No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc - 3 of 4Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning, including project-specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argument under the Fifth Amendment. c. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner, explaining why the denial of this project is not an option, concludes nit is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact, we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCW 58.17 was adopted, and has been amended o_ver time, to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.llO(la&b) and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent of the state legislature, they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme, the Hearing Examiner's basis for approving this subdivision would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. D. Page 4, Lines 19-21: In this section, the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE SE/ SE 142nd Pl. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance ofthe general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law, the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. 6 000746 E. Page 4, lines 25-26: In this section the Hearing Examiner states that "Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required by their growth plans, its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact, this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use planning of municipalities, shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.?0A.020(12) which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Act: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Conclusion Given the record before you, and as supported by our arguments above, we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development-related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE/ SE 142nd PL intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 000747 uoMP,{!~ Judith fVI Paulsen 6617 SE 5th P1~ce Renton, WA 98059 31 Mazama Pines Lane Mazama, W :\ 98833 Exhibits from the public record (included by reference): E..-<lubit .-\ Exhibit B Exhibit C Exlubit D Exlubit E E,hibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Ex.lubit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit lvl Neighborhood Detail Map from Paulsen Comment Letter (24 Jun 2014) Original Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (18 .Jul 2014) Request for Reconsideration of Heming Examiner's Decision (30 .Jul 2014) Final Decision on Reconsideration (13 Aug 2014) Response to Request for Reconsideration ofSEP1\ Determination (16 Apr 2014) Rc,·iscd SEP.-\ Determination (19 l\Jay 2014) Report to the Hearing Examiner (24 Jun 2014) City of Renton 2014-2019 Si,-Y car Transportation Improvement Program Traffic Impact Analysis -2"" Addendum (20 Jun 2014) Traffic Concurrency Test for the Encla,·c at Bridle Ridge (18 Apr 2014) l\fcmo from C. Eames to R. Mar (5 May 2014) SEPA Threshold Detcmunation (31 Mar 2014) City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development 8 000748 ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle 18225 SE 147'h St. Renton, WA 98059 Gary & Janice Smith 14504 166th Pl SE Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert 14004 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell 15451 SE 142nd Pl. Renton, WA 98059 PHW Attorneys: Brent Karst: brc@vnf.com mol@vnf.com David Michalski 6525 SE 5th Pl. Renton, Wa 98059 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Nipert 900 Queen Anne Av N. Seattle, WA 98109 Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2"d Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Jason Paulsen 31 Mazama Pines Ln. Mazama, WA 98833 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Marsha Rollinger 6618 SE 4th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd. Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl. Renton WA 98059 000749 CITY CF RENTO~.f v ?PEAL TO RENTON CITY COVNCL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION RECEIVED .1= 4 Ci"f:'.flER~,Q~~l(:E APPLlCATIONNAME ct/C(KW Ar IJ/,ltAf /(J("f FTJ.ENol/J,{l'f·OvtlA.'11 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated J, '/ Jtl,/f , 20/t/ . 'y}dJ ~7tl.. 'J'tJ()ff/1 /JJtilSEJ.) 1. IDENimCATIONOFPARTY APP~_; tJ~ Name: £.a&l-ul/lSflJ Addr~s: 6(/7 Sf SrJ/ It -- K€Adau, Wi 9£'05"; - ~J:t:)7J~N Address: 3{ !Jllf!/H,I /7/JJcS UJ · fHJ~AISM. u/J '!f€53 Phone Number: f"(){ ~ ff('-f'/(iJ Email: Z,$3,J(}fflt/U~JJ~ ~,,,,t .(JIii 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: (5« IJ'f'CIIE/J) 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Anach explanation, if desired) ( - Rev~e the ~~ion or reco=enda:ion and grant the following relief: ),l:4! nJr IC JINI ) Modify the deci£:ion orreco=endarion as follows: c.c, ,ref• "VU Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: . Type/Printed Name NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11 OF. for specific appeal procedures. 000750 Cc: )a.rr, WUIUA, c.A Clv1p v,,iQn,,t,, ctn) Ci1Y OF REI-JTON August 25, 2014 ::; ~ [i:-1' H,:.,,..,;.(!.9 , ~-p \)~z,._ Vrlbce-, 0-eP S+we., kt, I c.eo AUG 2 6 2014 z,~~-yp.- City of Renton City Clerk ~q Burtueil, c:en ~ "1 n,,... 11'\< ,.,...,-ic I c.-d) pi,:1 01(,r<d,t:i, 1+1')( RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ::,;u o·, "'J ' c. E' i) APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.llO{F) Dear Members of the Renton City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to submit an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision for the preliminary plat and SEPA appeal associated with the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, LUA14-000241. Standing As the record shows, we have attempted to utilize each of the City's provided appeal and reconsideration processes to resolve our concerns with the proposed project. We are left with this final appeal to the City Council, and respectfully submit our concerns and argument for your careful consideration. As city residents who have a single point of access to the City's street system via SE s'h Place adjacent to the proposed plat {See Exhibit A), we have a direct public safety and property value interest in ensuring that the proposed plat does not adversely impact our ingress and egress, or the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. We believe that the City's approval of this preliminary plat threatens and/or harms our personal interests, and runs counter to the public interest, health and safety of our neighbors and the City's residents at-large. Introduction At the core of our appeal lies a belief that the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner is deficient with respect to the standards for subdivision approval established by RCW 58.17 in two ways. Subdivision law in Washington State requires that a subdivision may only be approved in a jurisdiction makes affirmative findings pursuant to RCW 58.17.110(1) and RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and (b). The City's codes are required to be consistent with this State Law. First, we believe that the Findings of Fact developed by the Hearing Examiner fail to support a finding of "appropriate provision" with respect to streets as required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a). Second, we believe that the decision fails to make the required finding(s) under RCW 58.17.110(2)(b) that the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. 1 000751 ,,.; Lastly, we find that the decision prepared by the Hearing Examiner is largely built around opinion, supported by vague and, in some cases, inaccurate references to case law, concurrency and the Fifth Amendment. We find that the Hearing Examiner has built his case around this opinion, rather than supporting his Findings of Fact with the record and clear facts. We thank you for your consideration of this appeal request, and ask that you take time to carefully review the important information included in the public record for this proposed subdivision as you make your decision. Appeal Arguments In his original decision (Exhibit B), and furthered in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D) to our request for reconsideration (Exhibit C), the Hearing Examiner rests his Findings of Fact for Streets solely upon the City's Concurrency Management System, and the Leve I of Service measurement it provides as the determinant for "appropriate provision" (RCW 58.17.110) and SEPA review. (See 8/13/2014 Decision, Page 16, Lines 8-9). He specifically acknowledges the challenges brought by the City's system for measuring Level of Service, noting " ... Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts." (Page 16, Lin 17-18) The Examiner acknowledges the more standardized LOS measuring approach utilized by other jurisdictions, but goes on to state on Page 17, Line 11 of his decision that "Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion." While we agree with the Examiner that the City of Renton's Concurrency Management system proves a poor tool for evaluating project-specific traffic impacts, we disagree with his finding that Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. In fact, the record shows dearly that City of Renton staff have been very concerned about the traffic impacts associated with this proposed subdivision since their earliest pre-application conferences with the applicant. The City utilized its dear authority under SEPA to require a site specific traffic impact analysis as part of its initial SEPA review (Exhibit L) for this project, as well as its secondary SEPA review (Exhibit F) after our initial request for reconsideration (Exhibit E). These analyses found that there is a lack of capacity for additional traffic associated with the proposed subdivision. The Hearing Examiner has chosen to ignore the validity and existence of these site specific traffic analyses using the standard (A,B,C,D,E,F) measurements, other than for measuring proportionate impact as part of the mitigation required in the final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. He rests his entire Findings of Fact related to Streets upon the City's city-wide Level of Service measurement system, despite acknowledging on Page 17, Line 19 that "The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A,B,C" system used in most other jurisdictions.,, We strongly disagree with the Hearing Examiner's finding on Page 17, Line 20 which reads: "However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device, it is still the 2 000752 most compelling standard to use". The record shows that the City does have the authority to require more specific traffic analyses as it evaluates the impact of a development proposal, and that the City properly exercised this authority to analyze the impacts of this project. In fact, the City's own policy governing site-specific traffic analyses (Exhibit M) requires this type of.Level of Service analysis. We believe that if these traffic analyses are properly considered, they require the City to find that the affirmative findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2)(a) and 58.17.110(2)(b) cannot be made absent a commitment to have the traffic signal at the 1561h/ 142nd intersection in place prior to new traffic from the proposed subdivision. To ignore a more specific, site-specific analysis in favor of the more broad analysis which has acknowledged deficiencies defies common sense. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as the record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following is a summary of facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 1561h Ave. SE/ SE 142"d PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --LOS level "F" (Exhibit G) b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips, and between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips, in the immediate vicinity ofthe failed intersection (Exhibit G) c) A Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the developer notes that " ... it was observed that in the PM Peak hour, existing southbound vehicle queues on 1561h Ave. SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th PL which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142nd PL./ 1561h Ave. SE intersection". (Exhibit I) d) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). (Exhibit J) e) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide LOS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. (Exhibit B) f) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156'h Ave. SE/ SE 142nd PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level -LOS level "C". (Exhibit F) g) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share ofthe cost for the proposed signal. (Exhibit F) h) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9th on their Traffic Signal Priority List (Exhibit K) 3 000753 i) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP# 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years (Exhibit H) j) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE/ SE 142nd Pl intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEPA to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement. The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, nor the Hearing Examiner's approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the failing condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards .established by our state legislature in RCW 58.17.110, nor the City of Renton Municipal Code. In his Findings and decision to approve this preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner repeatedly makes reference to both monetary and legal reasons why the City of Renton is obligated to approve this subdivision rather than accept its responsibility under RCW 58.17. (See Page 3, Lines 11 -13 ). We believe that none of this opinion advanced by the Hearing Examiner is relevant, and in fact, in some cases it is blatantly misleading and/or inaccurate. In support of our position we call your attention to the following examples from the Hearing Examiner's August 13th Final Decision on Reconsideration (Exhibit D): A. Page 3, Lines 15-18: In this section, the Hearing Examiner inserts personal opinion with respect to the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton. The City Council should take note that there is nothing in the public record for this project to support this basis for his decision, and it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to insert his personal opinion regarding the fiscal capacity of the City of Renton, and then rely on it as factual evidence as part of his decision to approve the plat. B. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner goes on to state that if the City were to deny this plat, it would be in the position of " •.• compensating the applicant for taking its property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment." This statement exposes a clear bias on the part of the Hearing Examiner in support of development, as there is absolutely nothing in the record nor in case law that supports a conclusion that denial of a project-specific application establishes a de-facto moratorium, nor that it entitles an applicant to compensation under the Fifth 4 000754 Amendment. In fact, the case law governing this issue is clear to point out that compensation is only required where a true "taking" occurs. The property-specific application of land use regulations is not a taking under the law. Later in his decision (Page 4, Line 17) the Hearing Examiner calls attention to the land use case Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'/ Planning Agency, 535 US 302 {2002) as apparent support for this thesis that denial of a project such as this creates a de-facto moratorium and runs counter to the Fifth Amendment. This is clearly counter to the actual decision rendered in this case where the Court found as follows: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 00-1167. Argued January 7, 2002--Decided April 23, 2002 "Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development. The interest in informed decisionmaking counsels against adopting a per se rule that would treat such interim measures as takings regardless of the planners' good faith, the landowners' reasonable expectations, or the moratorium's actual impact on property values. The financial constraints of compensating property owners during a moratorium may force officials to rush through the planning process or abandon the practice altogether. " Further, a careful reading of Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'/ Planning Agency reveals a reality quite the opposite of what the Hearing Examiner appears to understand. The City Council is highly encouraged to inquire with the City's legal counsel as to the actual direction provided by the Court in this case, as it firmly establishes both the responsibility and the authority of a jurisdiction to do good land use planning and development project review. In further support of our position that the Hearing Examiner's citation of this case is mis- leading and inaccurate, please see the following excerpt from that decision: TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et aL v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY et aLcertiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 00-1167. Argued January 7, 2002--Decided April 23, 2002 "For the same reason that we do not ask whether a physical appropriation advances a substantial government interest or whether it deprives the owner of all economically valuable use, we do not apply our precedent from the physical takings context to regulatory takings claims. Land-use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way--often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford." 5 000755 Clearly, a jurisdiction has the ability to participate in good land use planning, including project-specific review and can deny a project without fear of creating a takings argument under the Fifth Amendment. c. Page 3, Lines 15-18: The Hearing Examiner, explaining why the denial of this project is not an option, concludes "It is unlikely the state legislature intended cities and counties to be in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.110." We could not disagree more. In fact, we argue that the legislative record is clear that RCW 58.17 was adopted, and has been amended overtime, to ensure that the new subdivision of land only occurs when a jurisdiction can make affirmative findings consistent with RCW 58.17.llO(la&b) and RCW 58.17.110(2a&b). Common sense alone suggests that if this were not the intent ofthe state legislature, they never would have adopted this provision as part of state law, and required every city and county in the state to abide by it. Taken to its logical extreme, the Hearing Examiner's basis for approving this subdivision would suggest that there is never a case in the state of Washington where a subdivision should be denied. We find this interpretation of state law to be alarmingly out of step with professional land use planning practice and case law regarding subdivisions in the state of Washington. D. Page 4, lines 19-21: In this section, the Hearing Examiner suggests that a decision to deny this subdivision based upon traffic impacts would result in an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to the 156 AVE SE/ SE 142nd Pl. intersection, and that a decision to deny the plat would put the applicant in a "very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium." Again, this is speculative opinion informed by an inaccurate understanding of the Fifth Amendment and the case law cited above, and has no place as a Finding of Fact relative to the approval of this plat. The prioritization of intersection improvements is an exercise the City Council is required to complete once each year under state law, and is reflected in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. If the City found itself in the position of denying this or future subdivisions because of the failure of this intersection, we must assume that the City Council would exercise its policy-making authority and prioritize the intersection improvement in a manner consistent with the furtherance of the general public interest, health and safety of its residents. To rely upon the threat of potential future litigation in making the affirmative finding required by RCW 58.17 is both inappropriate and inconsistent with the intent of state law, the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Transportation Element. 6 000756 E. Page 4, Lines 25-26: In this section the Hearing Examiner states that "Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street segment above a failing level of service." The characterization of the Growth Management Act by the Hearing Examiner is both inaccurate and irresponsible on the part of a planning professional functioning in this capacity. While planning under the Growth Management Act is absolutely intended to ensure that municipalities both anticipate and plan for the public improvements required by their growth plans, its intent is not that growth should continue unchecked if funds are lacking for necessary improvements. In fact, this is the very reason the state legislature adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990. The intent of the Growth Management Act is to ensure that growth occurs in a logical and planned manner, and that it occurs only when adequate public facilities are in place to accommodate the service demands it brings. The fiscal realities of a municipality are supposed to inform the land use plannin_g of municipalities, shaping where and when future development will occur. This is supported by RCW 36.70A.020(12) which sets forth the goals of the Growth Management Act: "(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Conclusion Given the record before you, and as supported by our arguments above, we respectfully request that the City Council re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17.110, or otherwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development-related traffic from this plat will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE/ SE 142nd Pl intersection or 156th Ave. SE until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 7 000757 oo M l',-f!:;~- /_1udith i\! Paulsen 6617 SI', 5th Place Renton, \XI;\ 98059 31 flfazama Pines Lane l\lazama, W:\ 98833 Exhibits from the public record (included by reference): Exhibit ,\ Exhibit H Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit c; Exhibit H Exhibit r Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Neighborhood Detail ~lap from P;iulsen Comment Letter (24 Jun 2014) 01iginal hnal Decision for Enclave at BridJe Ridge PreliminaiJ Plat ( I 8 Jul 2014) Request fur Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's Decision (.,O Jul 2014) Final Decision on Rcconsidcrntion (13 Aug 2014) Response to Request for Reconsideration of SEP,\ Determination (16 ,\pr 2014) Rc,·iscd SEP:\ Determination (19 ~by 2014) Report to the Hearing l\xami.ncr (24 _I un 2014) City of Renton 2014-'.W 19 Six-Y car Transportation lmprm·ement Program Traffic Impact Analysis·-2'"1 Addendum (20.Jun 2014) Traffic ConcmTcncv Test for the Encl:l\'e at Btidlc Ridge (18 ;\pr 2014) i\lcmo from C. Barnes to R. l\lar (5 i\br 2014) SEP1\ 'Jl1rcshold Determination (31 Illar 2014) City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development 8 000758 0 0 0 ..... UI U) b~,tY ~~ ·~ + dl~~ CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 OCash ,fa:Check No. q5l{'f Receipt N~ 2137 Date Y-(U /1 'f 0 Copy Fee O Notary Service ~Appeal Fee O _________ _ Description: ~,J rfu ~~L, -lU.l'!-1£f'-oOO.:l'fl Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip ~p~ ,~,1 5C~f)1. ~ w{\-<t W57f Amount$ ,250, 00 ~6~ City Staff Signature ( ( 1 1 7 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 - City Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal to Council, Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA-14-000241 Date: 8/27/2014 City Attorney Larry Warren City Council • Julia Medzegian / Community and Economic Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Development Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Mgr Jill Ding, Planner Steve Lee, Development Engineering Mgr Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Fire Marshall Fire & Emergency Services Mark Peterson Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties of Record (see attached list) Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman PW /Transportation Services Doug Jacob son PW /Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby LUA-14-000241 • *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only 000760 000761 Denis Law Mayo.r ,.! t: il··~~ August 14, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton Re: Final Decision on Reconsideration for Encla~e at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14.-000241 · · Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration dated August 13, 2014, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me or Jill Ding, the Senior Planner at (425) 430-6598. Enc.: · HEX Final Decision on Reconsideration cc: · t-ifaring _Examiner , Jill Ding. Senior Planner • · Jennifer Henning, Plannirig Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official · Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Ganmon Newson, Senio_r Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren, City Attorney Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Parties of Record (li) · 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 iFax (425) 430-6516 , rentonwa000762 Ea~ Peet® Labels Use Avei,A!TTemplate 5160® ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle 18225 SE 147'h St. Renton, WA 98059 Gary & Janice Smith 14504 166th Pl SE Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert 14004 1S6'h Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell 15451 SE 142nd Pl. Renton, WA 98059 PHW Attorneys: Brent Karst: brc@vnf.com mol@vnf.com Etlqu-s fadles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51GO'D I I I J A -Bend along line to I Feed Paper -expose Pop-Up EdgeTM J --David Michalski 6525 SE 5th Pl. Renton, Wa 98059 Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Nipert 900 Queen Anne Av N. Seattle, WA 98109 Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln. Mazama, WA 98333 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 .. Sens de chargement Repllez 6 la hachun, affn de I rev!ler le rebortl Pop-Op"' ; ~ AVERY® s160® l Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Marsha Rollinger 6618 SE 4th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd. Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl. Renton WA 98059 wJl9v(}J§i 1°800-GO-AVERY 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat ) ) ) ) ) Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal ) LUA14-000241 ) ) FINAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION SUMMARY 16 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 3 I single- family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143ni Street. An appeal of a Mitigated Determination of N onsignificance ("MONS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. This decision includes a response to a Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger and Judy Paulsen on July 30, 2014. Other than correcting some minor grammatical and typographical errors and adding some clarifications, the original July 18, 2014 remains the same except for the added section entitled "Reconsideration Response", which follows this "Summary" section. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The SEP A appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic congestion. The SEP A appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the PRELIMINARY PLAT -I 000764 1 2 3 - only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (I) the state's Growth Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% 4 of the traffic for a needed traffic improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and ( 4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the ·· 6 applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. 5 7 8 In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well. However, as pointed out by one of the project opponents, 9 this money has to be expended in five years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in five years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record do not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) of this decision. 10 11 12 13 14 RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IS As previously noted, Roger and Judy Paulsen filed a Request for Reconsideration on July 30, 2014. The request is denied and this decision remains largely the same except for the addition of this 16 "Reconsideration Request" section. 