentary employees, an unknown number of whom will seek or engage in physical exercise during the work day. In clement weather an unpredictable number would desire and use outdoor space away from the work environment for lunching, relaxation and conversation. 5- 9 While the size, capacity and general use of the proposed building are known, the building is being constructed for lease and the tenant and its policies on employee recreation are not known. Under the circumstances, and in recognition that the availability of facilities will foster their use, any of the following options should be considered as a reasonable mitigation of the unquantifiable impacts on recreation demand resulting from concentrating 1840 employees at this relatively isolated site. 1. Provide benches and picnic tables in the proposed courtyard and in any other appropriate landscaped space; depend upon existing and emergent street walkways for use of walkers and joggers. 2. Consider development of a portion of the roof area with benches, tables, planting tubs and surface game areas. 3. Upon completion of tqe proposed LID drainage project, provide surfaced walkways in the streets adjacent to the site. These should be of sufficient width to accommodate walkers and joggers and will provide connections to other street walkways as the property is developed to the south. 4. Consider installing a shower and limited locker space in one toilet facility for each sex on the ground floor of the proposed building, to serve employees who would jog on existing or future facilities, or allocate space and provide rough plum- bing for later installation of showers: should the need be shown. 5. Designate, by painting, a walking or jogging lane in a selected appropriate location in the parking area. M ^ • i 6- I trust that the reseerch and information presented here will be helpful to you and Renton' s Environmental Review Comm- ittee in assessing the potential impacts of the proposed sub- division and construction on Lot 1 of Valley Office and Indus- trial Park, particularly with respect to Section l4 ( d) of the Environmental Questionnaire. Sincerely yours, 1 tY71-j1 0 Robert . Hintz RFH/mh I rw.a i' • A THE AUSTI eoo SOUTHWEST 16TH ST. n 7)' . t7 RENTON. WA 00055 COMPANY PHONE: 2O6/226-9EOO DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS . BUILDERS TELEX: 910•4230882 223-0I AU-ST-IC-T377N3 October 21 , 1980 Mr. G. Ye Ericksen Planning Director The City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Subject: Valley Office Park - Complex II Renton, Washington Dear 4r. Ericksen: We are pleased to respond to your letter of. September 12, 1980 ,concerning reservations that the Environmental Review Committeehadrelevanttoourproposedcomplex . As you suggested , we . engaged a traffic engineer to study theimpactofon-site generated traffic and traffic generated fromthegeneralsurroundingarea . The analysis indicates volumesoftrafficwhichcouldreasonablybeexpectedforthefollowingcases: Case I: Existing traffic and full development of the --395acresaswarehousingandlightindustry (f4-p Zoning) . Case II: Existing traffic and Parcel A office (12.5 acres) 382.4 acres as warehouse and light industry. Case III: Existing traffic and Parcels A and C officedevelopment (34 acres) + 361 acres as warehouse and light industry. Case IV: Existing traffic and Parcels A, C and D officedevelopment (62 acres) + 333 acres as warehousingandlightindustry. - Copies of this traffic study, as performed by EntrancoEngineers, are enclosed for your review. r Since we are only proposing complete development of thenorthwesttwelveacresofthesubjectsite, we believe that the e: L Mr . G. Y. Ericksen October 21 , 1980 Page 2 question of impact on the remaining land to the south, or impact of L.I.D. 314 , would be minimal . Should L.I.D. 314 not proceed before Complex II is complete, we can see no apparent consequence other than routing storm water , which currently collects on our property, south along the easterly property line and , ultimately, onto the southern half of the site as it does now. We fully understand your concern for the need of recreational facilities. There currently exists ample opportunity for walkers and joggers to utilize the sidewalks or bicycle paths along Lind Avenue Southwest. When L.I.D. 314 proceeds, this opportunity will be enlarged to include the eastern and southern boundaries of our general site . In addition , we plan to include benches and walkways within the confines of the Complex to serve those of a passive nature . We trust that the foregoing will serve to aid the committee in arriving at a decision that will not require an impact statement. The Austin Company wants to work closely with the committee , if possible , as we have a large interest in also assuring that the valley is developed properly for the betterment of the community. very truly yours, R. D. Hemstreet Assistant District Manager RDH:dt 1 OF ' RA, o THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9,0 co' 235- 2550 0, 9gr D SEPT Me November 17 , 1980 Mr. Richard D. Hemstreet Assistant District Manager The Austin Company 800 Southwest 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 RE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK - COMPLEX II ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Dear Mr. Hemstreet: The Environmental—Review C_ommittee_has_ taken into consideration the additional information which has been submitted on the above project. The statements addressing drainage and recreational mitigating measures are very general and are not supported by any quanitative data. The Committee' s intent in their correspondence of September 12, 1980 was to provide the applicant with an opportunity to submit additional information prior to the Committee making a threshold determination. If sufficient environmental information is not available the Committee could require that an environmental impact statement be prepared to disclose all possible impacts. The Committee has continued the item to allow your firm adequate time to submit additional quanitative information concerning both drainage and recreational impacts. If you have any further questions, please contact this office at 235-2550. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning1-)\91:24&a. 1116Cf-j Director g YRoJ. la lock Associate Planner RJB:rjb cc. Jake Fox - Austin Company ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEN COMMITTEE November 19 , 1980 G E N D A COMMENCING AT 10: 00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM OLD BUSINESS: NTAA, io ,, 3iQ. VALLEY OFFICE PARK, PARK II ECF-602-80 Application for site approval for four 2-story office building complexes; property located on the southwest corner of S.W. Lind Avenue and S.W. 16th Street SP-047-80 MT. OLIVET CEMETERY CO. ECF-567-80 Application for special permit to fill and grade 11-acre expansion area; property located north and east of existing Mt. Olivet Cemetery., east of NE 3rd Street, in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Avenue NE SP-099-80 RAINIER SAND & GRAVEL CO. ECF-608-80 App ication for special permit to fill and grade approx. 1. 