17 18 19 Mr. Paulsen raises good questions in his request for reconsideration. His concerns have already been addressed in the original decision on this matter, but that would only be evident to an experienced planner or land use attorney. The general public has every right to be fully apprised in as clear terms as possible why cities and counties are often stuck with approving new development in areas that suffer from traffic congestion. Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request provides an opportunity to 20 provide further clarity on the issue. 21 22 23 Mr. Paulsen's first point in his reconsideration request is that RCW 58.17 .II 0(2) prohibits the approval of a subdivision unless a city or county makes a finding that "appropriate" provision is made for " ... streets, roads, alleys, other public ways ... " This finding was made in three places in the Enclave decision. Finding of Fact No. 4 generally determines that the proposal is served by "adequate" infrastructure. The subsections of Finding of Fact No. 4 elaborate how this determination was made 24 for specific types of infrastructure. Finding of Fact No. 4(E) elaborates how this finding was made for roads. Conclusion of Law No. 7 concludes that the proposal provides for adequate public facilities in response to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), which requires that subdivisions "[m]ake adequate provision for .... streets, alleys, other public ways ... " 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -2 000765 It could be argued that a finding of "adequate" public facilities is not the same as a finding of "appropriate" public facilities as required by RCW 58.17.110(2). A court is unlikely to tolerate such 2 parsimonious word play. "Adequate" within the City's regulatory standards for subdivision review clearly encompasses the "appropriate" criterion of RCW 58.17. 110(2). The intent of the City Council is paramount in interpreting the regulations adopted by it. It can be presumed that the City Council 4 intends to have its regulations interpreted in a manner that is consistent with state law. The RMC only requires consistency with applicable RMC standards for approval of a preliminary plat, not RCW 58.17.110(2). See RMC 4-7-080(!)(1). Consequently, to the extent possible, the subdivision criteria of I 3 5 the RMC should be interpreted as encompassing RCW 58.17.110 requirements in order to ensure that a 6 subdivision that is required to be approved under the RMC is also valid under state law. It is fairly 7 easy to apply this interpretation to RMC 4-7-080(B)(4), since the language pertaining to roads in that provision is almost a direct quote from RCW 58.17.110(2). The City Council clearly intended RMC 4- 8 7-080(B)(4) to encompass the road findings required by RCW 58.17.110(2). Conclusion of Law No. 7 of the Enclave decision finds that the RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) standard is met, so the required finding of 9 RCW 58.17.110(2) has also been made 1• IO The remaining part of Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request details the poor performance of the 156 11 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection and the limitations of the mitigation recommended by City staff. The original Enclave decision expressly acknowledged these problems and explained that the preliminary 12 plat application still had to be approved because the proposal met adopted City level of service standards. The decision noted that fiscal and legal constraints prevent the City from imposing any 13 additional mitigation or deny the project on the basis of traffic congestion. Additional explanation will 14 be provided in this section in response to Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request. 15 In short, Mr. Paulsen wants a fmding that the proposal will not be served by "appropriate" streets because the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection operates at LOS F. As shall be explained, this puts 16 the City in the position of either having to improve the intersection itself using city funds it probably doesn't have or denying the subdivision request and compensating the applicant for talcing its property I 7 without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is unlikely that the state legislature intended cities and counties to be put in this position when it adopted RCW 58.17.1 IO. A far more reasonable approach and the approach that would likely be adopted by the courts is to construe a road 18 19 as "appropriate" for purposes of RCW 58.17.100(2) if that road meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As partially discussed in the original final decision of this case, an adopted City LOS standard represents the road system that the City can afford to require. Requiring more than the adopted LOS likely exceeds the financial capabilities of the City, which cannot be ignored because the City is required to fill in the funding gaps that it cannot require to be filled by developers. In this case, the road system meets the City's LOS, which is why roads were determined to be adequate. 20 21 22 23 The reason why the consequences of the interpretation advocated by Mr. Paulsen are so dire is because of the strict rulings of state and federal courts in the application of the talcings clause of the Fifth 24 Amendment, i.e. government cannot take property without just compensation. There are two 25 ' The references to "adequate" in this decision will also be modified to include "appropriate" to remove any doubt 26 on the issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT-3 000766 l 2 3 significant limitations imposed by the takings clause upon the ability of cities and counties to make •;growth pay for growth". The first limitation is proportionality. The courts consider it to be an unconstitutional takings if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant 4 can only be made to pay for I 0% of those costs. That is why in this application the City could only make the developer pay for a portion of the costs of improving the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection. 5 6 So with only a proportionate share contribution from the applicant to pay for the intersection, the City 7 only has two options on how to proceed with the Enclave application if it cannot find the intersection "appropriate" at its current LOS, as advocated by Mr. Paulsen: (1) the City can pay for the remaining costs of the intersection improvements itself; or (2) it can deny the preliminary plat application. 8 9 As to the first option, the City could conceivably drop all of its long term transportation planning and simply expend its limited funds on transportation improvements when it becomes necessary to avoid 1 O denying a preliminary plat application. Of course, such haphazard and random fiscal planning would likely not result in a very efficient expenditure of public funds. The LOS standards required to be adopted by the Growth Management Act ("GMA") were designed to avoid this randomized form of fiscal planning. The GMA requires cities to adopt an LOS and then put together a 6 year specific and 20 year general budget that identifies where the City will get the funds to finance the LOS it has adopted. By requiring cities and counties to pencil out the numbers for financing an LOS standard, the 11 12 13 GMA essentially places cities and counties in the position of only adopting LOS standards they can 14 afford. That is why an LOS standard serves as a realistic and effective standard for measuring whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a proposed subdivision. 15 16 The second course of action, denial, implicates the second obstacle placed upon cities and counties by the takings clause. The US Supreme Court considers it to be an unconstitutional takings to impose 17 development moratoria of unreasonable length. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'! Planning Agency, 535 US 302 (2002). The Tahoe case suggests that a moratorium exceeding a year or 18 two will be difficult to justify. As noted in Mr. Paulsen's reconsideration request, the City's funding 19 priorities for the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection suggest that needed improvements won't be constructed for 18 years. Consequently, if the Enclave application is denied because of the 156 Ave SE/SE 142nd Pl intersection, the City is essentially placing an 18 year moratorium on any development that would contribute any significant traffic to that intersection. The applicant would be in a very good position to demand takings compensation from the City for that 18 year moratorium. 20 21 22 23 In understanding the use of LOS to gage the adequacy of roads for subdivision review, there is on additional point that helps put the Renton LOS into the proper context Although the Renton LOS standard is somewhat unique in that it doesn't adopt the more traditional "ABCDEF" system ofreview, 24 the Renton system isn't at all unique in having an LOS system that designates some congested areas as adequate or appropriate. Cities such as Seattle that have the letter system adopt an LOS of F for 25 portions of their transportation system. Since GMA requirements essentially require municipalities to only adopt LOS standards they can afford to pay, there are instances where a city or county has to accept the fact that there simply aren't enough funds available to improve an intersection or street 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT· 4 000767 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - segment above a failing level of service. So even if Renton had adopted a letter system for its LOS, Renton could still assign an LOS of F to the intersections in the Enclave area if it determined that its limited transportation funds were more effectively spent elsewhere in the city. Hopefully the explanation above provides some additional clarity as to why an adopted LOS standard is the best tool for assessing whether a road is "appropriate" to serve a development for purposes of subdivision review. Enforcing the type of standard contemplated by Mr. Paulsen would place the City in the impossible position of having to commit funds it doesn't have to upgrading all failing intersections for new development beyond the applicants' proportionate share, or paying the applicants millions of dollars in taking claims. The LOS standard is the culmination of some very difficult and detailed policy choices made by the City Council on where to spend limited public funds to improve its transportation system. It is the on!y2 practical and reasonable way to address congestion in a manner that recognizes that there is a limit to how much money is available to address the problem. TESTIMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulsen stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TrafIEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, 2 One other potential option that hasn't been addressed due to space limitations is to reduce the density of the proposed subdivision. The R4 designation does not have a minimum density requirement. However, the GMA requires cities to accommodate assigned 20 year population projections and a city's zoning designations are designed to accommodate these numbers. Further, the GMA requires residential development within cities to occur at "urban" densities which at a minimum is usually four dwelling units per acre. Routinely requiring reduced densities to reduce traffic impacts would arguably violate these GMA principals. Further, in this case the intersection at issue is already operating at LOS F so that from the standpoint of "appropriate" roads it makes no substantial difference if the subdivision bas a density of one unit per acre as opposed to four units per acre. PRELIMINARY PLAT-5 000768 - attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has 2 defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraflEx 4 to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. I 3 5 This latter intersection is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak-hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new 6 project. TratlEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak 7 hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. 8 This information is in tables I and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit I, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th 9 Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north-side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the I 42nd intersection will 1 O operate at level F. The city is in the process of approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 11 12 13 14 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. The south side access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft. which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project 15 16 will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. 17 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulsen. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst 19 operating conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Paulsen stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT -6 000769 1 2 3 In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulsen claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulsen was able to understand the 4 process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise this issue because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. 6 The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment 7 period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. 5 8 Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulsen submitted a comment letter 9 during the SEP A comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21 ). Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the 1 O policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." 11 However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm 12 peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For 13 projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil 14 Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the 156th and 142nd 17 intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the 15 16 18 19 20 signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C and 21 22 23 24 the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in lhe next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growlh rate. Wilh larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -7 000770 I 2 -- specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close-by. 3 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be 4 required. 5 6 7 8 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEP A related questions. The SEPA mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. 9 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document 1 O because it was outside of her Department. 11 12 13 14 15 Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet 16 the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 17 18 Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and 19 noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the review hearing. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. Appellant Response PRELIMINARY PLAT -8 000771 I 2 3 - Mr. Paulsen stated that Exhibit I, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their 4 right to comment on the SEP A determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulsen's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was 5 nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. 6 7 Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one 8 period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. 9 10 11 12 13 LUAJ4-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size 14 from 8,050sqft to 12,566sqft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract Bis a 490sqft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,l 75sqft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. 1bis adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th 15 16 Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day notice and comment period commenced on March I 0th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and I 42nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning 24 regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as 2 5 protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant 26 PRELThflNARYPLAT-9 000772 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only I Oft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the I Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to l l conditions of approval. In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are policy, not code. Applicant Testimony Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions warrant a signal. Public Testimony Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will intersect with 156th. If Renton' s concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area 14 would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing 15 16 concurrency. In a letter when King County was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter-jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton' s current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Roger Paulsen testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6- year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit I 0). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. PRELIMINARY PLAT-10 000773 - The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a 2 request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. 1 3 4 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 5 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the 6 morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will 7 not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. 8 9 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incmporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the 10 intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage 11 J 2 provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic 13 analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is 14 less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order 16 to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on 15 the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a 17 busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to 19 deal with the impacts of new development. 18 20 21 In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton bas an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have 22 responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To Jose 300 significant trees is an 23 24 enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. Th.is can be done via adequate signage in the 2 5 area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks 26 should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, PRELIMINARY PLAT-11 000774 1 2 3 4 5 6 -- the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. 1n regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. 1n the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this 7 particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for 1-405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Staff Rebuttal 15 16 Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to I Oft. In regard to 17 the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Applicant Rebuttal 25 Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant 26 believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. PRELIMINARY PLAT-12 000775 1 Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted 2 transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation 4 analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With 3 regard to SEP A, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 5 percent growth has complied with SEP A regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEP A decision was appealed by Mr. Paulsen. Mr. Carson 6 believes that they have answered this during the SEP A appeal process because this signal will 7 actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. 8 9 10 Staff Response 11 In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed 12 by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the 13 transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High 's 14 documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. 15 16 18 l? Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 19 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 20 Exhibit 6 21 22 23 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 24 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 25 26 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 EXHIBITS Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a-h Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 CV of Vincent Geglia Traf!Ex Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Tom Crupenter comments Paulsen Comment Letter Petition submitted by Mr. Paulsen City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Paulsen second request for reconsideration City's denial of Paulsen's second request for reconsideration Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Map provided by Ronda Bryant Utility Map 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulsen to Jill Ding 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment 6/27/!4 email to Examiner responding to Paulsen comments PRELIMINARY PLAT -13 000776 2 3 4 5 6 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Procedural: - 4: 13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulsen - FINDINGS OF FACT I. Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEP A appeal was 7 held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July I, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE I 43n! Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report 20 for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 21 22 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, specifically including all the infrastructure 24 and services identified below. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: 23 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-14 000777 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit ISsuance. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat reVJew. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest comer of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. PRELIMINARY PLAT-15 000778 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets, roads, alleys and public ways. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is -governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" or "appropriate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEP A) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Caipenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton' s system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that " ... prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ... " See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the required ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well- functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. PRELIMINARY PLAT -16 000779 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (I) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to an LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance identified in the preceding paragraph. Renton' s LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single-occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 000780 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the fmdings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in some jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes " ... the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element ... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions -if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the provision doesn't apply. It only applies if a proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards3 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142°d Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that 3 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calculate LOS. PRELIMINARYPLAT-18 000781 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within five years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of the issues identified in this paragraph, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEP A issues raised by Mr. Paulsen was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 PRELIMINARY PLAT-19 000782 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 mile from the project site at 156th Avenue SE & SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel ! 423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156th Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate 14 public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are 15 no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. 16 There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the 17 trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. 19 The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been 18 21 20 determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton' s Tree Retention requirements. 22 23 24 No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 25 6. SEP A Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the 26 proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulsen filed a request for reconsideration with the City on PRELIMINARY PLAT -20 000783 1 2 3 - April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. 1bis request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142°d Street intersection. Mr. Paulsen then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. I. The appeal raised two issues: (1) the notice for the comment period on the SEP A MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment 4 on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEP A review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel56th Ave. SE/SE 142°d Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulsen argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that 6 demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat 7 access points. 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Conclusions of Law I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPAAPPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official 17 has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEP A regulations. 18 Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. 19 A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. 20 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-ll-330(l)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to 21 22 23 24 substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). 25 B. 26 Adequate Environmental Review PRELIMINARY PLAT-21 000784 I 2 3 The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEP A responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4 An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a 5 showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State 6 Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community 7 Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental 8 impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental 9 impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and IO then applied it as follows: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information 19 reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposaI". See, also, Spokane 20 County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEP A responsible official must make a 21 prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to 22 evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 23 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, 24 but Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. 25 Mr. Paulsen in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -22 000785 I 2 3 4 5 - The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination ofNon- Significance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. I. The first page of the Notice provides that "[c}omment periods for the project and proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing .... by 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014 .... If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments ... " Mr. Paulsen asserts that since the comment period on the MONS was integrated with the comment 6 period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the a_bove application", not the MONS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[I} here will 7 8 9 be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on IO commenting on the MONS to seek clarification on when the MONS comment period expires._ 11 The language on the MONS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a 12 new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulsen does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(J ), one of the requirements for 13 standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to 14 issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulsen does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MONS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public 15 hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulsen submitted numerous comments on the 16 MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. I. 17 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulsen 18 asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately 19 assessed in the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEP A review was 20 21 22 23 adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(8), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been 24 applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The 25 26 environmental checklist contained no information on any enviromnental impacts of the proposed PRELIMINARY PLAT-23 000786 I 2 3 - legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing 4 impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS 5 analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's 6 engineering department The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues 7 that were assessed by City engineering staff g All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposaL 9 It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal 10 will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it II 12 13 14 could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the 15 MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulsen 16 presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit 17 further environmental review. 18 19 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the 20 determinations of the SEP A responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an 21 engineering analysis prepared by a qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142°d Street intersection will not interfere with the access 22 points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulsen provided no evidence to the contrary. 23 PRELIMINARY PLAT 24 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 25 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. 26 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: PRELTh1INARY PLAT -24 000787 2 3 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 4 because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 5 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 6 supplies and sanitary wastes. 7 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this 9 decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is 8 IO adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. 11 12 13 14 15 16 As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate public facilities as required by RMC 4-8-080(B). RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(J) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-I20(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 17 or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 18 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public 19 road. 20 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 21 22 City. JO. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would 23 be to an extension of SE 8th Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the 24 criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. 25 RMC 4-7-I20(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail 26 purposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT -25 000788 -- 1 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 2 3 4 trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 5 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the fature residents (such 6 as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 7 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 8 a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is 9 subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 1 O such subdivision. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050JJ a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, 19 and wetland areas. 20 b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow 21 22 23 24 25 26 area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. PRELIMINARY PLAT -26 000789 I 2 3 -- 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. 4 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- 5 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider 's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the 6 7 8 9 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing 10 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street 11 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall 12 13 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the 14 only road connection possible for the project. 15 RMC 4-7-lSO(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. As conditioned. 16 15. 17 RMC 4-7-lSO(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 18 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 19 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-150(0): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offiets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (1251 are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. RMC 4-7-ISO(E): PRELIMINARY PLAT -27 000790 -- I 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a ''flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraint< no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically 19 possible. 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 8. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not requrred since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-lSO(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 26 19. As proposed. PRELIMINARY PLAT -28 000791 I 2 3 ·-- RMC 4-7-ISO(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated lo the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 4 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a 5 6 7 8 9 10 depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-l 70(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial lo curved street lines. 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(8): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. 11 22. 12 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 13 14 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 15 16 17 18 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines al their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-o.fway line) shall not be less than eighty percent (8()"/o) of 19 the required lot width except in the cases of (I) pipes/em lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 20 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 21 22 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-o.fway, except alleys, 23 shall have minimum radius offifleenfeet (15'). 24 25. 25 As conditioned. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 000792 -- RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, 2 watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 3 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as detennined in Finding of Fact No. 5. 4 There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted 5 6 above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no 7 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed 8 eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision 9 10 11 development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of 12 sufficient length to permit fall-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RJ.fC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to 13 14 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 15 16 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as detennined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which 17 are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil 18 19 plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 20 Department requirements. 21 22 23 24 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during fmaJ plat review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking stnp shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 25 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -30 000793 - As conditioned. I 29. 2 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley 3 4 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to 5 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 6 shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to 7 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 8 9 10 11 12 13 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling comer of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. 14 B. SURVEY: 15 All other lot comers shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditio_ns: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). PRELIMINARY PLAT-31 000794 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156th Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary tum around as required by RMC 4-7- 1 SO(G) if this is not already proposed. 10. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 11. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 12. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). PRELIMINARY PLAT-32 000795 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 13. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be instalJed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 14. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 15. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 17. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 18. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 19. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 20. The applicant shalJ be required to create a homeowner's assoctatlon of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. PRELIMINARY PLAT-33 000796 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 13th day of August, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-l 10(E)(l4) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-l 10(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7'h floor, (425) 430-65!0. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -34 000797 -_D_:e~:::!-,aw ________ .... c t !~~rw·~r "O ml : t ' I : I ' I ,l i 1· ~ ~c'. J ! .' I U July 31, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 · City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Request for Reconsideration for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14--000241 Dear Mr •. Lagers: Attached is your copy ofthe Request for Reconsideration filed by Roger & Jason Paulsen in the . . . ' . . ---. . above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me or JiUDing, the Senior Planner at (425) 430~6598. . . .:?P-. Chris Chau . Deputy City Clerk Enc.: Request for Reconsideration cc: Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Senior .Planner Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Jennifer Henning, Planning Director . · · Neil Watts, Development Service Director · Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Garmon Newson, Senior Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren; City Attorney Parties of Record (16) 1055 South Grady Way • Rent9n, Washington .98057 °• (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.fitP O 7 9 8 • Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® ENCLAVE PARTIES OF RECORD: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle 18225 SE 147'h St. Renton, WA 98059 Gary & Janice Smith 14504 166th Pl SE Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert 14004 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell 15451 SE 142"d Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Etiquettes fadles ii peler Utillsez le aabarit AVERY9 5160• ' ' ' J A. -Bend along line to ! ">ed Paper -expose Pop-Up Edge"' J David Michalski 6525 SE 5th Pl. Renton, Wa 98059 Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Nipert 900 Queen Anne Av N. Seattle, WA 98109 Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln. Mazama, WA 98333 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 ... Sens de ..a.-~-----.. Repffoz i la hachura afln de i r@Vitler le rebord Poo-t.JoTIII ! -@ AVERY® 5160® l Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Marsha Rollinger 6618 SE 4th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd. Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl. Renton WA 98059 000799 www.avery.com 1.Rnn.r.n..4.VFRV -- CiTY Os RENTOii July 30, 2014 JUL 3 0 2014 City of Renton City Clerk ~ ,,._q.t r"' RECEIVED r 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 City of Renton Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(9) Dear Mr. Examiner, Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18, 2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241). Standi.gg Roger was a Party of Record prior to the close of the hearing, he participated in the hearing, and we jointly submitted written co=ents to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date, and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in light of the following: 1. Streets: We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified, and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately, we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17, and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affinnative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is made for services, including streets. Despite raising this issue in our earlier testimony, nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 acknowledged in your findings or decision. Further, RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as your record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following are facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements ofRCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156"' Ave. SE/ SE 142nd PL intersection currently operates at a failing level --LOS level "F" 000800 - b) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute 297 average weekday vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection. c) The City acknowledges that the proposed subdivision will contribute between 23 and 31 peak-hour vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the failed intersection d) The City acknowledges that it may need to impose left tum restrictions on the access road from the proposed development e) The City's concurrency test, which the proposed plat did pass, is virtually impossible for an individual development project to fail (96,998 annual vehicle trips). f) The Examiner acknowledges that Renton's City-wide WS standards allow, and even contribute to, localized congestion. g) In response to concerns about congestion, the City proposed the installation of a traffic signal at the 156"' Ave. SE/ SE 142°d PL intersection, and estimates the signal will improve congestion to an acceptable level-LOS level "C". h) Acknowledging the proposed subdivision's adverse impact on the intersection, the City imposed mitigation on the developer to pay a proportionate share of the cost for the proposed signal. i) The City has prioritized the installation of the proposed traffic signal as 9"' on their Traffic Signal Priority List j) The City's 2014-2019 6-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP# 25) indicates that "on average, one new traffic signal is designed and implemented every 2 years", suggesting that the proposed signal may not be implemented for approximately 18 years k) There is nothing in the City's approval that guarantees the mitigation imposed by the City will actually be implemented as part of the subdivision approval. In summary, the City has clearly identified that there is not capacity for additional traffic at the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, absent a traffic signal installation. Recognizing the proposed plat's impact, the City imposed mitigation through SEP A to ensure that the developer participates fairly in this improvement The developer did not object to this requirement. Unfortunately, the City has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this improvement is actually in place in time to serve traffic from this development, and there is nothing in the record, or your approval, to guarantee that development is delayed until such capacity improvements are made. Absent some mechanism to guarantee that the faiUng condition of the intersection is rectified prior to the impact of new development, there is no way to affirmatively find that the project meets the standards established by our State Legislature in RCW 58.17.110. Relief Requested We respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner re-examine the record in light of the issues we have identified in this request, and take appropriate action to either deny the subdivision based upon the fact that affirmative findings cannot be made pursuant to RCW 58.17 .110, or othetwise condition the City's approval of the subdivision such that a guarantee or equivalent mechanism is in place to ensure that no new development-related traffic will be permitted to access the 156th Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection until such time as it has capacity to receive additional traffic. 000801 - Sinccrclr, df!f~ 6617SE S"' Pbce Renton, Wt\ 98059 <?~4;12~ )a'son M Paulsen PO:\ for.Judy !Ii Paulsen 31 Mazama Pines Lane J\lazama, W,\ 98833 000802 July 30, 2014 City of Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 City of Renton - Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 JUL 3 0 2014 ~ RECEIVED J'• qt r"" CITY CLERK'S Off ICE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.100(G)(9) Dear Mr. Examiner, Please accept this request for reconsideration of your July 18, 2014 decision on the proposed Preliminary Plat for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241). Standing Roger was a Party of Record prior to the close of the hearing, he participated in the hearing, and we jointly submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested We have reviewed your decision issued on the above date, and respectfully request that you reconsider your decision in light of the following: 1. Streets: We appreciate the considerable time and effort that you have put into the issues related to the traffic concerns we and others have identified, and are documented in the public record. Unfortunately, we feel that your analysis has ignored the requirements of RCW 58.17, and that your decision fails to provide the basis for an affirmative finding to be made under RCW 58.17.110. RCW 58.17.110(2) clearly states that a proposed subdivision should not be approved unless appropriate provision is made for services, including streets. Despite raising this issue in our earlier testimony, nowhere are the requirements of RCW 58.17 acknowledged in your findings or decision. Further, RCW 58.17 requires an affirmative finding to this effect. The record clearly does not allow for affirmative findings to be made in this regard, because, as your record shows, NO provision is actually being made as part of this approval to address a street intersection that lacks capacity, and which this subdivision will impact. Following are facts from the record that demonstrate the proposed subdivision's failure to meet the appropriate provision requirements of RCW 58.17.110: a) The City acknowledges that 156"' Ave. SE/ SE 142"d PL intersection currently operates at a failing level ---LOS level "F" 000803 - Sincerely~ 0 }~h/c//- 6617SE s•h Place Renton, WA 98059 <_ ~-2__/~;!2~ ~ i\l Paulsen PO:\ for.Judv l'vI Paulsen 31 Mazama Pinc, Lane Ma?.ama, \V1\ 98833 000804 ·. Denis Law Mayor . June 24, 2014 Justin Lagers; PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 26th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walt_on Re: REVISED -Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat . ' -. LUA-14-000241 Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your.revised copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated July 18, 2014, in the abovecreferenced matter. There were _scrivener's errors on pages 20, 28, 29 & 30. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Jill Ding at 425-430-6598. If I can provide further information; please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, · <ds. asonA.~fU Deputy City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner Jill Ding, Associate Planner . Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director · Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Parties of Record (16) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 9805_7 • (425) 4~510 / Fax (425) 43().{i516 • rentonwa9,()0805 - Hearing Examiner's Decision n 000806 J i (__ <_) , ;, (,_o_c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CITY OF RENTON --JUL 2 4 2014 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat and SEP A Appeal LUA14-000241 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION SUMMARY The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family 16 residential lots on the east side ofl56th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143rd Street. An 17 appeal ofa Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance ("J\IDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The 18 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEP A appeal is denied. 19 The SEP A appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion falls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City 20 Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. 21 22 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's 23 transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (I) the state's Growth 24 Management Act mandate for the City to acco=odate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) 25 limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for 26 the traffic impacts they create (e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELIMINARY PLAT -1 000807 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and ( 4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money bas to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. TESTIMONY SEP A Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way of an intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primary concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEPA determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraflEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraflEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection of 142nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection PRELIMINARYPLAT-2 000808 I 2 3 - is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak-hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project. TraflEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the 4 levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables I and 2 5 6 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit I, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north-side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of 7 approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conilitions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraflEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations IO are all subject to how the signal is timed. The southside access road to the enclave road is approximately I 7 5 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through 12 the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak 8 9 11 hour. 13 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak 14 analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems likely others would have as well. Adilitionally, Mr. Paulson does not have staniling to raise this issue PRELIMINARY PLAT -3 000809 1 2 3 4 -- because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during 5 the SEP A comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21 ). 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold for impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the I 56th and 142nd intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to determine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C 20 and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 22 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-term studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close-by. 21 23 24 25 26 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be required. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Ding noted that one public comment was received PRELIMINARYPLAT-4 000810 1 2 3 4 5 6 - after the close of the comment period The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEP A related questions. The SEP A mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's 7 guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant 12 used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the 16 review hearing. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Applicant Response Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. Appellant Response Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit I, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and 24 present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -5 000811 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 -- Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEPA review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA! 4-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sqft to 12,566sqft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract Bis a 490sqft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30,175sqft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a 12 detached garage. These structures will be destroyed There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day notice and comment period commenced on March I 0th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A 14 DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new . road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 3 0 percent retention or replacement is required. 3 5 trees will be retained and the rest will 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only I Oft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the 1 Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. 21 22 23 24 25 26 In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are policy, not code. Applicant Testimony PRELIMINARYPLAT-6 000812 1 2 3 -- Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions 4 warrant a signal. 5 Public Testimony 6 Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the 7 transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will intersect with 156th. IfRenton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton 's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because 9 it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. In a letter when King County 8 IO 11 was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter-:iurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for l 2 when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton' s standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 13 14 15 16 Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a 17 comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6-year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit 10). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th 20 created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. 18 19 21 22 23 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 24 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. 25 26 PRELIMINARYPLAT-7 000813 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are tenible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125 ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. In regard to stormwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stormwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, the tree retention plan, the landscaping 19 plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are 20 required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. 21 22 23 Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no 24 impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT-8 000814 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 - not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to 1 Oft. In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and determine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. Applicant Rebuttal Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements. The city bas chosen to look at them on a citywid~asis and collect traffic 21 22 23 24 25 20 impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEP A, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth bas complied with SEP A regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEP A decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEP A appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. 