6 million cubic yards over life of project; property located 370' south of N.E. 3rd Street on hill east of Mt. Olivet Cemetery SA-104-80 V-105-80 BARBER, KLOPPENBURG, OLDS (SUNSET ECF-614-80 SQUARE) Application for site approval of small neighborhood shopping center to include bank and/or restaurant) and condominiums or professional offices; variance for 10-12 ' rear yard setback instead of required 20' ; property located on NE corner of Sunset Blvd. NE and Union Avenue NE NEW BUSINESS: NONE OF RA,A do THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 o 92 Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 090 235- 2550 0 P 91TeO SEP-ret* November 17 , 1980 Mr. Richard D. Hemstreet Assistant District Manager The Austin Company 800 Southwest 16th Street Renton, Washington 98055 RE: VALLEY OFFICE PARK - COMPLEX II ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Dear Mr. Hemstreet: The_En_vir_onmental_Review Committee has taken into consideration the additional information which has been submitted on the above project. The statements addressing drainage and recreational mitigating measures are very general and are not supported by any quanitative data. The Committee's intent in their correspondence of September 12, 1980 was to provide the applicant with an opportunity to submit additional information prior to the Committee making a threshold determination. If sufficient environmental information is not available the Committee could require that an environmental impact statement be prepared to disclose all possible impacts. The Committee has continued the item to allow your firm adequate time to submit additional quanitative information concerning both drainage and recreational impacts. If you have any further questions, please contact this office at 235-2550. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ro et J.la lockglaylock, Planner RJB:rjb cc. Jake Fox - Austin Company L EINIVIROMIIPMIEINITAL REVIEW COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 12, 1980 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10 :00 A.M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1 . OLD BUSINESS : SA-092-80 VALLEY OFFICE PARK, PARK II ECF-602-80 Application for site approval for four 2-story office building complexes ; property located on the southwest corner of S .W. Lind Avenue and S .W. 16th Street SP-047-BO MT . OLIVET CEMETERY CO . ECF-567-80 Application for special permit to fill and grade 11-acre expansion area ; property located north and east of existing Mt . Olivet Cemetery, east of NE 3rd Street , in the vicinity of 100 Blaine Avenue N .E . SP-099-80 RAINIER SAND & GRAVEL CO . ECF-608-80 Application for special permit to fill and grade of approx . 450 ,000-500 ,000 cubic yards over life of project ; property located 370 ' south of N . E . 3rd Street on hill east of Mt . Olivet Cemetery SA-104-80 BARBER , KLOPPENBURG, OLDS ( SUNSET SQUARE) V-105-80 Application for site approval of small ECF-614-80 neighborhood shopping center (to include Reconsideration ) bank and/or restaurant ) and condominiums or professional offices ; variance for 10-12 ' rear yard setback instead of required 20 ' ; property located on NE corner of Sunset Blvd. NE and Union Avenue NE B-240 RUSSELL D . BIRD, ACKERELY COMMUNICATIONS ECF-620-80 Application for permit to erect free standing, two sided billboard sign for Ackerely Communications ; property located 4224 E . Valley Road 2 . NEW BUSINESS : R-106-80 DOMINIC COLASURDO ECF-617-80 Application for rezone from R-3 to B-1 to prepare site for future fill and grade and construction of commercial building ; property located esat side of Union Avenue NE approx . 350 ' south of N . E . 4th Street OF RA,A • A. z THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 n BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 90 P September 12 , 1980 235- 2550 94TFco SEPI O Mr . Wes Butcher The Austin Company 800 S .W. 16th Street Renton, WA 98055 RE : VALLEY OFFICE PARK NUMBER 2/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Dear Mr . Butcher : The Environmental Review Committee considered the material presented concerning the impacts of the proposed Valley Office Park #2 upon the City of Renton . Their conclusion was that insufficient information is available to determine if an impact statement is warranted or not. Therefore, they have requested specific information from the Austin Company con- cerning the following areas : 1 . A full traffic analysis of impacts of both on-site generated traffic and the general area . The studied boundaries will include S .W. Grady Way on the north, East Valley Highway on the east , S .W. 43rd Street on the south , and the proposed Valley Parkway on the west . This analysis should address not only the proposed site plan approval for lot #1 but also the maximum potential development on the other three lots . 2 . A drainage analysis of the area showing the impacts of LID 314 upon the subject site including the remaining 16 acres, what impacts will result on the wetlands and potential greenbelt areas through the development . This should include a proposal of mitigating measures to possibly retain or in- corporate into the development wetlands or greenbelt . 3 . An analysis of the recreational impact from the increase of office workers for daytime recreation . The primary concerns are for active noontime recreation where masses of employees need recreational opportunities , this could include both active and passive recreation . Mitigating measures both on-site and off-site should be evaluated. Letter to Mr . Wes Butcher September 12 , 1980 Page Two The Environmental Review Committee will hold the application in abeyance until the necessary information is provided . If the Planning Department can be of further assistance, please contact me at 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director 3112,e9 -g-tro4,6:reL Roger J. Blaylock , Associate Planner RJB :yb r. r • . PROPOSED DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Application No(s) : SA-092-80 Environmental Checklist No: ECF-602-80 Description of Proposal: Site Approval application of four 2-story office building complexes Proponent: The Austin Company Location of Proposal:Southwest corner of Lind Ave. S.W. and S.W. 16th St. Lead Agency: Renton Planning Department This proposal was reviewed by the ERC on January 14 , 1981 , following a presentation by David Clemens of the Planning Department. Incorporated by reference in the record of the proceedings of the ERC on application ECF-602-80 are the following : 1 ) Environmental Checklist Review Sheet, prepared by: Roger J. Blaylock DATED: September 8, 1980 2) Applications : SA-092-80 3) Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance: Recommendations for a declaration of non-significance were made by Traffic Engineering, Planning and Police Departments. A declaration of significance was recommended by the Fire Department. More information was recommended by Building and Parks Departments . Acting as the Responsible Official, the ERC has determined this development does have significant adverse impact on the environment. An EIS is required under RCW 43. 21C. 030 (2) c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a complete environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental significance: The proposed project is of such size and scope that it will substantially impact adjacent and surrounding properties in areas of traffic , storm drainage and recreation. Measures , if any, that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a declaration of non-significance. Identify mitigating measures for: 1 ) Traffic impacts at S.W. 16th and Lind Avenue S.W. signal. 2) Traffic capacity improvements on S.W. Grady Way and Lind Avenue S.W. 3) Pedestrian access from S.W. Grady Way and Lind Avenue S.W. 4 ) Contribution to I-405 bridge improvements. PROPOSED DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE CONTINUED Application No (s) : SA-092-80 Environmental Checklist No. : ECF-602-80 5) Appropriate open drainage and wetland preservation. 