26 Staff Response PRELIMINARYPLAT-9 000815 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 -- In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High's documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit IS Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Procedural: EXHIBITS Notice of Appeal w/ attaclunents a-h Staff Report w/ attaclunents 1-33 · CV of Vincent Geglia TraffEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Tom Carpenter comments Paulson Comment Letter Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Paulson second request for reconsideration City's denial of Paulson's second request for reconsideration Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Map provided by Ronda Bryant Utility Map 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding 6/27 /14 email from Brent Carson with attaclunents responding to public comment 6/27/14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments 4:13 pm 6/27/14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding 7/1/14 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulson FINDINGS OF FACT Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. 22 I. 23 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEP A appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July I, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, 104 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -JO 000816 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 - to reply. The record was also left open through June 2 7, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE l 43'd Street An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-<le-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 14 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit 1Ssuance. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELIMINARY PLAT -11 000817 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest comer of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies fur infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 000818 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges ofRenton's system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically worlcs is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36. 70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that" ... prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ... " See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (!) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion ( the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localiz.ed assessment of congestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single--OCCupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELIMINARY PLAT-13 000819 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. Xl-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be re.quired to pay for more than its fair share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes " ... the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element ... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions -if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELIMINARY PLAT-14 000820 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- provision doesn't apply. It only applies ifa proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS system using professionally recognized standards 1 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 14200 Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt. See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3 % yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use of a 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142 00 Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. 1 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calculate WS. PRELIMINARY PLAT -15 000821 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 1561h Avenue SE & SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156th Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 1561h Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single fumily residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT-16 000822 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted, The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton' s Tree Retention requirements. No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 16, 2014. Ex. 29. This request was denied by the City on May 19, 2014. Ex. 30. However, as a result of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Mr. Paulson then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May 19, 2014. Ex. 1. The appeal raised two issues: (I) the notice for the comment period on the SEP A MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MDNS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of the! 56th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulson argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Conclusions of Law I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPAAPPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (!) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 000823 2 3 4 5 not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEP A regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MONS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11- 330(1 )(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MONS to reduce impacts 6 so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold detennination, the determination made by 7 the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). 8 9 10 11 12 13 B. Adequate Environmental Review The second reason an MONS can be overturned is if the SEP A responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEP A responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he bas based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA ." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State 14 Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community 15 Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. I 09 Wn. App. at 23-24. PRELIMINARY PLAT-18 000824 1 2 3 4 5 - WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEP A responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the detennination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that 6 the notice for the comment period on the MDNS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. 7 8 9 10 Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated, att H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "[c]omment periods for th.e project and proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page 11 of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing .... by 12 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014 .... If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated 13 14 15 above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments ... " Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the 16 MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[t] here will be no comment period 17 following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MONS to seek 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 clarification on when the MONS comment period expires. The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulson does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in R.tv!C 4-8-11 O(E)(3 ), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MONS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat In point of fact Mr. Paulson submitted numerous comments on the MONS on March 22, 2014, prior to the issuance of the MONS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 25 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Paulson asserts 26 that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in the SEP A review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELIMINARY PLAT-19 000825 1 2 3 - points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEP A review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA 4 responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative 5 6 7 amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. 8 9 In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it adequately reviewed traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MDNS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts Io to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department. The advisory notes to the MDNS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues that were assessed by City engineering staff. 11 12 13 All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" 14 showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prirna facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prirna facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that 15 16 17 18 19 level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MDNS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson 20 presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MDNS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. 21 22 23 24 25 26 On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a PRELIMINARY PLAT-20 000826 -- I qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signaliz.ation of the 1561h Ave. SE/SE 14200 2 3 4 Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable 5 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RMC 4-7-080(8): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: I. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 19 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 20 21 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 1(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be 22 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by suifaced road 23 or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 24 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road 25 26 RMC 4-7-120(8): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT-21 000827 I 2 3 4 - JO. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the administrative record However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8"' Street, which is accommodated by a stub road Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic} trail, 5 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail 6 7 8 9 10 11 purposes. 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmfal to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the 12 Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be 13 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 14 a. F1oodingllnundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State 15 according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 16 such subdivision. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050Jl a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: 24 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, 25 26 and wetland areas. PRELIMINARY PLAT· 22 000828 I 2 3 4 5 6 b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an ove,jlow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 7 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute 8 9 to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- IO family residential zones as defined in the :ZOning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider 's 11 12 13 14 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building pennit issuance. 15 RMC 4-7-ISO(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possible for the project RMC 4-7-lSO(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-ISO(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-lSO(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 26 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PRELTh1INAR Y PLAT -23 000829 I 2 3 4 5 -- alignment offiets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (I 25'.) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. RMC 4-7-lSO(E): 6 I. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the 7 predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a ''flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following/actors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 19 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except/or properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the 20 RC, R-I, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall 21 evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 22 6. Alternative Conjigurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 23 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due 24 to demonstrable physical constraints no fature connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 25 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not 26 required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are PRELIMINARY PLAT -24 000830 1 2 3 4 5 - looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-ISO(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fall width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 6 19. As proposed. 7 8 9 RMC 4-7-ISO(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offature adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a fall-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate fature development. 10 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a 11 12 13 14 15 16 depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-I70(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 17 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. 18 19 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 20 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 21 22 23 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 23. As previously detennined, the proposed lots comply with the wning standards of the R-4 wne, which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(0): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the 24 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of 25 the required lot width except in the cases of (I) pipes/em lots, which shall have a minimum width of 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -25 000831 - I twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street cun,e or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which 2 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 3 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. 4 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 5 6 7 8 25. As conditioned RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be presen,ed, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 9 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of 17 sufficient length lo permit fall-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for fature development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 2 5 Department requirements. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -26 000832 I 2 3 - 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(0): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all 4 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 5 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. As conditioned. 14 30. 15 RMC 4-7-210: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT -27 000833 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECISION The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat approval. 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156th Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. PRELIMINARY PLAT -28 000834 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7- 150(G) if this is not already proposed. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. I 7. 18. 19. 20. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination ofNon-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a I 0-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 000835 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21. -- responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 18th day of July, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-I IO(E)(S) and RMC 4-8-100(0)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -30 000836 Cynthia Moya From: Sent To: Subject Attachments: From: Jill Ding - Bonnie Walton Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:01 PM Cynthia Moya FW: Revised Enclave Preliminary Plat -Enclave.pdf Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:53 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Sabrina Mirante; Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: Revised Enclave There were some minor corrections made to the Enclave decision. See the email from Phil below and the attached document. It looks like we have some pages to swap out. Thanks, Jill From: phil olbrechts fmailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:34 AM To: Jill Ding Subject: Revised Enclave Hi Jill, The attached contains the revised pages you need for the enclave decision. Please remove Page 20 from the attached and use that to replace Page 20 of the decision I previously sent you. Also, please replace the decision section of the decision I previously sent you with the decision section of the attached. Let me know if that corrects the errors. Sorry about that! Unfortunately, I was unable to get the formatting of my word file of the decision the same as the pdf version. Otherwise I would just have sent you a replacement decision instead of having you replace specific pages. 1 000837 Denis Law - May_or June 16, 2014 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC - 9675 SE-26th St, Suite lOS Mercer .Island, WA98040 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton -Re: Final Decision for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat LUA-14--000241 Dear Mr. lagers: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated July 18, 2014, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. · Sincerely, /1.~ 1 Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enc.: · Hearing E_xaminer's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner · Jill Ding, Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development-Service Director _ Sabrina Mirante, Developme-nt Servkes · Parties of Record (16) -_ 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-{;510 /Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.~P0838 Easy Pee!Gt Labels Use Avery//b Template 51600 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl. Renton Wa 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361h St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Peter & Debi Eberle 18225 SE 14 ih St. Renton, Wa 98059 Gary & Janice Smith 14504 166th Pl SE Renton, WA 98059 Sally Nipert 14004 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Kathy Forsell 15451 SE 142"d Pl. Renton, Wa 98059 aiquettes fadles a peler Utilis,,z la aabarit AVFRV9 ~161)0 I I I J .. -Feed Paper - I Bend along line to I expose Pop-Up Edge"' J ._., David Michalski 6525 SE 5th Pl. Renton, Wa 98059 Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Nipert 900 Queen Anne Av N. Seattle, WA 98109 Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln. Mazama, WA 98333 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 " Sens de _._ _______ ... Rapllaz 6 la hachura lfln de l r6VOlcar I• nthnnf PnrMlnTII ! ~ AVERY® 5160~ l '-1 Wade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl. Renton, Wa 98059 Marsha Rollinger 6618 SE 4th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd. Bothell, WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl. Renton, WA 98059 000839 www.avery.com 1-A:nn..r.n .. avs::av -- Hearing Examiner's Decision 000840 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat and SEP A Appeal LUA14-000241 ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) SUMMARY The applicant requests prelimirnuy plat approval for the subdivision of 8.8 acres into 31 single-family 16 residential lots on the east side of 1561h Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE J43rd Street. An 17 appeal of a Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance ("MONS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The 18 preliminary plat is approved subject to conditions and the SEPA appeal is denied. 19 The SEPA appellants have raised valid and understandable concerns about traffic congestion, but the contribution to that congestion fulls within the level of service ("LOS") standards adopted by the City 20 Council. LOS sets what the City has legislatively determined to be an acceptable level of traffic congestion. The SEPA appellants have not demonstrated that the proposal violates City adopted LOS. 21 22 The City's unique LOS is not very well suited for project level review because it allows for severe congestion in some areas so long as traffic runs more smoothly at a more global level within the City's 23 transportation network. Nonetheless from a legal standpoint the City's LOS is largely the only standard that can be applied in this case. The LOS standard represents a balancing of (1) the state's Growth 24 Management Act mandate for the City to accommodate an allocated amount of population growth; (2) 25 limitations on the availability of public funds to pay for transportation infrastructure; (3) adherence to the state and federal constitutional mandate that developers can only be held financially responsible for 26 the traffic impacts they create ( e.g. if a project contributes to 20% of the traffic for a needed traffic PRELIMINARY PLAT -I 000841 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- improvement, the developer can only be made to pay for 20% of the improvement); and (4) avoiding the creation of an unconstitutional de facto moratorium by imposing an LOS that indefinitely prohibits development. Applying a different standard than the City's adopted LOS standard will likely result in a situation that violates the constitutional rights of the applicant or that is inconsistent with the transportation funding priorities set by the City Council, unless some proportionate share improvements can be required of the applicant. In this case some proportionate share improvements are being required of the applicant for an intersection that is not performing well, but as pointed out by one of the project opponents, this money has to be expended in six years or returned to the applicant. It is entirely possible that those monies will not be expended in six years, but given the factors that limit the setting of an LOS standard, that is the most that can be legally required. Project opponents and the record does not reveal any other proportionate share mitigation that could further reduce congestions. In the absence of any such mitigation, the City's adopted LOS standard is largely determinative on the issue of assessing congestion issues. The congestion issue is addressed in more detail in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) at page 12 of this decision. TESTIMONY SEPA Appellant Testimony Mr. Roger Paulson stated he is neighbor of the proposed development. His only access to the city street system is by way ofan intersection of SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue SE which makes the traffic conditions on 156th a primaiy concern to him and his neighbors. He believes the city has continually failed to inform the record of the adverse impacts associated with this project. Additionally, he feels the city's public comment process for the plat and SEP A determination was misleading and unclear. His neighbors did not understand the limited opportunity they had to provide comments regarding the project because of the city's failures at providing information. Applicant Testimony Mr. Carson stated the appeal raises two issues with one being procedural and one being traffic. The city used a well-established DNS process and followed it correctly. With regard to the traffic, the traffic engineer for the project is able to provide information on how the proposal and how it will not negatively impact traffic. Vincent Geglia testified that he is a principal engineer with TraflEx. His firm prepared the traffic analysis for the project. The first traffic analysis was dated December 27, 2013 (Exhibit 2, attachment 12). The first analysis determined the number of trips generated by the plat and performed level of service calculations for the intersections which is a typical analysis. The city has defined the scope of traffic analysis by limiting the number of intersections to be analyzed to those that will be subjected to an increase of five percent traffic volume due to the project. None of the intersections in Renton meet this criteria; however, as a matter of preference, the city asked TraffEx to look at the two site access streets to 156th Avenue and the intersection ofl42nd and 156th SE. This latter intersection PRELIMINARY PLAT -2 000842 2 3 4 5 6 - is a stop-controlled sign intersection to the south of the project. The original study looked at the pm peak-hour and concluded that the two site access streets offered acceptable level of service but the 142nd intersection did not meet level of service with or without the new project TraflEx prepared an addendum to the original traffic report which included am and pm peak hour points at the previously studied areas and added a new area, the SE 5th Place and 156th Avenue intersection. Once again, the levels of service were the same with or without the new plat traffic. This information is in tables I and 2 of the addendum dated April 29, 2014 (Exhibit I, attachment d). Generally, the pm peak hour is worse than the am peak hour. After project completion, the SE 5th Place intersection will continue to operate at level of service C, the north-side access street will operate at level C, the south side access street will operate at level B, and the 142nd intersection will operate at level F. The city is in the process of 7 approving a plan to install a traffic light at 142nd and 156th. The appeal stated that the conditions with the traffic light have not been analyzed, thus TraffEx prepared a second addendum dated June 20, 2014 in order to analyze the possible new conditions (Exhibit 4 ). With the traffic signal, the 142nd intersection would improve to level of service B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound queue on 156th would be significantly reduced as well, thus it would not block SE 5th Place. The maximum queue was calculated at 77 peak in the am, and 61 in the pm peak hour. These calculations are all subject to how the signal is timed. The southside access road to the enclave road is approximately 175 ft which is north of the stop bar for the signal. With the maximum queue calculated, this access area should not be affected. In regard to the trips for the project relative to the trips through the affected intersections, the project will add 7 trips to the am peak hour and 9 trips to the pm peak hour. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia stated that the city requested an am peak analysis after receiving a letter from Mr. Paulson. In regard to the am peak analysis addendum being added after city approval, Mr. Geglia noted that typically the pm peak hour is the worst operating conditions. The observed stop-line queue is longest at the pm peak hour. 16 Mr. Paulson stated that city policy requires both am and pm peak hour analysis. He noted that 17 the code citation for this requirement was in his original request for reconsideration. The am peak analysis was not included in the proposal until after approval. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Under cross examination by Mr. Paulson, Mr. Geglia testified that traffic analysis considers both queue time and opposing traffic. Under redirect by Mr. Carson, Mr. Geglia said that Renton traffic guidelines apply to 5 percent increase in traffic due to a project, and this increase does not occur for this project. It is very rare that am traffic is greater than pm traffic. City Testimony In regard to the procedural issues raised, Mr. Garmon Newsom, Assistant Renton City Attorney, stated that there is no evidence that any other person attempted to become a party of record and were denied the opportunity for submitting something late. He noted that Mr. Paulson claims other neighbors misunderstood the comment process, but Mr. Paulson was able to understand the process so it seems likely others would have as well. Additionally, Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise this issue PRELIMINARY PLAT -3 000843 1 2 3 4 - because he understood the process. The city complied with alternative DNS process. This process allows a city such as Renton with an integrated review process to utilize an integrated comment period to obtain corrunents on the notice of application and likely threshold. The notice points out that the city was relying on the optional code, and the established comment period was the only opportunity for comment. Adequate notice was provided of the process. Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that Mr. Paulson submitted a comment letter during 5 the SEPA comment period (Exhibit 2, attachment 21). 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rohini Nair, Renton Civil Engineer, stated, in regard to Renton's traffic study guidelines, the policy mentions that it should include am and pm analysis. The Code uses the word "should." However, when staff reviewed the project, it found there was not a 5 percent increase in the traffic which is the threshold for the guidelines. Additionally, when reviewing the site, it was clear the pm peak hour was the more critical situation. Even in the pm there was not a five percent increase. She is a level III Civil Engineer for the city. She reviews the engineering aspects of projects. For projects with more than 20 trips, she conducts a traffic study. She has a Bachelor's in Civil Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering Investigation from University of Texas. In regard to traffic impacts for the proposal, there are 31 expected new trips for the project in the pm peak hour. She has worked at several cities in Washington, including Des Moines and Bellevue, before beginning work in Renton. The 20 threshold 12 for impacts is not high based on her experience. In some places she has worked, the threshold is 30. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The threshold really depends on the jurisdiction with relevant factors including size and nature of the area. In regard to the I 56th and 142nd intersection, the city has studied the traffic in this area. The city conducted a study to detennine if traffic signals were warranted at this intersections in February, 2014. The city took traffic counts at the intersection and found a signal was warranted. There are nine possible criteria that warrant a signal, and two were met. The two satisfied were the incoming volumes and peak hour counts. The intersection was put at number nine of the priority list for traffic improvements. The need for the signal is not related to the proposed project because the existing traffic was used in conducting the February, 2014 analysis. If the project did not move forward, the city would still place the signal installation at nine on the list. The city conducted an additional study of traffic counts in June, 2014 (Exhibit 5) for 156th and 142nd. In this new analysis, the city analyzed what level of service would be with a signal. The city found that the level of service would be good, and the queues would not back up to access points. Currently, the level of service for am is E. For pm, it is F. Level of service F means there is lots of delay. With a traffic signal, the am level of service would be C 20 and the pm level of service would also be C. These are outright improvements and will move forward even if the project does not. The traffic signal is not tied to the proposed project. She does not know the likelihood of whether the signal will be installed in the next 6 years. The study was based on existing traffic, and did not include projections for increased development. Renton bases its studies on a 2 percent growth rate. With larger subdivisions, Renton requires more long-tenn studies, specifically studies over 2 years. The 2 percent growth rate is used unless there is huge development such as a mall being built close-by. 21 22 23 24 25 26 Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair testified that, in regard to the language of "should," if a site will not have a significant impact, then neither an am or pm study would be required. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Ding noted that one public corrunent was received PRELIMINARYPLAT-4 000844 I 2 3 4 5 6 - after the close of the comment period. The city responded to this comment and did not deny its entry into the record. The comment letter did not include any SEP A related questions. The SEP A mitigation included a condition that requires the applicant to pay its fair share of the traffic signal. However, the mitigation clarified that the signal was not linked to the project nor required to be installed as part of the project. Under cross-examination by Mr. Paulson, Ms. Nair said she did not feel comfortable addressing the City of Renton 2014-20 I 9 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan document because it was outside of her Department. Under cross-examination by Mr. Carson, Ms. Nair testified that when she references the city's 7 guidelines she is talking about the document "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact for New Development." This document is Exhibit 2, attachment 29, ex. C. The city uses this document when reviewing projects. The first guideline is that generally, a review is necessary if there are 20 or more trips generated. The next guideline is that the scope of that analysis is those intersections which the project will cause a five percent increase at peak hour trips. The policy uses five percent as a guideline and allows Public Works and Community Development decide if the departments believe further review is necessary if the five percent threshold is not met. The subject project did not meet the five percent threshold. If five percent was the only factor, there would have not been any analysis. The applicant used a three percent growth factor in its analysis. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Under redirect by Mr. Newsom, Ms. Ding read into the record the comment letter received after the comment period ended. The letter addressed concern over the area becoming a ghetto and noted concern about turning out of the 5th Place intersection. The letter did not mention concerns about the comment process. Next, Ms. Ding read the city's response letter into the record. The response noted that the comment letter had become part of the record and provided the time, date, and location of the 16 review hearing. 17 Applicant Response 18 Mr. Carson testified that the city followed the correct process for optional DNS proceedings. In regard to the traffic issue, there are now two independent studies in the record which find that traffic will 19 be improved once the traffic signal is built. The project contributes very few trips to the problem areas. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Appellant Response Mr. Paulson stated that Exhibit I, attachment h, the city's Notice of Application, has no reference to public comment on the first page. On the second page, there is no change in title so the assumption is that the document is still referring to the DNS. The second page says that "If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the Hearing and present your comments." Nothing in the document suggests that a person waives their right to comment on the SEPA determination by choosing to make their comments at the hearing. In regard to the traffic issue, Mr. Paulson's argument is that there was no traffic analysis done with the inclusion of the traffic signal by May 19 when the city issued the DNS. Before May 19th, there was nothing on the record to ensure the traffic signal would improve conditions. PRELIMINARY PLAT -5 000845 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -- Mr. Newsom added that the first page of the application notes that Renton would be using an optional SEP A review process which allows for the integration of the comment period into one period. The notice states that there will be no comment period after the DNS issuance. LUA14-000241 Preliminary Plat Application Staff Testimony Jill Ding, Renton Senior Planner, testified that the Enclave at Bridle Ridge is located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE. The site is 8.8 acres and currently zoned residential low-density in the Comprehensive Plan and R-4 in the Zoning Map. The proposal is for the creation of 31 lots and two tracts (A and B). The net density would be 4.45 units per acre. The lots would range in size from 8,050sqft to 12,566sqft. Tract A is for stormwater, and tract B is a 490sqft open space area. There was a lot line adjustment processed concurrently which removed 30, l 75sqft from the subdivision. The removed area included a single-family residence. This adjustment has been recorded. Access to the new subdivision will be provided via a new looped public street off of 156th Ave SE. There is an additional extension to the southeast that terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. This road will extend when development begins to the south. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and a detached garage. These structures will be destroyed. There are no critical areas on the site. There are 303 significant trees. 35 of these trees are proposed to remain along the east property line. The 14-day notice and comment period commenced on March I 0th, and the city received two comment letters during the period. The city received one additional letter after the conclusion of the comment period. A DNS which included one mitigation measure was issued on March 31st. A request for reconsideration was filed on April 17th citing concern over public notice and traffic on SE 5th Place. In response to the request, the city and applicant conducted additional traffic studies. The applicant's review found that the project would not have significant adverse impacts on the intersection of 156th and SE 5th Place. The city concluded that a signal was warranted at 156th and 142nd. The city issued a revised DNSM on May 19th requesting that the applicant pay its fair share of the new traffic signal. A new appeal period commenced and ended on June 6th. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations assuming the applicant complies with all conditions. The city allowed the new road to be curved in order to protect some existing trees on site. 200 trees on-site have been identified as protected, thus 30 percent retention or replacement is required. 35 trees will be retained and the rest will 20 be replaced. Police and fire have significant resources to serve the project. The school district is able to accommodate the additional students as well. All students will be bussed. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage report which shows a stormwater wet pond in tract A. Additionally, the applicant submitted a landscape plan. 50ft landscaping strips are required around stormwater ponds; however, in this case, the strips are only I Oft and increasing the size would result in the loss of a lot. Staff recommends the I Oft strips be approved and be installed as a landscape visual barrier. In conclusion, staff recommends approval subject to 11 conditions of approval. 21 22 23 24 25 26 In regard to the curved road, Ms. Nair testified that she believes straight road alignments are policy, not code. Applicant Testimony PRELIMINARY PLAT -6 000846 I 2 3 4 5 6 - Maher Joudi stated that, in regard to the curvature of the roadway, the Renton Municipal Code requires certain tangent lengths, but does not require straight alignments. The applicant can achieve the necessary tangent length for the reverse curve to meet RMC standards. In regard to traffic, the project does not create the need for the traffic signal. The independent studies found that current conditions warrant a signal. Public Testimony Tom Carpenter testified that he resides within half a mile of the project. He often utilizes the transportation system in the area. He was on the King County Traffic Review Panel when it 7 implemented its current transportation concurrency approach. He is concerned with the roads that will intersect with 156th. If Renton's concurrency were to use a delay an intersection, this area would fail concurrency. Renton's concurrency approach will fundamentally never deny development as is because it does not utilize a delay of intersection even though many other jurisdictions do. Renton also does not use travel-shed 12 which would result in this area failing concurrency. In a letter when King County 10 was evaluating a new transportation plan, Renton told King County to establish a concurrency irrespective of political boundaries to evaluate the true impact of vehicles on infrastructure. Renton has demonstrated an intent to do inter-jurisdictional transportation planning. Renton's current thresholds for when developments must meet greater review standards is too high because it is geared towards larger developments. The trend is towards smaller development such as the Enclave, thus Renton's standards are not adequate. These intersections are part of a bypass route for I-405 in the Washington State Corridor System. The city should not allow more encumbrance on this route; instead, it needs a balance between moving traffic through the corridor and providing safe ingress and egress for local residents. He has no objection to the development of the area, but believes these transportation issues must be addressed. He submitted his written comments as Exhibit 6. 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 Roger Paulson testified that his access to the city is by way of the SE 5th Place. He submitted a J 7 comment letter from him and his wife as Exhibit 8. He submitted a petition signed by 62 of his neighbors and frequent travelers of the area noting their belief that the Enclave development does not meet state transportation requirements (Exhibit 9). He entered the city's 6-year Transportation Plan into the record (Exhibit I 0). The Traffic Improvement Plan says the city builds one new traffic signal every two years, and the traffic signal planned for the area is not the top priority. The MDNS from May 19th 18 19 20 created a nexus between the development and the traffic signal. The May 19th decision failed to include a traffic analysis of the impact of the signal. A detailed traffic analysis study needs to be conducted and made available to the public. He submitted a request for reconsideration after the May 19th decision, but his request was denied (Exhibit 11 ). He entered the letter denying his second request as Exhibit 12. 21 22 Kathy Forsell stated that she lives at 13710 156th Ave SE and also owns a home at 142nd 23 Place. The developers need to be considerate of the people living in the community. The area needs 24 more stability before it can handle this type of growth. The traffic on 142nd Place backs up at different times than those tested in the traffic analyses. There is more traffic at 6am than later in the morning. 25 She did not hear about the new development until late in the process. A traffic light will not solve the problem, and the city needs to consider other road improvements. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -7 000847 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - Gwendolyn High testified that she is the president of the Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage which represents households over incorporated and unincorporated boundaries in regards to planning and land use. She noted that the transportation impact analysis from December, 2013 states that 156th Avenue is straight through the access points which is true; however, the intersection with 142nd is not straight. The sight lines are terrible. If you are turning left on 156th, you cannot see the access street. The December, 2013 analysis does not provide a citation for the 3 percent annual rate. There is no reference to other projects or other basis for this percentage provided in the study. The analysis also claims there is adequate distance between the intersections; however, an I-Map illustration in her presentation packet shows that the intersection of 142nd has a stop sign 7ft north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Using the figures from the traffic analysis, the distance from the crosswalk and proposed access site is approximately 119ft which is less than the standard of 125ft. The entire corridor is in the I-405 plan and has been identified as needing arterial improvements. 156th is listed as a minor arterial. The standard for minor arterial right-of-ways is 4-lanes at 91 ft. There is no provision that adequate right-of-ways be made in order to provide for future improvements to this corridor. The proposal that students cross 156th to be on the southbound side to reach a bus stop will create a dangerous situation because of poor lighting, a busy road, and bad sight lines. If the city does not use the money provided by the developer for improvement in 6 years, the money is returned to the developer. The infrastructure changes are slow and never meet the threshold for actually making improvements. The Comprehensive Plan fails to deal with the impacts of new development. In regard to stonnwater, Ms. High noted that Renton has an underdeveloped stonnwater conveyance system. Previously approved developments have resulted in flooded drain fields and structural damage of other homes. The project needs a level 3 stormwater system. It is unclear who will have responsibility over the drainage facilities. There needs to be certainty that new problems will not be created by the project. In regard to landscaping, the tree retention standard is not defined so it is unclear what will happen with the project. The city arborist is supposed to do a report on the project. Trees are part of the character of Renton and its development. To lose 300 significant trees is an enormous change, and the city needs to know how they will be replaced. The trees need to be protected from accidental removal by homeowners. This can be done via adequate signage in the area. In regard to the landscaping around the detention pond, the design standard say setbacks should not be reduced for newly planned developments to facilitate increased density. These standards cannot be ignored by city planning staff. The city has failed to provide the arborist report, the tree retention plan, the landscaping plan, the drainage agreement with the HOA, or the tree protection agreement for review. These are required, but the city has not required them or made them available to the public. A lighting plan also should be provided. In regard to transportation, route 11 is slated to be cut and this will have an impact on the neighborhood, on where people park, etc. She stated that they would like to have these things mitigated. She submitted her comments as Exhibit 13. Ronda Bryant testified that she has lived in the area for 25 years. In the next couple of years, there will be 204 houses impacting the 156th and 142nd main intersection. She is concerned that no impact analysis has been done on the next intersection down and she believes it is important in this particular instance. If 156th is considered a secondary bypass for I-405 then this next intersection is also a bypass route. A traffic light will be going in and because people will not want to sit for this light in the morning, thus they will make a left onto that street to bypass this light. She estimated that over 2000 trips a day on these streets with these projects that will appear in the next two years. She also noted that PRELIMINARYPLAT-8 000848 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - not only the Renton but the Issaquah school buses go through that intersection. There will be issues with bus stops and crosswalks. The route will change in September and may add a number of bus stops. People that come to catch the bus there are going to try to park somewhere. These are problems that she believes have existed for years and additional houses will cause problems for Enclave. With regard to the landscape plan, she is concerned with the proposed use of Heavenly Bamboo. In googling information on bamboo, she found that bamboo is not only invasive but toxic to birds. Bamboo should be taken from the plan. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding noted that the city arborist has done an inspection which is located in Exhibit 33 of the staff report. This report concurred with the applicant's arborist report. With regard to the landscaping around the storm water pond, the 15 ft requirement is not actually in code; it was administrative interpretation. This allows the city to reduce that requirement to I Oft. In regard to the number of reports not yet completed, staff noted that there are a list of reports located in the staff report. Some reports are required and others are not typically received until later in the process. The required reports are available. Heavenly Bamboo is not found on the invasive plants list. The city would not object to removing it from the list provided there was similar shrub available. With regard to questions about level 3 downstream stormwater, it is not recommended as a condition but is in the standard for code. To clarify questions regarding traffic impact, the cities concurrency policy is a city-wide analysis. Exhibit 2, attachment 26 from the staff report is a concurrency analysis. When a citywide policy is met, the project is seen as concurrent. Staff stated that they will talk to the public works department and detennine where the traffic thresholds and standards come from. Applicant Rebuttal Maher Joudi testified that, with regard to Ms. Forsell's comment about her property on 142nd, the applicant is providing a new sewer main across 142nd down to 140th. The applicant believes that the project should provide for existing public needs. Regarding the cumulative development questions, Mr. Carson noted that the Growth Management Act requires that they adopt transportation standards. Renton has adopted transportation concurrency requirements. The city has chosen to look at them on a citywide basis and collect traffic impact fees on a citywide basis. This means that a project in one area of the city contributes to the city as a whole and this is why it is citywide. The project passed the transportation analysis not just through legislative analysis but through their concurrence currency analysis. With regard to SEPA, it evaluates known reasonable development under statute and regulations. The 2 percent growth has complied with SEP A regulations. It showed that it would not create significant traffic impacts on a cumulative basis. This SEPA decision was appealed by Mr. Paulson. Mr. Carson believes that they have answered this during the SEPA appeal process because this signal will actually improve instead of create adverse impacts. With regard to plot conditions, Mr. Carson stated that the project contributes to improvements in road conditions. They have satisfied the code. He noted that the city went beyond its policy even though they were not required to analyze anything beyond 5 percent. Staff Response PRELIMINARY PLAT -9 000849 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 -- In response to the Hearing Examiner's questions regarding the basis for standards and policies, Ms. Nair noted that for peak hour times, the city refer to the national standards developed by the institute of transportation engineers, and that this is a standard reference document for this determination. With regard to the growth rate, traditionally this information is provided by the transportation planning section. Regarding the site distance concern noted in Ms. High' s documentation, she noted that the staff walked the street and used this site visit along with analysis to make their conclusions. Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit JO Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Procedural: EXHIBITS Notice of Appeal w/ attachments a-h Staff Report w/ attachments 1-33 CV of Vincent Geglia TraflEx Traffic Study Addendum dated June 20, 2014 Renton Traffic Counts from June, 2014 City of Renton 2014-2019 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, Project Number 25 Tom Carpenter comments Paulson Comment Letter Petition submitted by Mr. Paulson City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan Paulson second request for reconsideration City's denial of Paulson's second request for reconsideration Gwendolyn High Comment Packet Map provided by Ronda Bryant Utility Map 6/26/14 email from Roger Paulson to Jill Ding 6/27/14 email from Brent Carson with attachments responding to public comment 6/27 /14 email to Examiner responding to Paulson comments 4: 13 pm 6/27 /14 email to Examiner from Jill Ding 7 /1114 email to Jill Ding from Roger Paulson FINDINGS OF FACT 22 I. Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. 23 24 25 26 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal was held on June 24, 2014 in the City of Renton Council City Chambers. The SEPA appellant, Mr. Paulsen, was given until June 27, 2014 to provide written comment to traffic reports submitted by the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was given until July I, 2014 to respond and the appellant July 2, I 04 PRELIMINARY PLAT-IO 000850 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - to reply. The record was also left open through June 27, 2014 for the applicant to provide comment on Exhibits 8, 13 and 14. 3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of8.8 acres into 31 single-family residential lots on the east side of 156th Avenue SE between SE 139th Place and SE 143'd Street. An appeal of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") was consolidated with the review of the preliminary plat. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road B) off of 156th Avenue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. The preliminary plat also includes a stormwater tract and an open space tract. The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 14 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 15 infrastructure and public services. Preliminary adequacy of all infrastructure has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found to be sufficient. Specific infrastructure/services are 16 addressed as follows: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 1561h Avenue SE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop PRELIMINARY PLAT -11 000851 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. City public work staff have found the drainage plan to comply with City standards and final engineering plats will be submitted for City review and approval as part of final plat review. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow contra~ which could be elevated to Level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wet pond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will .be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit applicati Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. Congestion was a source of major concern of persons who attended the hearing. It is very clear that many people who live in the area find the streets too congested. However, what constitutes an acceptable level of congestion is governed City Council adopted LOS standards. For purposes of congestion analysis, the threshold for what serves as "adequate" traffic infrastructure for preliminary plat review and as an adverse impact for environmental (SEPA) review is the LOS standard. Without an LOS standard, attempting to determine tolerable congestion would be a highly arbitrary and subjective analysis that would not be legally defensible. In addition, use of the LOS to regulate congestion represents a finely tuned balancing of the City's state mandate responsibility to accommodate growth; available public monies for infrastructure improvements; and due deference to constitutional mandates that developers only pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements. Imposing PRELIMINARY PLAT -12 000852 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- a higher standard than that set by LOS would likely run afoul of one if not all of these factors. For these reasons, using LOS to serve as the measuring rod for acceptable congestion levels makes sense from both City transportation funding basis as well as a specific project review basis. Unfortunately, as testified by Tom Carpenter, Renton uses a very unique LOS measuring system that makes it very difficult to assess localized congestion impacts. In order to appreciate the challenges of Renton' s system, some background on state LOS requirements and how it more typically works is necessary. LOS standards for transportation facilities are required by the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36. 