6) Perimeter off-site improvements 7) Plans to mitigate recreational impacts. Signatures : 2 i1on Nelson, Building Director vid R. Clemens, Acting f Planning Director R chard C. Hough , Acting ublic Works Di for DATE OF PUBLICATION: January 25, 1981 EXPIRATION OF APPEAL PERIOD: February 8, 1981 Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : VllyValley OEIcei-PenekAta.) Comom,006:41. Y.r: s ' ': J ,:i e C-;,, S , e. 092,- 80 Location : C. E. Coftar6de oS Ldwc: Prue. c.u_ t S W. IG' 45 Sl-Re Applicant : 1-11e, /usliu Comravy /&.0 . COrineec'.e/'ffste e-CO TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: "• 47; 4 Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : 11VQSCS Public Works Department C. lo so Engineering Division PI/Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other ) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FO H PPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON 1, i 6 O AT 9 : OU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D PAR MENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVI '. C MMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:OU P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7444,4 1,4 ,00y fie Approved X Approved with Conditions Not Approved , fitt. daza.... isit-.t. ?f--0114-.6",,, :4147(744-4643 adi 7, tad4,e,- 6,07rie be"4.vw;" a4244,t4,4,• pi1/4e.„ 61,-,,t ,f.,,,co-A-7 l" , J , cam. 21 - oth,v6ratd :. 1, f Zo kee- pPA Alt- e-'"'"-It'fi ., L .4,._ _ .2 iesb me.446411+026) 14AAr,.,e,t 4 ft..., veliktrxi el-wt./ft/0).4j rrra-r. rc- a yap00 I 2.o P eeLei a....4r-14 a_ .444.4-44. / Cinnatiira of nirartnr nr Authnri P _nresentative Date d PlanninI, 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : V4I1tY Oglcaliek cMw. POIPeaba Re®[ Elitaitt to. / sft . O9a 80 Location : C. E. Coreuek. oi I:*,ct flue. CAA). t S.0.). 16.6 St?eet Applicant: The, !us1h. CoMravy A.iQ. Corltme ec:a/-I- ffsfife.Co . TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ' ? B 0 Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : 9 Y :O 1000....Public Works Department E.R.e. to 90 , engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FO H PPREVI EW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON T I 0 AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D PAR MENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVIP. -*eMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPA,">TMENT/DIVISION: Approved x Approved with' Conditions Not Approved G 771, sL" —sue. 4) v14/ ^- S J/G S 3) D it, S c.J /G S 4— 9/1z pb Signature of Director or Aut orized Repr s ntative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Application : V41y tek CommepoZof Rea Estatestom. / Sfif OCraa' * Location : C. E, CQsrLrek, qS L ica Rue. 2.u). itS w. j(,i t1eit Appl i cant : "Tile. 14udi Coair417 /&.vJ. Co 5 _C d TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : `', ; , ® Police Department A. R. C. MEETING DATE : 9 . 8 80 Public Works Department Et,E.c® 000 Engineering Division Traffic Engineering t 'Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FO H PPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ONofAT9 :OU A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D PAR MENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVi ,. COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON f, REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : a-r-D 6 CAroved Approved with Conditions Not ApprovedPPPPP 91-1P-16 Sig • t • re of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET t s T Application . V ile. fob C„ eg,f,,,„61),,e,„;, t' Rea[ E- • Ste. top / cM a •9am ,if Ii Location : C. E. C au L,Qoci e, c.0 t &to. i tS StReel' Applicant: T1ie. A st.a COe4 apt* d &.• C avelePcai '?r / ti e-C 0 . TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ! Police Department A, R. C, MEETING DATE :7143 /14te Public Works Department ER.t, e. . 'p lfae) Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Ite SEE 9t/° si' gUtilities EngineeringrimmP Fi re Department clifECIEtL1Si" Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FO H PPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON 9 to o' AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D PAR MENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVI ! .. y: ,C'MMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON 9 At ;of ( 4. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved c."'- ' Ca A/Si/eac iae(_> ce)4.)/ 72 Cc u/ io Gui i.{ Tiel ing/3-65 aF i(r, 7/C L7 V-.ar—frte i S//i2-c. /--/c, 7 /jec. 0-.f,/ ,y /0/4-6u Boos /4 (- r_7 ae-,6) A )//v ZS ,, /7/G r/7 i- ,5 4/0 l5,5S ,eori-42S5 SS//77L- / iX) ra'C Q C 2 ti-"k-26-g-iu -/ Efur7 G`zr O4e-- l'i6 4/0%tx/ dl,wa : /tiSr GG6' 0 St/e/OZZ- dLe. Ceti S "GeG7io/cu 440 Signature of Director or Authorized Rep`reser{ ati ve Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ii. ow Application : \/4(ty Oi leg _ stag :ZE/MIA). c.s, .,e, a, l AF.11f. dpre. x'rY' 1D 0 *. _ • 8 Location :, C. E. C®ame& 0S 1,.:40ci ,due. CAA). t S W. IGt6 S'tRee:f Applicant : Tie. Audio CoMrape/ /&.ui. CoritiOec:a/'f- As1Ite-Co . TO: Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : ' • ?.' 8 0 Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : 1 8 0 Public Works Department E.R.C. to So Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Vt sea mrecitEa tIc......=, Utilities Engineering WVIRONmEArraL 40.00_7Fire Department CNECML1S'T Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FO H PPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON 41 1e 0 AT 9 :00 A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, IF YOUR D, PAR MENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVI.N gMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P .M. ON F I REVIEWING; DEPARTMENT/DIVISION :t/ Approved V Approved with Conditions Not Approved 7/c6,t/Sj/2ae i7a,v Cem-)/ 12 Ct ' Qa'; -io Gui 77! f , pig/cr-6u C OAS / 0'/1°i ,'? vCS ^ /7_z& S'C_!/‘ Pa .S A/6 oysS_/eo'/0,S S'-fi - /b tiC?4) 72V‘ i3 L.0 Z ti.*_ r`/ e6-62 JCV Equip'-GG`x// ,9"GL, f7 ffYi'' 7// ?Cis G/(/S G'GC'yJ 0 St iA/lG/-eL faC,toms tec,7'&U - 440 Signature of Director or Authorized Represe ative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved s S ignature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Appli cation : Valley Oee'T'aik f-Au C..,. ..c. gi( RRt1 EMtco. / sAo9a. 8o Location : C. f. Cr eueia oS L,cI nue, s.t.o. S to. i(16 S'tReet Applicant : 'The. Pudiu Cep amy MU). Cammeec:d—st/te—CO . TO: V" Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : • 7 8 0 Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : Q YP : Public Works Department so sO Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FO H PP LICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON II j AT 9 : 0U A.M. IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. IF YOUR D PAR MENT/DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVI ' , ;., COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Approved Approved with Conditions Not Approved Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date L! ' L Date circulated : q /8o Comments due :571i/so MI 0 ENTAL C IECtCLHSV F$EUIE J SHEET ECF - 602, - RD APPLICATION No (s ) .ca q) II PROPONENT : Tile. 190rt. du C0mpoJy %o• AJ. 9. of -F i 1'e CO. PROJECT TITLE :a 1( K ,e f. 1 r -leak Brief Description of Project : A 44444 Dii;c.a G®yyp11X rota I ,J? (84, 000 LOCATION : S.E. C0Agoeea iud ae S. W. so vol. I'6c,St. SITE AREA : 2 1 2e..tej BUILDING AREA (gross) /81, 000 DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (a) : 70-60, IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :_ 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise . 7 ) Light & glare : o 8 ) Land Use ; north : east : south: I west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : Y p a 9 ) Natural resources : l 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : I 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 1 bt J 15 ) Energy :i 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : Z/ 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation: 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : ,--DN I 7- DOS More Information 1 Reviewed by : c - \y-`' Title :t l e : -/-, L,c/Fe Date : FORM: E•RC-06 JFze1C 0/ Date circulated : Q 818o Comments due : 50/194C) YI MENTAL CHECKLIST REUIEU SHEET ECF - 6c'2, a R® APPLICATION No (s) . SA- c 9 • F3 PROPONENT : The. 13..P1 A .DJ Co Pi p®0.7 CA). Rep t -E tirt, CO. PROJECT TITLE : Vet if ty O ; e. Pack 11C Brief Description of Project : 9 4® tv:fd41 D uce. Go iplex MM aili 18' ,00o LOCATION : S.E. C®et'Re,o S L; d Ave. S.w. 4 S,w. 16 Sl • SITE AREA : f 1 12e,tee.s BUILDING AREA (gross) 181, 000 DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 70-6014 IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4) ,Plant life : 14 5 ) Animal life : i 6) Noised 7 ) Light & glare : v// 8) Land Use ; north: east : south: west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : l 9) Natural resources :, 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : 14) ;Public services : 1 I./ 15 ) Energy :c 16) Utilities : L/ 17 ) Human health: 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) fRecreation : 20 ) 'Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DOS L/ More Information Reviewed by : ale : -heir /k/c/5f7/, Date : FORM: 'ERC-06 I ENVIRONNENTAL REVIEW COMI1ITTEE SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 10: 00 A . M. : THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 1 . NEW BUSINESS : PPUD-078-80 CHG INTERNATIONAL EARLINGTON WOODS COMMERCIAL REQUEST CONCURRENCE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) THAT PROPOSAL IS Application for preliminary WITHIN SCOPE OF EIS : approval of Earlington Woods Commercial P . U . D . ; property located west of Hardie Ave- nue S . W . , north of the Burling- ton Northern Railroad Right-of- Way, east of proposed Maple Avenue S . W . , south of Sunset Blvd . W . SP-082-80 CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH V-083-80 Application for special permit ECF-595-80) to construct 13 ,400 sq . ft . classroom and administrative building and 14 , 500 sq. ft. sanctuary and application for variance from setback and and landscaping requirements ; property located in the vicinity of 1032 Edmonds Ave. N . E . SP-088-80 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO . / ECF-600-80) DUANE WELLS , INC . Application for fill and grade in L - 1 zone ; property located on the north side of Grady Way and west of Talbot Road South . SP-089-80 DURWOOD E . BLOOD ECF-601-80) Application for special permit to construct ten townhouse condominium units ; property lying west of Edmonds Ave . N . E . in between N . E . 13th St . and N . E . 14th St. SA-092-80 VALLEY OFFICE PARK , PARK II ECF-602-80) Application for site approval for four 2-story office building com- plex ; property located on the southwest corner of S . W . Lind Avenue and S . W . 16th Street . Date circulated : ' 64 60 Comments due : 574k18O ENlVI OGCHEJDTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF e 'OZ - R® APPLICATION No (s ) . Si . 0 4 Za. ! 0 PROPONENT : T a .eu Coy,./ mar Gi. Oi G° 0. PROJECT TITLE : tedllf Oa oClaea .xc Brief Description. of Project : / 4- 4„:14;41.1 c ce. c.o plex iota roe I6W,000 h LOCATION : S.6, CD..oeg Q tJ / e. S. w• ts.w. i6 St SITE AREA : 2 1212 a-aees BUILDING AREA (gross) i811, 000 1 DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 170-60Y IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO_ 1 ) (Topographic changes : S® 2 ) ;Direct/Indirect air quality : 8o'° 16 3 ) Water & water courses : 4) !Plant life : 10®' 5 ) Animal life : @...."`' 6) Noise : 60°5' 7) Light & glare : 110.*I© 8) Land Use ; north: 1,-.aa nelt a 4 S, east : --5t„r00 south: — 1/ (3.tee,,,,. ' west : — Vt z* 4 0-S.cie Pe,,ek Land use conflicts : View obstruction :bhp iN59) Natural resources : 10) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings: ii0. 12 N 13 ) :Trip ends ( ITE) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : .1 @o'2' 15 ) Energy : 16) Utilities : 60'3361° 17 ) Human health : go:'.'" 18) Aesthetics : t 19 ) Recreation :too`''''' 20) archeology/history : s COMMENTS : n twa®P 44. ak) ON Cr SliOUSb 6 pj ST 4E, ea wzr !2.0N %, rrizoor :tot c•of v - fU 0 fQ ei Okta'a) ceeA) s s -/Fouts. Recommendation : DNSI 46 DOS More In oI"rmat •ion` e R e v i e1w e d b y s T ! ,,AB . 1_,OA Titl e : j9/4-4.- '` f r . C. oAalP . Date :. -S Eo (+, -...1rf !f' 8), ( e FORM: ERC-06 I Date circulated : _4 6/80 Comments due : ® ' % J 7 ENVI ONHENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEU SHEET ECF - _RD APPLICATION No (s) . iiim 464 -,,ft__ PROPONENT : Tie. Res-'sdu Cora roil Java is-ptocQP -ES O1Z co. PROJECT TITLE : Vie tidy 0 BIG 0, P&i&k 'IC, Brief Description of Project : A 4. 1u,' tba o ;c . G®piplex fofa tol 164I,00 o LOCATION: S.E. C® e: eg 4 L,IJJ Age SA A). 4s.w. i61Sf. SITE AREA : f S Qe-ie, ,BUILDING AREA (gross) 18110)0(.4 DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : °T®o IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 1.0'°. 3) Water & water courses : leo'. 4) Plant life : 400.° 5) Animal life: mGa o 6) Noise : I 7) Light & glare : P 8) Land Use ; north: 4;:._ t.1. E.?-. '^:4 :j:.' t`i l. .-!. east : o sI*' 1 south: -.. west : Q e a CP Land use conflicts: View obstruction : 1 PC71OF 7 y s 9) Natural resources : 1 8,*'19 10) Risk of upset : 60°' 11 ) Population/Employmint : P.® 12 ) , Number of Dwellings : 13) Trip ends (ITE) : traffic impacts : 14) Public services : I 15 ) Energy :0 °' 16 ) Utilities: 17) , Human health : 1 60° 2‘1' 18 ) Aesthetics : I-'' 19 ) Recreation: 20 ) Archeology/history :, COMMENTS : fi ibiter64/18 a' Air S.940144 E 0Z7 .,C.,- , 4 ET7/001% • e / fir+ side-T S a .' ., .`:0 f 6 "..... ZrI Oi .,; r I'ii ra ADO WO 4aJrtL d 140-044144-_.,,,,,ei e ® olo ® wt.) ems —Route. Recommendation: DNSI DOS More Informa 'ion 4- W— 131(.4164Reviewedby : Title : 194-4-t-tA..4..t e26-41100-4 Date :___ r lit.p8 Fq B 0 FORM: ERC-06 1 1 ENSIWeelesitVqj Date circulated : y 6 80 Comments due : r: ENVI ®B iiPMENTiAL CHEC@CLIST fEUIEU SHHEET E C F - 6 0 a - 80 APPLICATION No (s) . SA- '6 II` Z43 PROPONENT : The. Rost CD 60, g- "o-k, C. D. PROJECT TITLE : 0 CrP e Brief Description of Project : r 4- u: 44,l :ca Gongpax MD$aro i fill Oa® 4 L0CATI0N : S. v,ar 'e tu of a. S. w. $ s.w. IG St SITE AREA: f :Zia e.- ' es BUILDING AREA (gross) 18', OOO 4 DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 70,-Seo IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes :v 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : 5) Animal life :eV 6) Noise : 7) Light & glare : 8) Land Use ; north: east : south: west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : c/ 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : t/ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE) : traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 1 15 ) Energy : 16) Utilities : c..-- 17) Human health: v 18) Aesthetics : 19) Recreation: 20) Archeology/history : v COMMENTS : Recommendation: DNSI ,( DOS More Information Reviewed by : C- - !4 Title : Date : l iS4--0 FORM: ERC-06 1\ f Date circulated : V W80 Comments due : ''% I' r '. a ENVI OWHENTAE CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ECF - 6O2, - 80 APPLICATION No (s ) . PROPONENT : 7- ox ,N C M CD&A LA) al CO. atx i PROJECT TITLE : ' '3`` i %t,g 0 Gsk. r .Qri Brief Description of Project : 11. L:_iJ;oug Qi' ;ca. C.ppiflex fDtct d N- __ _16'1 000 LOCATION : S.E. C©0.04'Ae 04 S. W. W. I61 St SITE AREA: i i2.12e.A2e,,BUILDING AREA (gross) 031, ()co DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 170.80 IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : ti 3C 3 ) Water & water courses : 4 ) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life : 6) Noise : x 7) Light & glare : X 8 ) Land Use ; north: east : south: Vest : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : f T 9) Natural resources : X j 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : C 12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : /84/ x /I. (` 4'0.9* V g rye e traffic impacts : 14 ) Public services : 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 17 ) Human health : X 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : A 20 ) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation : DNSI DOS More Information Reviewed bY : P. L,to , Title :(j C Qf /MO FIV . Date : 9-7 - 60 FORAM: ERC-Ot: Date circulated : y Wi5() Comments due : E IVVI OXWENFAL CHEfCKLIST RE DIEU SHEET ECF - <oO2 - 80 APPLICATION No (s ) . t,®m Ni5' PROPONENT : 17 01 ®a) CAP • o Pi t0. of a. PROJECT TITLE : VoadblV Ce' Nitak „ t Brief Description of Project : J 4- 1, (1:11 ° c ;ee. e.ofi flex fola Igo j 641)000 ii LOCATION : S.C., Co,ezteg 4.,c1 e. SAX). Qu). 061/St SITE AREA : i 8 12e.tee3•BUILDING AREA (gross) 181, 000 41 DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : 70-80(4 IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO y1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : X 3) Water & water courses : X. 4 ) Plant life :X . 5 ) Animal life :3V6 ) Noise : K. 7 ) Light & glare : 8) Land Use ; north: east : south : west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : X 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : s 11 ) ' Population/Employment : 12 ) Number of Dwellings : I X 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts :IL,z)f 7 ,-;L;f2z -rr i ut /1/C GC/T - cr ` cx 14 ) Public services : r X 15 ) Energy : 16 ) Utilities : 6 17 ) Human health : 18 ) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : 20 ) Archeology/history : X l COMMENTS : Recommendation :7ONSI DOS ' More Information i Reviewed by,_,.- >r? M-,:; Title Date : 5% -- /1 —.J (; FORM:, ERC-O(. LniiEJEJCI Date circulated : Y A? 80 Comments due : ; `"" , 490 E Ind (MENTAL. CHECKLIST QBE IIEID SHEET E C F - 60Z .- 80 APPLICATION No (s ) .c., 4m Ak PROPONENT : The. Ai;cu Cow ooe, 0.P..). eipeD( —E.SJ ate Co. PROJECT TITLE :i, ar° A o DM Brief Description of Project : L/— tv: cbe4) S eca, e,ee1,, 14-0. 6A OOO 4 e LOCATION: S.E, C®goeg. Q_ i_ k JJ Aye.. S.W. 1 S.W. Y.5t1St SITE AREA: 1?..142e.ae3 BUILDING AREA (gross) 18' I0004 DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (o) : 170m804 IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) • Direct/Indirect air quality: 3) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : p 5) .Animal life 6) Noisec,\ V7 7) : Light '&'. glare:v I4 8) Land Use ; north: east : south: west : Land use conflicts: View obstruction : v 9) Natural resources : y 10) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment : t12 ) Number of Dwellings : 13 ) Trip ends ( ITE ) : traffic impacts : l 14) Public services : I 15 ) Energy : i 16) Utilities: 17 ) Human health: 18) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation: 20) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : Recommendation DOS L/ More Informationif / Reviewed by : i 4 itle : -/ ' /tiS/ f 7612 Date : FORM: ERC-06 tILTC rei Date circulated : -7 6/80 Comments due : r ' ENVY EMME TAL CHECILYS1T REVIEW SHEET • ECF - 60a - RD APPLICATION No(s ) . o % " ' PROPONENT : T 0q ;N COm owhO.£I'l of C' O. PROJECT TITLE : le a ak Brief Description of Project : 44 6d: tioA)ca C.0 lex LOCATION : S.E. C®acjegc a1s41 a C $'. . 8VLSI'd SITE AREA: 2 d2..TQe.42e3.BUILDING AREA (gross) Q84n 000 DEVELOPMENTAL COVERAGE (%) : ?0-60 IMPACT REVIEW NONE MINOR MAJOR MORE INFO 1 ) Topographic changes : 2 ) Direct/Indirect air quality : 3) Water & water courses : 4) Plant life : 5 ) Animal life: 6) Noise: 7) Light & glare : 8) Land Use ; north: east : south: west : Land use conflicts : View obstruction : 9) Natural resources : 10 ) Risk of upset : 11 ) Population/Employment :_^ 12 ) Number of Dwellings : -----7-------1— 13) Trip ends ( ITE ) :xxx traffic impacts : xxxx 14) Public services : xxxx r 15 ) Energy : 16) Utilities : 17) Human health: 18) Aesthetics : 19 ) Recreation : m V 20) Archeology/history : COMMENTS : * if. comments made on development application review sheet are taken into consideration & followed. Recommendation>..-DipIxxxx DOS More Information e..ifr- : 4.,e-. ,--_._. Reviewed by ;Lti. D. t Persson Title : Research & dev. Date : 9/8/80 FORM: ERC-06 Planning 12-1979 RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET . Application : ley ®d is r Wax% CiNgvapaie:ted Location : C. E, CprzAseie oS Litt Rue. C.W„ t S W. iG 4 StRed. Applicant : T( PAS ( ham Comp avyN.V.). Cpettieec:4/'L—JESIirte—00 TO : Parks Department SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 1 '` Y,/ i '' Police Department A, R, C, MEETING DATE : /WY 1 Public Works Department JOt_ Y< Y Engineering Division Traffic Engineering Building Division Utilities Engineering Fire Department Other) : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING FO H PPLICATION REVIEW CONFERENCE (ARC) TO BE HELD ON cf/ AT 9 : U0 A ,M, IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, " IF YOUR D PAR MENT DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE WILL NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE ARC, PLEASE PROVI ! 4, :yam COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5 : 00 P .M. ON I REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : pOLICE Approved xxx Approved with Conditions Not Approved 1) The Austin Co. has already addressed the problem of the improvement of SW 16th & Lind SW, by agreeing to participate in the current LID in the area. However, if for some reason the LID is not completed or started prior to completion of the building, the Austin Co. should improve the SE and NE corners of the intersection to help traffic flow. 2) The intersection of Lind SW & Grady Way S. has been pointed out to be a bottleneck at this point. The addition of another office building at SW 16th & Lind SW can only make this bottleneck worse. Therefore, it is recommended that the Austin Co. help add one lane northbound at the intersection so that traffic may flow better in the afternoon. This recommendation does not include curb and gutter, rather just the paving of the shoulder so that right turns can be made freely without having to wait for the straight through traffic to receive a green light. 3) Any lightingin the parking lot or around the building be placed so that it shines in onto the building. This makes it easier for police officers when responding to calls late at night, in that they are not blinded by the light shining out at them, and they are not looking directly into light and at a disa antage if they have to surround the building on a silent alarm ca hostage-type call. L . s o 9/8/80 5 --0 Yz- fir) T TH E AUSTIN BOO SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 CO M kY TELEPHONE 206/226.0800 TELETYPE 910.423.0682 DESIGNERS • ENGINEERS • BUILDERS September 9 , 1980 r 1+ Mr . Warren G . Gonnason , Director HIV 3Q Department of Public Works City of Renton Renton ; ' Washington 98055 Subject : Fill and Development Limits on VO & IP Subdivision No . 2 Dear Mr . Gonnason : As ,you are aware , we are preparing a site development plan for Lot 1 of proposed valley Office and Industrial park, Subdivision No . 2 . The area generally included in Lot 1 is . currently being filled under a Renton permit limiting fill to the "north half" of the site . Considering "north half" to be an inexact term for an irregular area , and with the box culvert under SR 167 discharging north of the midpoint of the lot , we request that you consider the south lot 'line of Lot 1 to be acceptable for the filled limits . The area of Lot 1 plus the area north of the Caraccioli tract is 14 .0 acres, with the total subdivision acreage being 28 . 