70A ("GMA"). The GMA requires cities and counties to adopt LOS standards for transportation facilities along with ordinances that" ... prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the transportation plan, ... " See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)(the ordinances are referred to as "concurrency ordinances"). In furtherance of this requirement, most cities and counties adopt LOS for specific arterial intersections and/or road segments with ratings based upon an ABCDEF scale, similar to school grades, where A is a well-functioning intersection or road segment and F is a failing intersection or road segment. An LOS of C or D is often adopted as minimum LOS for city or county intersections. If a proposed development is projected to decrease the LOS of an intersection below the adopted C or D, the developer basically has three choices: (1) make traffic improvements that prevent violation of the LOS; (2) redesign the project to reduce traffic generation so LOS is not violated; or (3) face denial of the permit application. The type of site specific concurrency analysis outlined in the preceding paragraph allows for a very localized assessment of congestion impacts. For example, in a city that adopts an LOS of C for its intersections, no development can be approved anywhere in that city that would lower the LOS of an arterial intersection from an LOS of A, B or C to and LOS of D, E or F. The City Council, based upon available financial resources and local land use patterns, adopts an acceptable level of congestion (the LOS standard), and this standard is then imposed via a site specific analysis on every nonexempt project through the concurrency ordinance quoted in the preceding paragraph. Renton's LOS standards don't allow for this localized assessment ofcongestion. There is no A, B or C grade assigned to intersections or road segments. Instead, Renton has developed a city-wide LOS "index" value, based upon the total number of miles one single-occupant vehicle, one high occupant vehicle and one transit vehicle can travel in 30 minutes. See PRELIMINARY PLAT-13 000853 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, p. XI-26. The Renton LOS index standard is 42, i.e. the combined mileage of a single-occupant, high occupant and transit vehicle must be 42 miles for a half hour of travel time. It's unclear how the mileage for the LOS index is determined from the comprehensive plan, but it appears that this standard imposes virtually no limit on how bad congestion could get in one part of the City, so long as travel times in the City's transportation system overall meet the 42 index value. The City-wide focus of the LOS "index" system makes it a more questionable measuring tool for congestion levels than the more typical "A, B, C" system used in most other jurisdictions. However, in the absence of any other comparable objective measuring device it is still the most compelling standard to use. Given the widespread usage of the "A, B, C" LOS system, it's fairly clear that the City Council made a very conscious and deliberate choice to focus on overall transportation system performance even though this may mean that specific portions of the City could suffer exceedingly severe congestion. Although the City Council focus in the adoption of its LOS system may have been on its transportation funding and planning priorities, those same issues directly affect project level review. In the absence of City planning or funding directives to lower severe congestion in a particular area, in many if not most cases it will not be possible to impose a stricter congestion standard for individual development because either (A) no development will be allowed to occur, creating a de facto unconstitutional development moratorium, or (B) the developer would be required to pay for more than its fuir share of traffic mitigation, which is also unconstitutional. The long discussion above leads to the conclusion that compliance with the City's concurrency system, even if it is a city-wide system, establishes an acceptable level of congestion. City staff have conducted a concurrency analysis and have concluded that the proposal will not violate the City's transportation LOS. See Ex. 26. No one has disputed this concurrency determination and there is no evidence in the record to contradict it. Consequently, the findings of City staff must be taken as a verity. The proposal meets City concurrency, therefore the City's road system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposal and any additional congestion caused by the proposal would not be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. It should be noted that even if Renton had adopted the more traditional "A, B, C" concurrency system, concurrency would still not be violated by the proposal in most jurisdictions. As quoted previously, the GMA only requires denial of a proposal if it causes " ... the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element ... " This language is taken very literally by most jurisdictions -if an intersection is already operating below adopted standards, the PRELIMINARY PLAT -14 000854 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- provision doesn't apply. It only applies ifa proposed development will cause an intersection or road section that currently meets LOS standards to fail them. If the adopted LOS standard is D and an intersection currently operates at the LOS E, there can be no violation of concurrency because the intersection already fails to meet minimum LOS. The applicant's traffic report applies an "A, B, C" LOS gystem using professionally recognized standards 1 to affected intersections and finds that the proposal doesn't lower LOS to any of the intersections. See Ex. 12 of staff report, Ex. 2. All LOS levels stay the same. Although the City's LOS serves as the primary measure for assessing congestion impacts at project level review, there is still some room left to require proportionate share mitigation of developers. As demonstrated in the applicant's traffic study, LOS "A, B, C" standards can be based upon professionally recognized levels of congestion that can be applied in an objective and uniform manner. It's for this reason that staff was able to require the applicant to pay for proportionate share mitigation of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142ru1 Street intersection. However, it needs to be recognized that the ability to rely upon these proportionate share contributions is very limited because state law requires that mitigation funds be expended within five years of receipt See RCW 82.02.020. This means that if the remaining balancing of improvement costs cannot be recovered from other developers or city coffers within six years the mitigation money must be returned to the developer. In calculating projected impacts to affected intersections, the applicants used a 3% yearly rate in traffic growth. This was disputed by some project opponents, who presented a list of numerous projects in Ex. 13 and 14 that would add traffic to the roads of the vicinity. The applicant's traffic engineer prepared a report establishing that the 3% growth factor was more than twice the amount necessary to accommodate traffic from the projects identified in Ex. 13 and 14. See Ex. 17. Further, City policies dictate the use ofa 2% growth factor, which is based upon historical increases within the City. See Ex. 19. Issues were also raised about site distance and intersection spacing, which were adequately addressed by the applicant's traffic engineer in Ex. 17 and the fact that site distance was also reviewed and approved by the City engineering department. Project opponents presented no expert testimony on any of these issues, so the expert testimony provided by the applicant's expert and verified by City experts is found more compelling. One of the SEPA issues raised by Mr. Paulson was that an intersection improvement required as mitigation for the project area, the signalization of the 156'h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Street intersection, would cause queuing conflicts with the access points of the subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no engineering analysis or any other evidence to support this position. 1 The applicant's engineers used the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual to calculate LOS. PRELIMINARY PLAT -15 000855 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- The applicant prepared a traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, establishing by engineering calculations that queues created by the intersection would not back up to the point of the proposed plat access points. The applicant's traffic study addendum was subject to review by the City's engineering department and they voiced no objections to its methodology or conclusion. Given the absence of any expert opinion to the contrary, the addendum's conclusions are taken as verities and it is determined that the intersection will not create any queuing conflicts with the access points to the intersection. F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code. G. Schools. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 1561h Avenue SE & SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156th Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156 1h Avenue SE at SE 5th Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156 1 h Avenue SE and board the bus. There were some public concerns raised about the safety of this road crossing, so the conditions of approval require further staff investigation and mitigation as necessary. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family Jot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical areas on site. The proposal is surrounded by single family development so compatibility of use is not an issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT-16 000856 2 3 - There were concerns raised by about tree preservation. RMC 44-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch (2") caliper or greater, must be planted. The replacement rate is twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single 4 family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Staff Report Exhibit 15), and 46 would be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/or replaced on the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and install 150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City ofRenton's Tree Retention requirements. 5 6 7 g No other significant impacts are reasonably anticipated from the evidence contained within the administrative record. 9 10 ]I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 6. SEPA Appeal. A mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MONS") was issued for the proposal on March 31, 2014. Roger Paulson filed a request for reconsideration with the City on April 16,2014. Ex.29. ThisrequestwasdeniedbytheCityonMay19,2014. Ex.30. However,asaresult of the request for reconsideration, the City required the applicant to pay its proportionate share of a signal for the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142°d Street intersection. Mr. Paulson then filed the subject SEPA appeal on May I 9, 2014. Ex. I. The appeal raised two issues: (I) the notice for the comment period on the SEPA MDNS was confusing, since it could be read as authorizing comment on the MONS at the permit hearing; and (2) the SEPA review was inadequate because it didn't include the impacts of thel56th Ave. SE/SE 142rui Street intersection improvements. Mr. Paulson argued that back-ups caused by the intersection could cause queuing conflicts with the access points to the preliminary plat. In response the applicant prepared an addendum to its traffic analysis that demonstrated that back-ups caused by the intersection would not extend to the preliminary plat access points. Conclusions of Law J 9 I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(0)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-070 grants the Examiner 2 0 authority to review and make final decisions on SEPA appeals. 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). SEPAAPPEAL 3. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (I) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has PRELIMINARY PLAT -17 000857 2 3 - not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEP A regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. 4 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11- 5 330(l)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts 6 so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by 7 the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 B. Adequate Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA ." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community 15 Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prirna facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional ieformation in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at23-24. PRELIMINARY PLAT-18 000858 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -- WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 4. MDNS Notice. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, one of the two SEPA appeal issues is that the notice for the comment period on the MONS is confusing. The notice is arguably confusing, but Mr. Paulson does not have standing to raise the issue because he was not aggrieved by the notice. Mr. Paulson in fact submitted comments on the MDNS prior to the comment expiration period and makes no assertion that the notice language prevented him from making any additional comments. The notice at issue is integrated into the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated, att. H to Ex. 1. The first page of the Notice provides that "[c}omment periods for the project and proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period." The second page of the Notice provides that "Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing .... by 5:00 pm on March 24, 2014 .... If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments ... " Mr. Paulson asserts that since the comment period on the MDNS was integrated with the comment period on the application, a person would reasonably conclude that they could comment at the hearing on the application given the quoted language above. The Notice is arguably confusing in this regard. However, the sentence allowing for comment at the hearing refers to "comments on the above application", not the MDNS. Further, the first page of the Notice also notes that "[t}here will be no comment period 17 following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)." At the very least, this latter sentence should prompt a citizen intent on commenting on the MDNS to seek 18 19 20 21 22 23 clarification on when the MDNS comment period expires. The language on the MDNS comment period could use some clarification, but whether it merits a new threshold determination cannot be addressed in this decision. Mr. Paulson does not have standing to pursue his notice issue. As required in RMC 4-8-l 10(E)(3), one of the requirements for standing on an appeal issue is that the appellant must have suffered some injury in fact due to issuance of the decision under appeal. Mr. Paulson does not allege that he was denied an opportunity to comment on the MDNS because he was lead to believe he could make his comments at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. In point of fact Mr. Paulson submitted numerous comments on the MDNS on March 22, 2014, prior to 24 the issuance of the MDNS on March 31, 2014. See Ex. A to Ex. 1. 25 5. Intersection Mitigation. As provided in more detail in Finding ofFact No. 6, Mr. Paulson asserts that the impacts of intersection improvements required of the developer were not adequately assessed in 26 the SEPA review and also that the queues caused by these improvements would interfere with the access PRELIMINARY PLAT -19 000859 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- points to the proposed preliminary plat. It is concluded that the SEPA review was adequate and that the intersection improvements will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. On the adequacy issue, as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 3(B), the standard is that the SEPA responsible official only has to make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The standard has been applied in numerous SEPA appeal court opinions, and until the recently issued Spokane County case, supra, no court has ever found the level of review to be lacking. The Spokane County case dealt with site specific comprehensive plan land use amendment along with an associated rezone. The environmental checklist contained no information on any environmental impacts of the proposed legislative amendments, even though the record was clear as to future development plans for the site and the site was located in a critical aquifer area with high susceptibility to contamination. In this case the City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did not adequate review of traffic impacts prior to issuance of the MONS. A traffic report, Staff Report Ex. 12, was prepared analyzing impacts to several intersections. The traffic report assessed LOS impacts to several intersections, even though the number of trips generated for those intersections was not sufficient to trigger an LOS analysis under City policies. The report and street circulation issues were reviewed by the City's engineering department. The advisory notes to the MONS, Ex. 18, identify six transportation issues that were assessed by City engineering staff. All of this traffic review conducted by the City easily establishes that the City made a "prima facie" showing that it had sufficient information to reasonably evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposal. It should be understood that the adequacy of review is to be distinguished from whether a proposal will create probable significant adverse impacts. The adequacy of review just addresses the overall due diligence in how review was conducted (hence the requirement that the City only make a "prima facie" showing of compliance). When dealing with adequacy of review, the City does not have to establish that it reviewed every issue that could conceivably lead to significant adverse impacts, only that information considered was "reasonably sufficient" to evaluate environmental impacts. Of course, if a single issue is significant and will clearly cause adverse impacts, the failure to consider it could undermine a showing of prima facie compliance. The intersection improvements do not rise to that level. As borne out by the subsequently traffic addendum, Ex. 4, prepared after issuance of the MONS, the intersection improvements in fact did not create any adverse impacts and Mr. Paulson presented no evidence to the contrary. During preparation of the MONS it was reasonable for the SEPA responsible official to conclude that the impacts of the intersection improvements did not merit further environmental review. On the second issue of whether the intersection will create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the record is clear that the intersection will not create any significant adverse impacts. This finding can be made even without the substantial weight required due to the determinations of the SEPA responsible official. The traffic report addendum, Ex. 4, provides an engineering analysis prepared by a PRELIMINARY PLAT-20 000860 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -- qualified traffic expert establishing that queues caused by signalization of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142"d Street intersection will not interfere with the access points to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Paulson provided no evidence to the contrary. PRELIMINARY PLAT 6. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. RMC 4-7-0SO(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 7. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding I(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full, with all recommended conditions of approval adopted by this decision as well. As depicted in the plat map, Staff Report Ex. 3, each proposed lot will directly access a public Road, Road A. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, 17 the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. 18 19 20 21 22 23 RMC 4-7-0SO(ij(l): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the genera/purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ... 8. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding I(!) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 24 9. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road system connects to 156 Ave SE, a public road. 25 26 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. PRELIMINARY PLAT -21 000861 - I I 0. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the 2 3 4 administrative record. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to an extension of SE 8th Street, which is accommodated by a stub road. Consequently, the criterion above is construed as satisfied by the proposal. RMC 4-7-I20(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, 5 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 6 11. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest the proximity of any official designated 7 trail. 8 9 10 11 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in coriformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the fature residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the 12 Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. 13 not be 14 15 a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider 16 such subdivision. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050)1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: 24 a. PreservatiOJ1: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, 25 26 and wetland areas. PRELIMINARY PLAT -22 000862 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -- b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 12. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas at the project site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- IO family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider 's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 11 12 13 14 13. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. 15 RMC 4-7-ISO(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 14. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the internal road connection to 156 Ave. S. is currently the only road connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-ISO(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 15. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-lSO(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 16. The proposed connection to 156 Ave. S. is the only connection possible for the project. RMC 4-7-150(0): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 26 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street PRELIMINARY PLAT -23 000863 I 2 3 4 5 -- alignment offeets of less than one hundred twenty jive feet (125') are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 17. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards. RMC 4-7-lSO(E): 6 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the 7 predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 8 9 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan 10 Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 19 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the 20 RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall 2 I evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible ... 22 6. Alternative Co,ifigurations: Offeet or loop roads are the preferred alternative co,ifigurations. 23 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due 24 to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 25 18. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, no grid pattern is possible for the proposal. Alley access is not 26 required since the proposal is in a Residential Low Density land use designation. The internal roads are PRELIMINARY PLAT -24 000864 1 2 3 4 5 - looped as encouraged by the criterion above. No cul de sacs are proposed and a stub road is proposed as encouraged by the criterion above. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-ISO(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fall width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 6 19. As proposed. 7 8 9 RMC 4-7-ISO(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offature adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a fall-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate fature development. 10 20. As conditioned. As shown in Ex. 3 to the Staff Report, the stub road extension extends for a 11 12 13 14 15 16 depth greater than an average lot so a temporary turnaround is required. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 21. As depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 17 22. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. 18 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 19 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 20 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density 21 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22 23. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone, 23 24 25 26 which includes area, width and density. RMC 4-7-170(0): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of(]) pipes/em lots, which shall have a minimum width of PRELIMINARY PLAT -25 000865 I 2 3 - twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 24. As shown in Staff Report Ex. 3, the requirement is satisfied. 4 RMC 4-7-l 70(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 25. Trees will be retained as required by City code as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. There are no other natural features that need preservation as contemplated in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 27. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. PRELIMINARY PLAT -26 000866 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -- 28. Compliance with City water system design standards is assured during final plat review. RMC 4-7-200(0): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 14 30. As conditioned. 15 RMC 4-7-210: 16 A. MONUMENTS: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 31. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT-27 000867 - 2 DECISION 3 The proposed preliminary plat as depicted in Staff Report Ex. 3 and described in this decision is 4 consistent with all applicable review criteria as outlined above, subject to the following conditions: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal. 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Public Works. 6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to fmal plat approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT -28 000868 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ]I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -- 8. City staff shall investigate whether the proposed 156'h Ave crossing for school children is safe in terms of lighting and stopping distance. Staff shall require further mitigation as necessary to ensure safe walking conditions for children walking to the school bus. 9. The proposed stub road shall include a temporary turn around as required by RMC 4-7-150(G) if this is not already proposed. I. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination ofNon-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. I 0. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 11. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a I 0-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A). 12. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 13. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 14. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 15. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 15. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract B as dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 16. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. PRELIMINARY PLAT -29 000869 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 17. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 18. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 19. Bamboo may not be used for any landscaping required of the proposal. DATED this 18th day of July, 2014. . .. _ ' , ),., r' . .2 '~~~,:c.-,~-··--····· City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-l 10(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7•h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -30 000870 - Jill Din From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:11 PM Jill Ding Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Jill, Can you please respond to Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, 'Vanessa (J)o{6ee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Chip Vincent Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:52 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Vanessa, could you please handle the following. Thanks, Chip From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:20 PM To: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Chip, Can you or one of your staff please respond to Mr. Paulsen on this issue? Thank you. Bonnie Walton City Clerk From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com) Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:36 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Request for Reconsideration Explanation l - 000871 --Ms. Walton, At your suggestion, I requested from Mr. Vincent an explanation for the denial of my June 5th Request for Reconsideration. It has been over a week since I made that request (see below), and I haven't received a reply. That seems a reasonable amount of time. Please advise on the best way to proceed to get the requested infom,ation. I'd prefer not to escalate my request, but will if necessary. Thanks!!