3 acres . We appreciate your consideration in this matter . Very truly yours, Paul S. Chiado Vice president and District Manager PSC :dt cc-Renton Planning Dept Renton Hearing Examiner 1 ' r S.W. I6TH STREET N 89°35'25°E-411.171 N 89°35'25"E—448.59' BO' o o i I c i Q ed in MN 0=90'02'42'. o i 1 N89°35'33"E-261.13' i 0 O w I 51 gI 9 a0No 50 I o 1 I 49 10 N 89°35 36 E-264.82 SO X L^!iL YEQ% O in 91 pP /.v07 __% EEitJ SH//6 T`f ` S kV coNvN m w 500 * 830'= IfN292'1 c 2 0 n n I C I z H 03in 1 1 1138.55 505'= N89°49 01 W— 633'= 40 S.W. I9TH STREET 0 so a I 1 4 1TY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM fib6:. %l> c' Jt'f FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ' Application io. ay.? - f6 A f Environmental Checklist No. Eer- PROPOSED, date:FINAL, date: ODeclaration of Significance O Declaration of Significance Declaration of Non-Significance El Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS : Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, R.CW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly afftecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you-can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Northwest Commercial Real Estate Co. 2. ' Address and phone number of Proponent:, 800 Southwest 16th St. , RPntnn, Washington (206) 226-8800 3. Date Checklist submitted September 5, 1980 lding .Department, City of Renton, WA4. Agency requiring Checklist Bui 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Valley Office Park, Mark II 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements , and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : See Exhibit "A" , Item 1, attached. 2- a 7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal,, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts , including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of thee environ- mental setting of the proposal ) : See Exhibit A, Item 2, attached, 8. ,Estimated date for completion of the proposal : March 31, 1981 9. List of all permits , licenses or government approvals required for the proposal i(federal , state and local --including rezones) : City of Renton Building Permit City Site Development Approval , which has been submitted. , Shdrt Plat has been submitted, Fill Permit issued, 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion , or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes , explain: None 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered_by your proposal? If yes, explain: None 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date; describe the nature of such application form: None II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1) : Earth. Will the proposal result in: 1 (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic X substructures? See Exhibit B, Item 1, attached. YES MAYBE NO b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- covering of the soil? X See Exhibit B, Item 2, attached. YES MAYBE NO c) Change in topography or ground surface relief X features? ' See Exhibit B, Item. 3, attached. ES MAYBE NO d) The destruction, covering or modification of any X unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? X See Exhibit B, .Item 4, attached. YES MAYBE NO f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands , or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify- the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 3- 2) Air. Will the proposal result in: a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X See Exhibit B, Item 5, attached. YES MAYBE NO b) The creation of objectionable odors? X YES MA BE NO c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: SPP attachments 3) Water. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements , in either marine or fresh waters?X YES MAYBE NO b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns , or X the rate and amount of surface water runoff? See Exhibit B, Item 6, attached. YES MAYBE NO c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X See Exhibit B, Item 7, attached. YES MAYBE NO d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water X body? YES MAYBE NO e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration surface water quality, including but not limited to X temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES MAYBE NO f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of X ground. waters? - YES MAYBE NO g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or withdrawals , or through X interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, X or other substances into the ground waters? YES MAYBE NO i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available X for public water supplies?YES MAYBE NO Explanation: SPP attar•hmpnt-G 4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? See Exhibit B, Item 8, attached. , YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X endangered species of flora? YES MAYBE NO c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area., or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing X species? YES MAYBE NO d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 4- 5) , Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of fauna (birds , land animals including reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms , X insects or microfauna)? YES MAYBE NO b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X endangered species of fauna? YES MAYBE NO- c) ' Introduction of new species of fauna into an area , or result in a barrier to the migration or movement X of fauna? YES MAYBE NO ' d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X ti YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X See Exhibit B, Item 9, attached. YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal , produce new light or X glare? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: C8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the X present or planned land use of an area? See Exhibit B, Item 10, attached . YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of'.any natural resources? X YES MAYBE NO b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited' to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in 'the event of an acciden-t or upset conditions? X See Exhibit B, Item 11, attached. YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, or growth- rate of the human population X of an area? See Exhibit B, Item 12, attached. YES MAYBE 3 Explanation:See attachments 5- 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing , or create a demand for additional housing?X See Exhibit B, Item 13, attached. YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in : a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X See Exhibit B, Item 14, attached. YES MAYBE NO b) Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? X See Exhibit B, Item 15, attached. YES MAYBE NO c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X YES MAYBE NO See Exhibit B, Item 16, attached. d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X YES MAYBE NO e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X YES MAYBE NO f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , X bicyclists or pedestrians? See Exhibit B, Item 17, attached. YES MAYBE NO Explanation: * Also see attached Studies by Christopher Brown, P.E. , "Traffic Studies" dated March-January 1980. See attachments 14) Public Services. Will the proposal' have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : a) Fire protection? X See Exhibit B, Item 18, attached. YES MAYBE NO X b) Police protection? See Exhibit B, Item 19, attached. YES MAYBE NO c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO d) Parks or other recreational ,facilitiesq X YES MAYBE NO e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads.? X See Exhibit B, Item 20, attached. YES MAYBE NO f) Other governmental services? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X See Exhibit B, Item 21, attached. YES MAYBE NO b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO See Exhibit B, Item 22, attached. Explanation:See attachments 16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities : a) Power or natural gas? X YES MAYBE NO b) Communications systems? X YES 'MAYBE NO c) Water?X YES MAYBE NO ti 6- d) Sewer or septic tanks? X YES MAYBE NO e) Storm water drainage?.g YES MAYBE NO f) Solid waste and disposal?•X YES MAYBE NO Explanation,: See Exhibit, B, Item 23 for explanation of (a) , (b) , c) , (d) , (e) , and (f) . S'ee attachments 17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)-? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation: 18) Aesthetics. Will the, proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X See Exhibit B, Item 24, attached, YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?, ee Exhibit B, Item 25, attached.YES MAYBE NO Explanation: See attachments 20) Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significaht archeological or 'historical site, structure, object or building?X YES MATTE- NO Explanation: III. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that -the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in- reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent': 1 4 signed) pa1.i1 S . Chjado, Vice President name printed) City of Renton Planning Department 5-76 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST September 5, 1980 EXHIBIT A 1 . The complex consists of four 2-story buildings situated in a quadrangle . Each building contains approximately 46, 000 sq. ft. of area equally divided between two floors. The office area is lighted and the space conditioned through the use of heating and air-conditioning equipment. The court which is created by the quadrangle will be landscaped with greenery and intermingled with pedestrian walkways . The buildings are designed with personnel flow to be provided by stair towers and elevators. The exterior of the quadrangle between the buildings and the public roadways is landscaped, including the parking area . 2. The site is located within the southeast quadrant commencing at the intersection of Lind Avenue Southwest and Southwest 16th Street . The first vehicular entrance to the site off of Lind Avenue Southwest is located approximately 890 feet from Interstate 405. The parcel of land , which is zoned as Heavy Industrial , encompasses approximately 12 acres . The site is currently being filled under an active fill permit. The site is surrounded by warehouse and industrial type buildings to the north and east. To the east and facing East Valley Road, (Highway S-167) , but within the same block are some foundations from an old residence. To the south, rough road fill has been placed for development of Southwest 19th Street , under LID #314. West of subject site and across Lind Avenue S.W. , is located the Boeing Valley Office Park Complex of four two-story buildings, while to west of that and across Raymond Avenue S.W. , the parcel of land is owned by the Group Health Cooperative on which they have constructed a warehouse office and distribution center . Across Southwest 16th Street on the north side , the Northwest District Office of The Austin Company is located . To the north of the Boeing Valley EXHIBIT A Page Two Office Park on the north side of Southwest 16th Street, there is A lumber yard , an older residence together with an electrical contractors facility. Directly north of subject site and across the street there is located a carpet and drapery facility, disposal firm, coffee distributor and Dave and Swede' s Service Station and Garage. Because of the esthetics which are being considered for this proposal , it is believed that it will enhance the surroundings and could develop into a focal point for this area of the Kent Valley. aCk ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EXHIBIT B 1. Soil tests have been taken on an adjacent site , just west of Lind Avenue Southwest , (Boeing Valley Office Park) . Borings are yet to be taken on subject site . But due to criteria established by soil test across the street it is anticipated that it will be necessary to use piling and pile cap in support of the building loads, (subject to soil test reports from borings) . It is anticipated that the piling will penetrate approxima- tely 35 feet to subsoil which is capable of sustaining the building load . The building will be elevated to a level consistent with the surrounding finished road grades to assist in overcoming the possibility of flooding . Certain cuts and fills will be required to accommodate the parking areas, and trenches will have to be dug and backfilled to accommodate all utility piping and distribution. During the course of construction the site will be watered as necessary to prevent any corrosion of the existing soils, and to prevent winds from carrying soils to adjacent properties. All of the undeveloped area will be seeded or developed as landscaped area to assist in stabilizing the soil structure. 2. It is possible that some disruption and displacement will occur during the course of construction; however , all back- fill of trenching will be compacted. 3. There will be a change in topography due to the fill pro- cedures as described in Paragraph II, 1 , a, above. Although the topography is changed to a minor degree , the new relief features such as the building itself, the landscaping and the paved areas all lend themselves to enhancing the property in the surrounding areas. EXHIBIT B Page Two 4. During construction it is possible that there could be an erosion of existing soils due to wind or water . However , as previously explained under Paragraph II, 1 , a, above, methods will be employed to reduce any possible erosion to a minimum. The possible erosion condition will not last any longer than four months . 5. It is envisioned that natural gas will be utilized to ade- quately heat the structure . The proper venting of the heating units , to some limited degree , may affect the air quality. Manufacturers of gas fired heating units design their equipment to maximize a complete ignition and combus- tion of the fuel source . This precaution minimizes the possibility of any pollutants being discharged into the out- side air . It is evident that there will be increased motor traffic in the area , thereby increasing automotive emissions in conjunction with what we know as transportation today. It is possible that in the future the mode of transportation will change due to lack of fuel sources. 6. The proposed facility will cover a limited area and, together with the impervious parking area , the absorption rate of the surrounding areas will be moderately changed . 7. Due to minimal trenching and fill involved in the development of the site , there may be limited temporary alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. This situation would only exist during the initial four months of the construction period . This proposal contains design requirements which satisfy the "Requirements and Guidelines for Storm Drainage Control in King County" as prepared by the King County Division of Hydraulics dated May, 1979. The proposal site design provides on-site drainage to retention surface areas and to a ditch and culvert under Lind Avenue Southwest and S LS EXHIBIT B Page Three ditch to the west. This parcel of land is considerably smaller than the 50 acre governing area and, consequently, produces considerably less than 20 cu. ft. per second allowed during the ten year flood design frequency. The concentration of rainfall has been calculated based on parameters set forth in the above mentioned reference manual . 8. Earth fill on site is now almost complete under a previously issued fill permit. 9. There will be increased noise levels during the course of construction due to the operation of earthmoving equipment and other construction devices. During the period of filling the site , there will be some noise from diesel trucks which are employed to transport the fill . This type of noise should not be offensive to the surrounding neighborhood as most of the developed property in the area is subject to the same fill requirements. Upon completion of the project, there will no doubt be an increase in noise levels due to morning and later afternoon traffic created by the coming and going of the occupant' s staff . 