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> To: cvincent <cvincent@rentonwa.gov> Cc: bwalton <bwalton@rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 7:01 am Subject: Re: Appeal Mr. Vincent, Please see my question below to Ms. Walton, and her reply, suggesting that I forward my question to you for clarification. The only reference to a Request for Reconsideration that I am aware of is in code section 4-8-110, which is titled "Appeals". Therefore, I assume a Request for Reconsideration is a form of appeal. Is that a correct interpretation?? If so, it appears my June 5th Request for Reconsideration met the requirements of the ERC letter dated May19th, which leads to my original question: What is it that disqualified my Request for Reconsideration? Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Roger Paulsen ---Original Message----- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 2:01 pm Subject: RE: Appeal Mr. Paulsen, I see that the response to the request for reconsideration issued by Gregg Zimmerman did not state the option for filing of a second request for reconsideration, but it did allow for an appeal process. So that is why the appeal is being processed next. I am not an expert on state law or land use, but it seems to me that doing this fairly preserved your right to be heard and your viewpoints to be considered, but it also preserved the rights of the applicant to receive timely processing of the land use application submittal. 2 000872 --The better person to contact for this clarification really would be Chip Vincent, CED Administrator, however. His phone number is 425-430-6588, and his email is cvincent@rentonwa.gov. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 From: Roger Paulsen Jmailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:31 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Re: Appeal Bonnie, Welcome back!! I also was away much of the week, but did have a chance to review the copy of code section 4-8-10 that came in the mail. I'm curious what in that code section disqualified my Request for Reconsideration?? From my perspective, the ERC modified their determination, and it was that modification that created a nexus to the proposed installation of a problematic stop light. That appears to qualify as "any administrative decision made". Thanks for any clarification you can provide!! Roger Paulsen ---Original Message--- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen (rogerapaulsen@cs.com) <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Cc: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Sun, Jun 8, 2014 5:16 pm Subject: Appeal Mr. Paulsen: I'm going to be out this week, but you can look for the attached to come in your mailbox. As you can see, no Request for Reconsideration process is available at this point. Instead, we will be proceeding with the appeal process. The appeal hearing notice will be coming to you by separate letter this week from my office. The appeal hearing will be held on June 241" which is when the plat hearing also will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. I'll be out of the office this week, but if you have questions, feel free to contact Jill Ding or my main office number and someone will be able to help. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6510 3 000873 Jill Din From: Sent: To: Subject: Thanks!!! -Original Message---- - Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Wednesday, June 25, 2014 12:36 PM Jill Ding Re: Traffic Study Comments From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, - The hearing examiner has indicated that any comments/questions you have should be emailed to me. I will forward your questions to the applicant and hearing examiner. Thanks, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com) Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:01 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Traffic Study Comments Jill, I realize should have been more specific with my question. At yesterday's Appeal Hearing, the Hearing Examiner provided me an opportunity to submit comments about the two "eleventh hour'' Traffic Studies by 5:00 PM Friday, June 27th, but he didn't say how those comments should be submitted. -Can my comments be submitted via e-mail, or should they be in the form of a hard copy letter? -To whom should the comments be addressed? -Is it necessary to copy others parties when the comments are submitted?? If so, what addresses should I use?? I assume I should continue to use you as my City of Renton contact person for all questions related to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. If that is not correct, please let me know. Thanks for any guidance you can provide!! Roger --Original Message- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:45 am Subject: RE: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Rohini would be your contact for traffic related questions. 1 000874 - Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:roqerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:07 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Jill, To whom should I address my comments on the traffic studies??? Thanks!!! Roger -Original Message-- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> - To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; 'Justin Lagers' <justin@americanclassichomes.com>; 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsom@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:04 pm Subject: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 I am going to be sending all the exhibits in separate emails as the files are so large. Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton jding@rentonwa.gov 2 000875 Cynthia Moya From: Sent To: - Bonnie Walton Friday, June 20, 2014 5:00 PM Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection after signal Attachments: REV 2ND Addendum to the Enclave TIA.pd! I think she will put a copy in the yellow file. Maybe you have discussed this previously. bw From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:29 PM To: Phil Olbrechts; 'Roger Paulsen'; Garmon Newsom II; Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection alter signal Please find attached a revision to the second addendum to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traffic Impact Analysis as required by our transportation dept. I will have hard copies available at the hearing on Tuesday. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:01 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee; Chris Barnes; Bob Mahn Subject: FW: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection alter signal From: vince@nwtraffex.com [mailto:vince@nwtraffex.com1 Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:37 AM To: Rohini Nair Cc: Justin Lagers (justin@americanclassichomes.com); Larry Hobbs Subject: RE: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection alter signal Rohini, Attached is the 2nd Addendum assuming a signal is installed and using the exact same lane configuration as existing conditions. The results are good. For future reference, I would suggest that when the signal is designed, the southbound approach be channelized with a right turn lane and a through lane. By doing so, the southbound right turn movement can be overlapped with the eastbound phase of the signal which would improve overall operating conditions. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Vince Geglia Traffex 425-522-4118 1 000876 --------Original Message ______ ,_ ...., Subject: level of service study for the SE 142nd Place & 156th Ave SE intersection after signal From: Rohini Nair <RNair@Rentonwa.gov> Date: Fri, June 20, 2014 7:46 am To: "'vince@nwtraffex.com'" <vince@nwtraffex.com> Cc: "Justin Lagers (justin@lamericanclassichomes.com)" <justin@lamericanclassichomes.com>, Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> Hi Vince, As discussed yesterday, the after signal scenario should have the same lane configuration the different movements should be in the same order as the without signal scenario in the Synchro report. Sincerely Rohini 2 000877 - THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE 2"d ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SE 142ND PL./156TH AVE. SE INTERSECTION CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by Traff·· NORTHWcsr· TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 20, 2014 000878 -TraF~ June 20, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410NE124thSt. #590 Krk!and WA98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton 2nd Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis with a Traffic Signal at SE 142"d PJ./156th Ave. SE Intersection Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this 2nd addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide an analysis of the SE 142nd PJ./156th Ave SE intersection assuming a traffic signal is installed. The analysis is summarized as follows: • With a signal installed the level of service improves from F to B in both the AM and PM peak hours at the SE 142nd Pl/156th Ave SE intersection • With the improved operating conditions resulting from installation of a signal, the southbound queue on SE 156th St. is significantly reduced and does not block either of the Enclave's site access streets or SE 5th Pl. AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AM and PM peak hour level of service calculations were performed using the projected 2015 traffic volumes (including protct generated traffic) and assuming a traffic signal installed at the SE 142"d Pl/156 Ave SE intersection. The level of service improved from F without a signal to B with a signal in both AM and PM peak hours. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for future conditions with the project. Page 1 000879 - The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traff!lfJ:f TABLE 1 2015 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLED AT SE 142ND PU156™ AVE SE INTERSECTION INTERSECT/ON AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SE 142"d Pl/ 156111 Ave SE B 14.3 B 14.8 Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (X XX) LOS and average control delay in seconds SOUTHBOUND VEHICLE QUEUES ON 156TH AVE SE While performing the traffic counts for the TIA, it was observed that in the PM peak hour existing southbound vehicle queues on 1561h Ave SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5111 Pl. which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142"d Pl./156111 Ave SE intersection. With a traffic signal installed, the maximum southbound queue is significantly reduced to 77 feet in the AM peak hour and 61 feet in the PM peak hour. The distance from the stop bar on SE 1561h Street to the Enclave's southern access street is approximately 175 ft.. Therefore, the queue would not block either of the two Enclave's access streets nor SE 5th Place. The queue summary is attached in the technical appendix. Since these intersections would not be affected by the southbound queue, they would therefore operate at an acceptable level of service C or B as calculated and shown in the April 29, 2014 Addendum. Page 2 000880 - The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraHgJ.y If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page3 (,-20-;4 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000881 -- TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000882 -FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT+ SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE .,;-t ..... t + -c" Movement , .· · EBC EBA NBL . NBT SBT SBA Lane Configurations V ,f f+ Volume (vph) 659 42 103 117 73 229 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 090 Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (pro!) 1765 1820 1672 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.64 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rm) 1765 1198 1672 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Row (vph) 686 44 107 122 76 239 ATOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 163 0 Lane Groue Flow (veh) 726 0 0 229 152 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Effective Green, g (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.32 0.32 Clearance nme (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehide Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 912 379 529 vis Ratio Prat c0.41 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 vie Ratio 0.80 0.60 0.29 Un~orm Delay, d1 9.5 13.9 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 2.7 0.3 Delay (s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Level of Service B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summ!!!}'. HCM Average Control Delay 14.3 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Baseline ·-·· --. --- B 8.0 D 6/20/2014 -·--. --~ ··------- Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000883 -FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT+ SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE Lane Group Flow (vph) vie Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue length 50th (ft) Queue length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced vie Ratio Intersection Summary EBL NBT . SBT 730 229 315 0.81 0.61 0.46 17.9 25.4 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 25.4 7.4 168 56 16 291 #164 77 404 136 230 1336 476 809 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0.48 0.39 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline - 6i20/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000884 -FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT+ SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE .,.> ,. "' t ! ./ Movemeni .. · EBL EBA" -NBi. NBT set ···-·--------·ssR Lane Configurations V 4' f. Volume (vph) 300 118 81 92 73 726 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.97 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1730 1820 1634 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.25 1.00 Satd. Flow [~rm) 1730 470 1634 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 316 124 85 97 77 764 RTOR Reduction (vph) 32 0 0 0 434 0 Lane Groue Flow (!'E'hl 408 0 0 182 407 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension [s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 203 706 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.25 vis Ratio Perm c0.39 vie Ratio 0.67 0.90 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 10.2 9.7 7.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 35.8 1.1 Delay (s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Level of Service B D A Approach Delay (s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Approach LOS B D A Intersection Summ!!!Y HCM Average Control Delay 14.8 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.8 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 C Critical Lane Group Baseline ··---· ------·· . --·-- B 8.0 F 6/20/2014 ,_ ______________ Synchro 7 • Report Page2 000885 -FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT+ SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE .,,. t ! i..aneGroue "EBL NBT SBT Lane Group Row (vph) 440 182 841 vie Ratio 0.70 0.91 0.74 Control Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 74 35 9 Queue Length 95th (ft) #175 #133 61 Internal Link Dist (ft) 168 201 240 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 817 281 1286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.54 0.65 0.65 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline - 6/20/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000886 --'JL.i _ r .. ·, .. -,· / , .. -. ' Cynthia Moya From: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 8:37 AM To: Subject: Phil Olbrechts; Bonnie Walton; 'Justin Lagers'; Garmon Newsom II; 'Roger Paulsen' FW: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl level of service study with signal Attachments: 156th & 142nd Pl.pdf Please find attached additional traffic analysis with the installation of a signal at 156'h Ave SE and SE 142"' Pl. This study was conducted by the City. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 8:04 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl level of service study with signal Hi, Here are the results of the study done by the City traffic operations. Sincerely Rohini From: Asma Tuly Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:16 PM To: Rohini Nair Subject: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl Hi Rohini, Please see the attached copy for your reference. Thanks Asma Tuly r/4""4'.¥7'4 Civil Engineer 11 City Of Renton s'h Floor -Transportation 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7222 atuly@rentonwa.gov www.rentonwa.gov 1 000887 www.idaxdata.com -- 156TH AVE NE icJc». SE 142ND PL fvl~ ,:::::::a Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00AM to 9:00AM Peak Hour: 7:00AM to 8:00AM w ;l r~ z Jo w :;: ~ ... ~ "' _)unrn, ., "' ... ~ -"' n n ~' V 297 i ( = • TEV: 1,220 "§ ~ -642d PHF: 0.96 Jo , o~"? 719 77 t-~l ,. r-O~t , __ ,, ~~ 142ND PL '.-:~ !I J ;: 0 ... w HV%: PHF 0 .., z ~ -w ~ :;: EB 1.9% 0.89 !l i ~ I= NB 4.60/o 0.72 ~ "' SB 3.0% 0.78 ~ TOTAL 2.7°/u 0.96 Two-Hour Count Summaries SE 142NDPL SE 142NDPL 156TH AVE NE 156THAVENE Rolling Interval 1$,mln Start Eastbound Westbound NorthboLnd Soulhbou,d Total One LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Hour 7:00AM 165 D 38 D 0 0 24 18 0 0 11 52 304 7:15AM 137 D 19 0 0 0 30 48 0 0 40 45 317 7:30AM 158 0 8 0 0 D 28 54 0 D 12 43 303 7:45AM 182 0 14 0 0 0 18 21 0 0 4 57 296 1,220 8:00AM 148 D 10 D 0 0 24 11 0 D 3 96 292 1,208 8:15 AM 168 0 9 D 0 0 32 16 0 0 4 59 288 1,179 8:30AM 170 0 8 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 6 59 282 1.158 8:45AM 175 0 11 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 9 61 282 1,144 count Total 1,303 0 115 0 0 0 193 192 0 0 89 472 2,364 Peak Hr 642 D 77 0 0 0 100 137 0 0 67 197 1,220 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes mclud& heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Ve hide Totals Bicvcles Pedestrians /Crossing leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North Soulh Total 7:00AM 2 0 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15AM 5 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30AM 3 0 3 2 B 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:45AM 4 0 3 2 g 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:00AM 7 0 2 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15AM 5 0 2 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30AM 4 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45AM 4 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 34 0 16 18 68 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hr 14 0 11 I 33 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skagg,GGQ888 www.idaxdata.com 156TH AVE NE idi» SE 142ND PL iv1 f./\ ~ Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Peak Hour. 11:30AM to 12:30 PM ILi ~1 r~ z J-0 ~ <( :,; I-., Q 18 N "' ~OOlID~ ... ... r n <,.::Y' . .,. 313 6 ( TEV: 671 c! * ~ Jo "" 221 cd1 PHF: 0.95 282 61 t.--:;-.-,\ ·~ t [J]!°[}-f ~-:;s. tr "'" 14,NU PL :J "' ... ILi HV%: PHF "' .. z ILi EB 4.6% 0.84 0 > §1 j; <( NB B.0% 0.84 0~ F= "' SB 6.1% 0.80 ~ TOTAL 5.8% 0.95 TWo-Hour Count Summaries SE 142NDPL SE 142NDPL 156TH AVE NE 156TH AVE NE Rolling Interval 15-min Start E~stbound Weslbound Northbound Southbound Total One LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Hour 11:00AM 57 0 11 0 0 0 16 10 0 0 10 49 153 11:15 AM 49 0 20 0 0 0 11 8 0 0 8 52 148 11:30AM 70 0 14 0 0 0 24 13 0 0 8 43 172 11:45AM 47 0 11 0 0 0 22 5 0 0 12 57 154 627 12:00PM 52 0 12 0 0 0 22 9 0 0 10 72 1n 651 12:15 PM 52 0 24 0 0 0 20 10 0 0 9 53 188 671 12:30 PM 47 0 14 0 0 0 13 10 0 0 7 48 139 638 12:45 PM 37 0 19 0 0 0 19 11 0 0 15 49 150 634 Count Total 411 0 125 0 0 0 147 76 0 0 79 423 1,261 Peak Hr 221 0 61 D D 0 88 37 0 0 39 225 671 Nole: Two..flour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. lnteJVal Heavy Vehicle Totals Bi~Jes Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total Easl West North South Total 11:00 AM 7 0 2 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 AM 3 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30AM 4 0 5 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 11:45AM 2 0 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 3 0 1 8 u 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 PM 4 0 2 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 PM 6 0 2 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Count Total 31 0 16 24 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Peak Hr 13 0 10 16 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Mark Skaggs: 425 • 250 • om mark.skagg,800889 www.idaxdata.com ~ N w 2: w > .. :,: 1-- l8 ~ 839 < ;lo 3 7 5 •.. _,_(! 494 119~ S~ 14iNIJ l'L 156TH AVE NE SE 142ND PL Peak Hour ~1 r~ en ., ;!: .. ~ fl <-:.:,,· .., TEV: 1,461 PHF: 0.97 .~:::-,. ""r • ,t !: u 0 ... 0 ., ~ El r~ Two•Hour Count Summaries w 2: w > .. ~ "' ~ SE 142NDPL SE142ND PL Interval Start Eastbound Westbound LT TH RT LT TH 4:00 PM 71 0 28 0 0 4:15 PM 74 0 36 0 0 4:30 PM 115 0 28 0 0 4:45 PM 101 0 27 D 0 5:00 PM 86 D 23 D D 5:15PM 87 0 35 D 0 5:30 PM 101 0 34 0 0 5:45PM 64 0 24 0 0 Count Total 699 0 235 0 0 Peak Hr 375 D 119 D 0 RT 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EB NB SB TOTAL icJc». Date: Tue. Apr 15, 2014 Count Period: '4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Peak Hour: 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Jo II o ___,f-OOOITTH 6 • <>§ ~ tiJ ·~~ ·--OlTI~!}i, PHF -----HY%: 1.4% 1.9% 1.2% 1.4% 0.91 0.70 0.96 0.97 0 156THAVENE 156THAVENE Rolling 15-min Northbound Southbound Total One LT TH RT LT TH RT Hour 31 18 0 0 17 149 314 27 13 0 0 12 176 338 25 11 0 0 10 185 374 14 7 0 0 10 202 361 1.387 25 14 0 0 22 185 355 1,428 27 12 0 D 21 186 368 1,458 34 21 D D 21 166 3n 1,481 18 13 0 0 15 147 281 1,381 201 109 0 0 128 1,396 2,768 100 54 0 D 74 739 1,461 Nale: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehkles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicvcles Pedeslrians(Crossl~Log) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00PM 4 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 2 0 J 1 6 0 o· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30PM 2 0 0 6 8 0 a 0 1 1 0 a 0 0 0 4:45PM 3 D 1 2 8 D D D 0 a D 0 0 D 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 5:15PM 3 0 2 3 8 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 5:30PM 1 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 D D 0 D a 5:45PM 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 D a 0 0 0 0 Count Total 16 0 7 25 48 0 0 0 , 1 a 0 0 0 0 Peak Hr 7 D 3 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D D a Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -01n mark.s~agg,.QQQ890 -HCM 20l0 AWSC 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Vol, vehlh Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % MvmtFlaw Number of Lanes Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCMLOS 41.8 E 642 0.89 2 721 1 0 SB 1 NB 1 61.5 F 77 0.89 2 87 0 Vol Left, % 42% 89% 0% Vol Thru, % 58% 0% 25% Vol Right,% 0% 11% 75% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 237 719 264 LT Vol 137 0 67 Through Vol o n 197 RT Vol 100 642 0 Lane Flow Rate 329 808 338 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.599 1 0.568 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.555 6.098 6.038 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 546 606 592 Service lime 4.646 4.098 4.118 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.603 1.333 0.571 HCM Control Delay 19.1 61.5 16.9 HCM Lane LOS C F C HCM 951h-ti\e Q 3.9 14.9 3.5 ·'l /,,- M1 peak 5:00 am 08/18/2010 Tactics City of Renton AM _,'A"< W.IH Ex. G>N;J c f.'\ws-r) 06/2012014 . :~;fitQBt/~Z:!}MB; ;})~f:'.i'.t,.:.'. 0 0.90 2 0 0 100 0.72 5 139 0 SB 1 EB 1 0 19.1 C 137 0.72 5 190 1 0 0.90 2 0 0 67 0.78 3 86 1 NB 1 0 EB 1 16.9 C 197 0.78 3 253 0 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 000891 1:ICM 2Dt0 AWSO 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl Intersection Delay, s/veh 50.1 Intersection LOS F Vol, veMI Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % MvmtFlow Number of Lanes Opposing ~oach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approadl Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCMLOS 0 375 0.90 0.91 2 1 0 412 0 1 0 SB 1 NB 1 49.5 E 119 0.91 1 131 0 k•lliiA•,'•::::·.,,' · -•:·;7·,,_~f"O!iilliil<Eilii,. ~~'f- Vol Left,% VolThru, % Vol Right,% Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LTVol Through Vol RTVol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y /N Cap Service Time HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay HCMLaneLOS HCM 95th-tile Q PM peat 3:00 pm 09/22/2010 City of Renton 65% 35% 0% Stop 154 54 0 100 220 1 0.43 7.038 Yes 515 5.038 0.427 15.2 C 2.1 76% 0% 0% 9% 24% 91% Stop Stop 494 813 0 74 119 739 375 0 543 847 1 1 0.941 1 6.243 5.731 Yes Yes 575 635 4.334 3.746 0.944 1.334 49.5 59.6 E F 12.2 15.3 SB 1 EB 1 0 15.2 C 0 0.90 2 0 0 06/20/2014 74 739 0.96 0.96 1 1 11 no 1 0 NB 1 0 EB 1 59.6 F :: ' '>-ifl"':0--.· • .. ~ ' ,.,_ . ... -. ,, ' . Synchro 8 Report Page 1 000892 -· Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl t + "' PE/'n<.. \r-1 rt l-1 Bl: 1/0LLlME _,. (SD,,Ntl-Lil.6A) 06/20/2014 l•.t&tii~~~r: t: ·,·,f,;;•:'c\<ii.,'>Qt.,;:~a·.;,Ji'iiJC:-;'JIIT'i:WtJ!aJ&X,1·8!l,i'l',,.s,t'.>;;: .··· }S·-.. ::~,,lctr;;.·<~ J t ;> ~::<-:,q. -:~ ;:):t:~:-.';ii;~ ·-:1 Lane Configurations V 4 ft Volume (vph) 375 119 100 54 74 739 Ideal Fklw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (fl) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade(%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Lenglh (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 Taper Lenglh (fl) 25 25 Lane Util Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.967 0877 Flt Protected 0.963 0.969 Said. Flow (prot) 1752 0 0 1805 1650 0 FH Permitted 0.963 0.227 Said. Flow (perm) 1752 0 0 423 1650 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 24 770 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance (fl) 683 816 406 Travel Time (s) 18.6 22.3 11.1 Confl. Peels. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.96 0.96 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic(%) 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 412 131 143 77 77 770 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 543 0 0 220 847 0 Tum Type Prot Penn NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 2 2 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Tolal Spfrt (s) 27.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 Total Spltt (%) 38.6% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 21.7 35.7 35.7 Actuated glC Ratio 0.33 0.54 0.54 PM peak 3:00 pm 09/22/2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 000893 -' Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl vie Ratio 0.93 Conlrol Delay 46.8 Queue Delay 0.0 Total Delay 46.8 LOS D Approach Delay 46.8 Approach LOS D 90th %He Green (s) 22.5 90th %ue Term Code Max 70th %ile Green (s) 22.5 70th %De T em, Code Max 50th %ile Green (s) 22.5 50th %ile Term Code Max 30th %ile Green (s) 22.5 30th %ue Term Code Max 10th %ile Green (s) 18.2 10th %lie Term Code Gap Queue Length 50th {ft) 216 Queue Length 95th (ft) #406 Internal Link Dist (fl) 603 Tum Bay Lenglh (ft) Base Capaci1y (vph) 616 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reducln 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.88 Area Type: Other Cyde Length: 70 Actuated Cycle Length: 66.5 Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ralio: 0.97 0.97 0.68 74.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 74.3 4.5 E A 74.3 4.5 E A 38.5 38.5 38.5 Max Max Hold 38.5 38.5 38.5 Max Max Hold 38.5 38.5 38.5 Max Max Hold 38.5 38.5 38.5 Max Max Hold 25.4 25.4 25.4 Gap Gap Hold 81 14 #147 65 ' 736 326 247 1286 0 0 0 0 0 0 089 0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.3 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 90th %ile Actuated Cycle: 70 701h %ile Actuated Cycle: 70 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 70 30th %ile Actuated Cycle: 70 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 52.6 # 95th percenfile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl City of Renton 06/20/2014 Page 2 000894 - Lanes, Volumes, Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl t • '(' f"', Pl.< W~ 1'.:>G ~~ 6l-'1" Poc..~-,(- 6.,J; n,... p-,._ WL) 06/20/2014 fie'Gf!!Y.,; .. w'··-~ ::::J?l'!',;}'!JffiF~"~T~'ff!f""-::r-:·· .. :c-T;·.