10. This parcel of land is within an existing zone that is classified for Heavy Industrial usage. The entire parcel , at present , is unimproved and ready for development. 11. As previously mentioned, this complex will utilize natural gas as an energy source to heat the facility. When the equipment is properly designed and functions with adequate venting , there is virtually no possibility of an explosion. Obviously, there are gas explosions occurring in commercial and industrial facilities and even in private homes from time to time; however , most such occurrences could be eliminated through proper maintenance. Q EXHIBIT B Page Four 12. There will be a heavier concentration of people who will be Working in this immediate area . However , the majority of them are already employed in the vicinity of Renton. 13. As stated in Paragraph II, 11 , above, the majority of the people who will be housed in this facility, we assume, already have permanent residential quarters in the Greater Seattle Area. 14. This office complex will provide for 920 automobiles on the site . The road systems surrounding the site are adequately designed for this traffic flow. The larger companies generally stagger their work start times so as to minimize congestion on the streets at any specific time. The Metro transit system will work with large employers to tailor special means of transportation for their employees, thus reducing vehicular impact. Presently Metro Transit stops at Grady Way and Lind Avenue Southwest , which is some 1500 feet from the site. Large employers also encourage employee carpooling and the use of any other means of mass transit. They are capable of imposing acceptable programs on their employees that result in the minimization of traffic impact. Furthermore , the existing street facilities of Southwest 16th Street , Rainier Avenue and Lind Avenue are adequate to handle the anticipated traffic load. This is evidenced nearly every day by the ability of the nearby racing facility and Boeing Valley Office Park to dissipate a considerable volume of traffic within a short period of time. The existing street system allows traffic to flow from the site of the proposed complex to Highway 167 via existing roadways . A secondary means of egress is available utilizing Lind Avenue to Grady Way and , ultimately, to Highway 405 as well as the West Valley Highway. The overall projected vehicular impact should also consider the growth of mass transporation Ria EXHIBIT B Page Five systems, vis-a-vis the private automobile - its use andY future as we know it today. Given the limited availability and cost of fossil fuel , the continued degree of use of the private automobile as primary work transportation will probably lessen in the future. Therefore , planning for impact should consider these changes and developments. 15. The demand for parking will increase as indicated in Paragraph II, 13, a , above. However , all of the new demand will be accommodated on site . 16. The increased tax base from the project will justify and support an expanded mass transport system. See Paragraph II, 13, a, above. 17. Increased traffic of any kind may give rise to some potential increased danger to bicycle or pedestrian traffic . It should be said , however , that this area is not primarily residential in character and this facility should not influence any changes that would result in pedestrian or bicycle traffic . 18. The proposed facilities will fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton Fire Department. Access to the site is excellent and should not represent any unusual risks or danger with respect to adequately protecting the facility. 19. There may be some need for increased police protection due to the presence of the new office facilities . However , this should be negligible . After hours , night time and weekends, larger firms generally provide their own building security forces. a EXHIBIT B Page Six 20. As indicated in Paragraph II, 13, a, above, increased vehicular traffic may result in the need for increased regular maintenance of the road systems. Road use is not anticipated to be unusual with respect to weight limits and , therefore , should not be adversely affected by this proposed development. 21 . The amount of fuel or electrical energy which will be consum— med by this facility is well within the norms established in the industry for office applications. 22. The office development will primarily result in an increase in demand of electrical energy. This demand will not be inordinate or unusual with regard to the scope , size or design of the office building . The office project should not require the development of any new sources of energy since adequate power sources are available to the site . 23. The need for the creation of new systems for power , communi— cations , water , sanitary sewer , storm sewer or solid waste disposal is not anticipated. The only modification necessary would be the normal connection to existing adquate systems. However , should LID No . 314 not be implemented within reasonable period of time then modification to existing sewer lift station at Lind and 19th would be required . 24. The proposed office complex will enhance the esthetics of the area and will be pleasing to the neighborhood. 25. During lunch hours or possibly after work, some tenant employees may elect to use nearby recreational facilities such as parks, stadiums, etc . Fort Dent Park or Renton' s parks could be used on a warm summer day as picnic areas for lunch or after working hours. CITY OF RENTON r' APPLICATION SITE APPROVAL FOR OFFICE USE ONLY File No. SA- 090? '10 Filing Date Application Fee $ Receipt No. Environmental Review Fee $ APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6 : 1. Name Northwest Commercial Real Estate Company Phone 22 -RRnn Address R00 Southwest 16th Street- , RAr;i-op, WaGhing+-02:1 98055 2 . Property location Southwest corner of Southwest T,ind Avenue and Southwest 16th Street, Renton, Washington 3. Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) Lot 1 of Valley Office & Industrial Park, Subdivision No. 2 . U r911ts, a11`11 rife j GVJJ7 4. Number of acres or square feet Present zoning 5. What do you propose to develop on this property? Office Buildings 6 . The following information shall be submitted with this application : A. Site and access plan (include setbacks , Scale existing structures , easements , and other factors limiting development) 1" = 10 ' or 20 ' B. Parking, landscaping and screening plan 1" = 10 ' C. Vicinity map (include land use and zoning on adjacent parcels) 1" = 200 ' to 800 ' D. Building height and area (existing and proposed) 7. LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER ACTION : Date Approved Date Denied Date Appealed Appeal Action Remarks Planning Dept. Rev, 1-77` I AFFIDAVIT Valley Office and Industrial Park, Inc. formerly Metro Industrial District, Inc. ) I,' Paul S . Chiado, an officer of / being duly sworn,' declare that ' I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith' submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this 5th day of SPptPmh,r 19 Rn Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle 0 , 1, , & Name of Notar Public) Signat re of Owner) Donna J. Trulson 8414 8th Avenue Southwest 800 Southwest 16th Street Address) Seattle, Washington 98106 Address) Renton, WA 98055 City) State) 226-8800 Telephone) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY') CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the-. foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to eth[ozv.gh and complete in every particular and to conform to the rule A!n r_f 'u3lat4,ons of the Renton Planning Department__ __ ___ governing the fili gof(suUCy api,cation . Date Received SEP 5 . sO , 19 By: i r),,,.6 . , d = --- Renton Planning Dept . 2-73 oF F.ILE FILE TITLE y • i 1A f.^.. ', a"' 4,. w r.. v x k ,xw^ f1' ,•V+arF •