-.. ~.·-;--;,-cr~-'.,•.")'*'.·.•"7'•~ Lane Coofigurations V tf 1' '{' Volume (vph) 375 119 100 54 74 739 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 20 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt o.967 o.aso FH Protected 0.963 Said. Flow (pro!) 1752 Flt Permitted O .963 Said. Row (perm) 1752 Right Tum on Red Said. Row (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s) Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles (%) Adj. Row (vph) Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) Enter Blocked Intersection Lane Alignment Median Width(ft) Link Offset(ft) Crosswalk Widlh(ft) Two way Left Tum Lane Headway Factor Turning Speed (mph} Number of Detectors Detector Template Leading Detector (ft) Trailing Detector (ft) Detector 1 Position(ft) Detector 1 Size(ft) Detector 1 Type Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) Detector 1 Queue (s) Detector 1 Delay (s) Detector 2 Posilion(ft) Detector 2 Size(ft) Detector 2 Type Delector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) Tum Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases PM peak 3:00 pm 09/2212010 City of Renton 42 25 683 18.6 0.91 1% 412 543 No Left 12 0 16 1.00 15 1 Left 20 0 0 20 Cl+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pro! 4 0 0 Yes 0.91 1% 131 0 No Righi 1.00 9 0 0 0.70 2% 143 0 No Left 1.00 15 1 Left 20 0 0 20 Cl+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 Perm 2 0.969 1805 0.757 1410 25 816 22.3 0.70 2% 77 220 No Left 0 0 16 1.00 2 Thru 100 0 0 1881 1881 25 406 11.1 0.96 1% 77 77 No Left 0 0 16 1.00 2 Thru 100 0 0 1599 1599 Yes 770 0.96 1% 770 770 No Right 100 9 1 Right 20 0 0 6 6 20 Cl+Ex a+Ex Cl+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 94 6 a+Ex 0.0 NA 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 94 6 Cl+Ex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA Penn 6 6 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 000895 - Lanes, Volumes, Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl 06/20/2014 t + t-.Gl(iijg :,,,;?';[·,:,, 'l!31!LJ'C-~~;,19M}'.,m?'.,:'°R,~F,:;;;-:_:;~· •• · :-----·-1 I Delector Phase 4 2 2 6 6 &Mich Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Spilt (s) 22.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Tola! Spilt(%) 48.9% 51.1% 51.1% 51.1% 51.1% Maximum Green (s) 17.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Yelow Tm,e (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Tola! Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None Act Effct Green (s) 14.4 11.7 11.8 11.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.47 0.12 0.74 Control Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 13.5 9.0 6.1 LOS B B A A Approach Delay 17.9 13.5 6.3 Approach LOS B e A Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 34 10 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #247 56 29 51 Internal Link Dist (ft) 603 736 326 Tum Bay Length (ft) 20 Base Capacity (vph) 925 770 1027 1222 Sta,valion Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spmback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.59 0.29 0.07 0.63 ~tift,JjUnrl'#j:-:,:·:p; --~;,-~~-.: .. _:~-~,\.,;~" .. -:;s-:1:fY.~S'~:v--::::7~,7;:::-:-~T~-~~~1·7 Ama Type: Other Cycle Length: 45 Actualed Cycle Length: 35.6 Natural Cycle: 45 _Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: O. 7 4 Intersection Signa Delay: 11.2 Intersection LOS: B lnter.;ectlon Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th perce,,tile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown Is maximum after two cyces. Sril1ts and Phases: 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pt - ] 000896 -Timings 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl t AM Pc, y,1rrt1 E!C Vot..l..ll"'E _, ( ~1\,, NA i....::IzE.u) 06/20/2014 + ·11,~h~-~:1'. ~~:Ji!f[!:~,:~-JEQ~:;;'{ :Jfsv. '-.:·. ':fit·~:~~ -a ":EN:.i8•1~· 1:}:,i~~;~~-},,;-~ :':'1'.' : f'_--'.:'" ·)·\t(? .'l)'s.-:i't{;'}~i-_f .:; Lane Configurations ¥ Volume (vph) 642 Ideal Row (vphpl) 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 Grade(%) 0% Slorage Length (ft) 0 Storage Lanes 1 Taper Length (fl) 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Ped Bille Factor Frt 0.985 Flt Protected 0.957 Said. Flow (pro!) 1756 Flt Permitted 0.957 Said. Flow (perm) 1756 Right Tum on Red Said. Row (RTOR) 12 Link Speed (mph) 25 Link Distance (ft) 973 Travel Time (s) 26.5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr} Confl. Bikes (#/hr} Peak Hour Factor 7 0.89 Growth Factor 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 Parking (#/hr} Mid-Block T raflic (%) 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 721 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph I 808 Tum Type Prat Prolected Phases 4 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s} 5.0 Minimum Split (s} 9.5 Total Split (s) 42.0 Total SpHt (%) 56.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 All-Red Tlllle (s) 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s} 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recal Mode None Act Effd Green (s) 33.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 AM peak 5:00 am 08/1812010 Tactics City of Renton 77 1900 12 0 0 1.00 0 0 Yes 0.89 100% 2% 0 87 0 <f 100 137 1900 1900 12 12 0% 0 0 25 1.00 1.00 0.979 0 1772 0.582 0 1053 25 828 22.6 0.72 0.72 100% 100% 5% 5% 0 0 0% 139 190 0 329 Perm NA 2 2 2 2 5.0 5.0 9.5 9.5 33.0 33.0 44.0% 44.0% 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.5 None None 24.7 0.36 f. 67 1900 12 0% 1.00 0.899 1658 1658 228 25 981 26.8 0.78 100% 3% 0 0% 86 339 NA 6 6 5.0 9.5 33.0 44.0% 3.5 1.0 0.0 4.5 None 24.7 0.36 197 1900 12 0 0 1.00 0 0 Yes 0.78 100% 3% 0 253 0 Synchro B Report Page 1 000897 -Timings 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl vie Ratio 0.92 Control Delay 34.1 Queue Delay 0.0 Total Delay 34.1 LOS C Approach Delay 34.1 Approach LOS C 90th %He Green {s) 37.5 90th %ile Tern, Code Max 70th %ile Green (s) 37.5 70th %ne Term Code Max 50th %ile Green (s) 37.5 50th %ile Tami Code Max 30th %ile Green (s) 33.9 30th %ile T em, Code Gap 1 ou, %ne Green (s) 22.6 10th %ile Tern, Code Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 322 Queue Length 95th (ft) #558 Internal Link Dist (ft) 893 Tum Bay Length {ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1010 Staivation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.80 Area Type: Other Cycle Length/751 Actuated eycWength: 67. 7 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay; 30.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.9% Analysis Period {min) 15 90ft, %ite Actuated Cycle: 75 70th %He Actuated Cycle: 75 50th %ile Actuated Cycle: 75 30th %ile Actuated Cycle; 66. 9 10th %ile Actuated Cycle: 46.8 0.66 0.45 44.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 44.3 8.1 D A 44.3 8.1 D A 28.5 28.5 28.5 Max Max Hold 28.5 28.5 28.5 Max Max Hold 28.5 28.5 28.5 Max Max Hold 24.0 24.0 24.0 Gap Gap Hold 15.2 15.2 15.2 Gap Gap Hold 135 33 172 64 748 901 456 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 0.40 Intersection LOS: C ·---ICYtevel of Service D # 95th pe«:entile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. City of Renton 06/20/2014 Page2 000898 TOM 9645W 156th AV SE NB SB NB+SB HOUR END 0 100 7 13 20 100 200 6 8 14 200 300 4 2 6 300 400 12 3 15 ) 400 500 38 3 41 500 600 , 89 18 107 600 700 145 82 227 700 800 228 137 365 800 900 165 67 232 900 1000 136 85 221 1000 1100 • 132 92 224 1100 1200 · 124 96 220 1200 1300 113 110 223 1300 1400 108 135 243 1400 1500 , 186 147 333 1500 1600 , 167 176 343 1600 1700 155 175 330 1700 1800 161 192 353 1800 1900 130 165 295 1900 2000 99 119 218 ) 2000 2100 70 108 178 2100 2200 47 77 124 2200 2300 21 45 66 2300 2400 13 36 49 2356 2091 4447 Sheet1 SE 142ND PL WB EB 28 26 14 17 8 13 8 13 12 30 50 168 128 630 259 692 282 665 217 442 208 310 248 293 265 269 308 288 453 316 606 454 725 441 723 465 578 389 343 266 231 223 170 151 102 104 56 64 6022 6729 Page 1 EB+WB TOTAL 54 74 31 45 21 27 21 36 42 83 218 325 · 758 985 · 951 1316 · 947 1179 659 880 518 742 541 761 534 757 596 839 769 1102 1060 1403 · 1166 1496 , 1188 1541 · 967 1262 609 827 454 632 321 445 206 272 120 169 12751 0, 0, CIO Cl Cl Cl /\·\X \'j\JV''' ~\~~t'.,c\ c\~CA< ··t::, . ()) . - NAME LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Enclave @ Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241 June 24, 2014, 8 AM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS I Phone # with orea code (including City_& Zip} (optional} J so~t SE J 37 f /, T20A1v 9'S't0,;-·1 'f1SF'3 o 1 ?7 Email , (optional} ~ CAte(' pOJ ,-, c_..(' 1..,, EG ~ ;Ke c aF,L1HS'f1tV.it '1;::'.~u~IA~M~·· CJe;::i;:;,_:.1..)E:.1h:_<_; Oll!L__µ:'f5~v f__L:.0J;2:::::..1.L~'--/'.~-:.J.!::1.~--+---------¥l.c'~6G~· ·~·I ~:._1,__.,;u-~~~C:.::::c:.M~' -; ,'-':"7 (,,<., t 8 ~(:: '-\ T~_l PLt\tk. <le,\.."tO:v "r Bo':> q 'i'l-5 · S<.:-~-'i') t S n,. rolltv1\;,{-r~ ('c,vv1,·cA., ,. 16 •. , i-,, 5~ /J .~els--"'""-, 311 ln:..r:S(•., , 'r 1 ' '/ ' .. l I i , I ... j / ii/ I . . I J I. r. l',, ( ! ,, ' 29'23 M, (II cl p,1/J,,11 t)(J %VJ 21 {t...2~-'f ??( -ss--£2..J9,-o« ;.., el e c.,,..;('..,,.-1, "" , • / ,'.'.. · ' 0 , ; i'.:r, n. · It':·· · ' l\;).<;"" P'J&c>· ~-,'--1 l{ (,.., +c dc.b i', ~ v11 , ~v\ \' e.-\ .._,, \-l. 4~ ~ '€ 1'<7'c<;" <;.f:-iLl) \.1 ~~O"-q'(OS"Ctl l/1._.'; 2..'l.G C(,Cti.(6 I M-'t(PftC@'-1.'>tv,lern,.._ TraF/jg';g --NORTHWEST .,..,,,..,_;:-JC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St.J #590 Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425.522.q118 Fax: 425.522.4311 Vincent J. Geglia Degree Association Membership Occupational Experience Principal, TraffEx BS Civil Engineering -State University of New York at Buffalo 1986 to present -Institute of Transportation Engineers 2004 to present -Principal of TraffEx, a consulting engineering firm specializing in traffic engineering services, Kirkland, WA. 1986 to 2004 -Senior Transportation Engineer for Transportation, Planning and Engineering, Bellevue, WA. 1981 to 1986-Project Engineer for AESL 1976 to 1981 -Facility Engineer/Master Planner Dept of Defense 1973 to 1976 -Transportation Engineer for NYSDOT Mr. Geglia has been the project engineer responsible for the preparation of over 400 traffic impact analyses for a variety of office, commercial and residential developments in the Puget Sound area. He has prepared the transportation section for several Environmental Impact Statements including Mill Creek Town Center and Sammamish Parkplace, a 1.2 million square foot office complex; Mr. Geglia has designed more than 60 traffic signals, street illumination plans, signal interconnect system, and channelization plans, including the illumination design for six miles of freeway and ftve interchanges on WSDOTs 1-405 Northup to Bothell HOV lanes project .. 000901 -- THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE 2"d ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT SE 142ND PL./156TH AVE. SE INTERSECTION CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by l!i!!fEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 20, 2014 000902 -Tra,/'@Jx June 20, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36111 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 -· NORTHWEST TRAF"F'IC EXPERTS ~~~~g,~'.;i,~r ~mJtl!tt Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton 2nd Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis with a Traffic Signal at SE 142nd Pl./1561h Ave. SE Intersection Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this 2nd addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 155th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide an analysis of the SE 142nd Pl./156th Ave SE intersection assuming a traffic signal is installed. The analysis is summarized as follows: • With a signal installed the level of service improves from F to B in both the AM and PM peak hours at the SE 142nd Pl/1561h Ave SE intersection • With the improved operating conditions resulting from installation of a signal, the southbound queue on SE 1561h St. is significantly reduced and does not block either of the Enclave's site access streets or SE 5th Pl. AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS AM and PM peak hour level of service calculations were performed using the projected 2015 traffic volumes (including proiect generated traffic) and assuming a traffic signal installed at the SE 142nd Pl/1561 Ave SE intersection. The level of service improved from F without a signal to B with a signal in both AM and PM peak hours. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for future conditions with the project. Page 1 000903 --· The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tra~ TABLE 1 2015 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLED AT SE 142ND PU156TH AVE SE INTERSECTION INTERSECTION AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR SE 142"0 Pl/ B 14.3 B 14.8 1561h Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (X XX) LOS and average control delay in seconds SOUTHBOUND VEHICLE QUEUES ON 156TH AVE SE While performing the traffic counts for the TIA, it was observed that in the PM peak hour existing southbound vehicle queues on 156th Ave SE sometimes extend beyond SE 5th Pl. which is located a distance of approximately 760 feet north of the stop bar at the SE 142"d Pl./1561h Ave SE intersection. With a traffic signal installed, the maximum southbound queue is significantly reduced to 77 feet in the AM peak hour and 61 feet in the PM peak hour. The distance from the stop bar on SE 1561" Street to the Enclave's southern access street is approximately 175 ft .. Therefore, the queue would not block either of the two Enclave's access streets nor SE 5th Place. The queue summary is attached in the technical appendix. Since these intersections would not be affected by the southbound queue, they would therefore operate at an acceptable level of service C or B as calculated and shown in the April 29, 2014 Addendum. Page 2 000904 ._ The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraHm'l:f If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 3 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 000905 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 000906 FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR vvfTH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE ..> '), "' t ! ..; Lane Configurations V .f f. Volume (vph) 659 42 103 117 73 229 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ulil. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prol) 1765 1820 1672 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.64 1.00 Satd. Flow (eerm) 1765 1198 1672 Peak-hour faclor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 686 44 107 122 76 239 RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 163 0 Lane Graue Flow (veh) 726 0 0 229 152 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitled Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Effective Green, g (s) 24.8 15.2 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 912 379 529 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 0.09 vis Ratio Perm c0.19 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.60 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 13.9 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 2.7 0.3 Delay (s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Level of Service 8 8 8 Approach Delay (s) 14.4 16.6 12.6 Approach LOS 8 8 8 HCM Average Control Delay 14.3 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline 8 8.0 D 6/20/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 000907 FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR Wi'TH PROJECT + SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE ~ t ! Lane Group Flow (vph) 730 229 315 vie Ratio 0.81 0.61 0.46 Control Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.9 25.4 7.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 168 56 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 291 #164 77 Internal Link Dist (ft) 404 136 230 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 1336 476 809 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.55 0.48 0.39 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Baseline 6/2012014 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000908 FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR vv'l'TH PROJECT+ SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE .,,. l' ~ t l ..; Lane Configurations V 4 f. Volume (vph) 300 118 81 92 73 726 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.97 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1730 1820 1634 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.25 1.00 Satd. Flow (~rm) 1730 470 1634 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 316 124 85 97 77 764 RTOR Reduction (vph) 32 0 0 0 434 0 Lane Groue Flow (veh) 408 0 0 182 407 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Effeclive Green, g (s) 12.9 15.9 15.9 Actualed g/C Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 203 706 vis Ratio Prat c0.24 0.25 vis Ratio Perm c0.39 vie Ratio 0.67 0.90 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 10.2 9.7 7.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 35.8 1.1 Delay (s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Level of Service B D A Approach Delay (s) 13.1 45.5 9.1 Approach LOS B D A ---' . . HCM Average Control Delay HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group Baseline • ' ' ~''----'--..< ~-~ •• k< 14.8 0.80 36.8 91.8% 15 HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service B 8.0 F 6/20/2014 Synchro 7 -Report Page 2 000909 -FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR WITH PROJECT+ SIGNAL 2: SE 142nd St & 156th Ave SE .,,. t ! Lane Group Flow (vph) 440 182 841 vie Ratio 0.70 0.91 0.74 Control Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.7 62.5 6.2 Queue Length 50th (It) 74 35 9 Queue Length 95th (It) #175 #133 61 Internal link Dist (It) 168 201 240 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 817 281 1286 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.54 0.65 0.65 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum alter two cycles. Baseline 612012014 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 000910 www.idaxdata.com - 156THAVE NE ~-SE 142ND PL .P.,vJfA. i::::::::. Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00AM to 9:00AM Peak Hour: 7:00AM lo 8:00AM ~1 i "' !J;! ... ... Jo w ~ F Si ~ 18 ... -.. j l 297 ( 6 TEV: 1,220 "~ * ;lo 642d PHF: 0.96 ck 719 77 ., ~ ~ t -0DD[[][H. ~c. ,-..c;,..u t'L 0 i 0 ... w HY%: PHF 0 ... z --~ -EB 1.9% 0.89 !l i F NB 4.6% 0.72 ~ ... .. SB 3.0% 0.78 ... ~ TOTAL "' 2.7% 0.96 Two-Hour Count Summaries SE 142NDPL SE142NDPL 15eTHAVENE 156THAVENE Rolll1111 Interval Easlbound Westbound 15.mln Ono Start Northbound Soulhbot.nd Total LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Hour 7:00AM 165 D 36 D 0 0 24 16 0 0 11 52 304 .-· :: ·:1::rsrAMt~i • ac,\< :,,-., s·~--:...·,,.- _:.13i,: ....... , \t'}i~f/t .. ~/-if~i ?.~~~f;!?P :~1,j(JI~-.i}~t,:)7.'~J~f 1{;. ~?' ~l!"i_,;:·t~\ ~t.~:--.:::./~T ~·r~xtr<: 7:30AM 158 0 8 0 0 0 28 54 0 0 12 43 303 7:45AM 182 0 14 0 0 0 18 21 0 0 4 57 296 1,220 8:00AM 148 0 10 0 0 0 24 11 0 0 3 96 292 1.208 8:15 AM 168 0 9 0 0 0 32 16 0 0 4 59 286 1,179 8:30AM 170 0 8 0 0 0 24 15 0 0 6 59 282 1.158 8:45AM 175 0 11 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 g 61 282 1,144 CountTolal 1,303 0 115 0 0 0 193 192 0 0 89 472 2,364 Peak Hr ,842 0 n 0 0 0 100 137 <!I 0 67 197 1,220 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes Jnclude heavy vehlcfes but excfude bicycles in overall count Interval Heavy Vehlcle Totals fflcw,les ,.._.,. ICroulna I.en! Start EB WB NB· SB Tolal EB WB NB SB Total East Wesl North South Tolal 7:00AM 2 0 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,,;._.-i!:'""._.."'"', ~~J.f_,~~~i;E~Jif :}~-1::\yfi:: ~~VilJ·J~ftti"i::r:~}Jti~ t\A\~J1t<";,Jt~~Jt\-I ~!!tif.;-;~f)f \:~}fAQJJ:J f.c ;,, -15lAM!'.>;, .··.·--"-~~""-""· 7:30AM 3 0 3 2 B 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 a 7:45AM 4 0 3 2 9 0 0 0 1 1 io 0 0 0 D B:OOAM 7 0 2 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15AM 5 0 2 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 8:30AM 4 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45AM 4 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Tola! 34 0 16 18 68 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hr 14 0 11 8 3J 0 0 1 1 2 .o 0 0 0 • 0. -• • Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@ldaxdala.com www.idaxdata.com - 156THAVE NE SE 142ND PL ~ N Peak Hour ~ N "' ., ---..J l 313 -. -->+ 221 d 282 61 , TEV: 671 PHF: 0.95 .,~ 14<m, PL Two-Hour Count Summaries Interval Start 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30AM 11:45AM LT 57 49 70 47 SE 142NDPL Eastbound TH 0 0 0 0 RT 11 20 14 11 LT 0 0 0 0 w z ~ ~ "' - SE142NDPL Weslbound TH 0 0 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 ·_1f;~~~~i,:· <~1.r ·, o~ ···,11y· t~---~fl~i{::1if.> --.:.,\-pr{ 12:15 PM 52 0 24 0 0 0 12:30 PM 47 12:45 PM 37 CountTolaJ 411 Paalc Hr 221 0 0 0 0 14 0 19 0 125 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EB NB SB Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 Count Period: 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Peak Hour: 11 :30 AM to 12:30 PM Jo I _)m, c::, Jo .. ; * ·~ HY%: PHF [ll~[}-t 4.6% 0.84 .. 8.0% 0.84 ~ 6.1% 0.80 TOTAL 5.8% 0.95 156TH AVE NE LT 16 11 24 22 20 13 19 147 88 Northbound TH 10 8 13 5 iii' "'- 10 10 11 16 1S61HAVENE Southbound RT LT TH RT 15-mln Total 0 0 10 49 153 o o e 52 148 0 0 8 43 172 0 0 12 57 154 ·01} •::= ir. · :. c:1c1t · 12-,,,=_1n_.,_··.· .. ""'-'·' :'"-' 0 0 9 53 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 15 79 39 48 49 423 225 139 150 1,251 871 Rolling One Hour 627 651 871 638 634 Note: Two-hour count :wmmary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles In overall count. Interval """""Vohlclo Tolals """"'ie• Pedestnan• (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Tola! EB WB NB SB TOlai East West North South Total 11:00AM 7 O 2 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:15 AM 3 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30AM 4 o 5 4 13 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 11:45AM 2 0 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D f. ·=~ l\.";,»" ·"--·;rs-"'·,..-,.ac, ···= t:\?l~~ ~~r. ~·:-:.; V!}~~:;_{trJ~i' s, · ... !!~.:}.f!:, fffm:•r•-· ··"'ol·-,..-,··•·c=..:i,; ,t-~.-·v-,,,.....111<\'···-.-·=~., ..... -·,-,. · "'~:l!l R~~ll::;:.\Jt{i(!(~~{i~:Jt}J {t/;..o:t2£ }t~'!!-]·-~i ;;~4·:,:i!'.-~<f¥:~J~~{~}f/\\tJt~tf ~ _i ::,!:.~a 12:15 PM 4 D 2 3 9 ODO•DD O O O O 0 12:30PM 2 0 0 0 2 00000 0 0 0 0 0 12:45PM 6 0 2 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CountTotal 31 a 16 24 71 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PeakHr 13 O 10 16 39 0 0 D 0 0 10 0 0 _o ~ 0.. . Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mal1<.skaggs@idaxdala.com ' ' ' www.idaxdata.com - 156THAVE NE SE 142ND PL 839 < ~ N -->~ 375d 494 119 ""'-) .,c 1 ~'""' l'L "' "' ,-. Peak Hour J I TEV: 1,461 PHF: 0.97 Two-Hour Count Summaries SE142NDPL SE142NDPL Interval EaslboLmd Weslbound Start LT TH RT LT TH 4:00PM 71 0 28 0 0 4:15 PM 74 0 36 0 0 4:30PM 115 0 28 0 0 4:45PM 101 0 27 0 0 5:00PM 86 0 23 0 0 5:15PM 87 0 35 0 0 f' , 5:3(VPMi;::-, · 10f :(f'"' . 34' ·., ii•· ii· ! '"·-· ··-' ,_ . --·-· . --..... 5:45PM 64 0 24 0 0 Count Total 699 0 235 0 0 Paak Hr _375 0 119 0 0 RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 o, 0 0 0 EB NB SB TOTAL Date, Count Period: HY%: 1.4% 1.9% 1.2% 1.4% Peak Hour: 0.91 0.70 0.96 0.97 Tue, Apr 15, 2014 0 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM 0 0~ 151THAVE NE 156THAVE NE Northbound Southbound 15-mln Total LT TH RT LT TH RT 31 18 0 0 17 149 314 27 13 0 0 12 176 338 25 11 0 0 10 185 374 14 7 0 0 10 202 361 25 14 0 0 22 185 355 27 12 0 0 21 188 368 34 ·.·.·~·'-· 'ii : . o, 21. Olis,. ;_--:'3f7;. . . ,_: . . .. .:;:, .. ,,_ -----~- 18 13 0 0 15 147 281 201 109 0 0 128 1,396 2,788 100 54 0 0 74 739 1,461 Rolling One Hour 1,387 1,428 1,458 1,481 1,381 Note: TwcH>our count """'ma,y va/umes /m:Jude heavy vehlclss but ·-blcycles In overall count. lnlerval H•-Vehlclll Tolala Bi-las Podnt~11111 ICrotSlng I -• Start EB WB NB SB Tolal EB WB NB SB Total East West North Sou1h Total 4c00 PM 4 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 2 0 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30PM 2 0 0 6 B 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:45PM 3 0 1 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 5:15PM 3 D 2 3 8 D D 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 t s:3DPlli!'I' ~ff1t:·:T~O· .~:" ifilf.f:2· 3~' '!-'4"f. r~~'o~ ·., ::'o:-n·:\{9.~~y.:_: ... ~.~Jf~o_£" ~t~~:( __ ;'.))}" ' :~-:~:~~7~~~~'.~;-_~. :o.1.:2t;;;f~.:Jifra 'c -.. ~<.-.. ~...._,:}_'_ -t-.. -.;.:!• .'"-'..:.<> •.;' ~=•· _._,,,._ _ _._;,; 5:45PM 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cow,ITo!al 16 0 7 25 48 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hr 7 0 3 10 20 0 0 0 •O 0 0 0 0 0 --a. ---·-Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -om mark.sJ<aggs@ldaxdata.com - ~w,se 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl Intersection Delay, slveh 41.8 lnt~~L_QS . 'fl,' vo1; veliil) 0 642 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.89 0.90 ~ Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmtflow 0 721 0 _Number of l.aies 0 1 0 100 0.72 5 139 0 AM ~~ W.IJ.-1 E'-. e,.(\},<J (f:\\,.IS-f) 06/20/2014 137 0 f,/ 197 0.72 0.90 0.78 0.78 5 2 3 3 190 0 86 253 1 0 1 0 l ~ I ' I ' .,-~~---· -----------. -----· -···------__ _. __ ---~--- Opposing .6f>proam SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 ContncUng Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approad! Righi NB EB ConlrlCling Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 61.5 19.1 16.9 HCMLOS F C C .l -~ ------11 ! 'j ,-,, ,, -', ---• ---• " -• Vol Left, 'lli 42% Vol Tlvu, 'lli 58% Vol Right% 0% ~nConlrol Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 237 LT Vol 137 Through Vol 0 RT Vol 100 Lane Flow Rate 329 <3eometry Grp 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.599 Depar1urs Headway (Hd) 6.555 Convergence, YIN Yes Cap 546 Service Time 4.646 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.603 HCM Control Delay 19.1 HCMLaneLOS C HCM 95111-tile Q 3.9 17 ~ '11 / UX.. ~ l;1 ~ 5:00 am 08/18/2010 Tactics City of Renton 89% 0% 11% Slop 719 0 77 642 808 1 1 6.098 Yes 606 4.098 1.333 61.5 F 14.9 0% 25% 75% Stop 264 67 197 0 338 1 0.568 6.038 Yes 592 4.118 0.571 16.9 C 3.5 'l Synchro 8 Report Page 1 000914 - "rP:lf®S@tiJ :tr41sth Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl 06/20/2014 lnb!rseclon Delay, s/veh 50.1 .1n~(9s -Cfl , 1· I' 'J , 1 ' ' l r ,. , va;veMi Peak Hour Factor H~ Vtihlcies, % Mvmtflow Number of Lanes . ,',• 0. 375 0.90 0.91 2 .1 0 412 0 1 .11e o 1<xr· .. s:4 · • 0.91 0. 90 0. 70 0. 70 1 2 2 2 131 o 143 n 0 0 0 1 0 0.90 2 0 0 . 74 739 0.96 0.96 1 1 n no 1 0 ' -~ ---l ---------,11 ----.:~--- Opposing Approadl SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approadl Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting 1.anes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 49.5 15.2 59.6 HCMLOS E C F ' • I ' I f- -• -> • ••• • "' -r Vol Left,% Volihru, % Vol Right% Sign_ Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RTVol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Uni (X) bepaiture Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time _HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay HCML.ane Los HCM 95111-ble Q ·~3:00 pm 09/22/2010 City of Renton 65% 35% 0% Stop 154 54 0 100 220 1 0.43 7.038 Yes 515 5.038 0.427 15.2 C 2.1 76% 0% 24% Sk>p 494 0 119 375 543 1 0.941 6.243 Yes 575 4.334 0.944 49.5 E 122 0% 9% 91% Stop 813 74 739 0 847 1 1 5.731 Yes 635 3.746 1.334 59.6 F 15.3 Synchro 8 Report Page1 000915 - 'Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl i"'f"\ Pf.AU... \rl T t I.I Bl: I/OL4ME ( SD,, N l\. Lll. 5,IJ) 06/20/2014 '· ' ,, I; ·~ . J -~ --.;I, -- Lane Cooftgurslions .Vpkime, lvphj · ·· · · Ideal Fk>w (vphp) lane \Vk!lh (ft) Grade(%) s_hage J.eng~ (ft) ~lanes ,t lpflrlerigth (fl) L8ne Ulil Factor f'ed Bike Factor Frt Fil Prolecled Said. Flow (proQ Flt Permllled Satd. Flow (perm) Right Tum on Red Said. Flow (RTOR) Ulk Speed (mph) Link Distance (ft) Travel Time (s). Coofl. Peds. (#lhrJ Cool. Bilcas (#nv:) Peak Hour Factor Giowih Factor Heavy Vehldes (%) lils Blocksges (#/hr) Pffllng (ll.'1r) M"KI-Block traffic C"'l Adj. Row (vph) Sliarl!dlane Traffic(%) Lene Gl'Ollp Flow (vph) Tum Type · Protected Phases Pemilited Phases Detecklr Phase Switch Phase Minimum Initial (sJ Minimum Split (s) Total Split (sJ Total ~ii(%) Yellow 11me (s) .Alf.Red Time (S) lost11me Adjust (s) To181 l.osl T1me (s) Leadlt.ag lead-lag Optimize? Recall Mode Act. Eflcl G!8en (s) Actuated g/C Ratio PM peak 3:00 pm 09/22/2010 City of Renton V 375 1900 12 0% 0 1 25 1.00 0.967 0.963 1752 0.963 1752 24 25 683 18.6 0.91 100% 1'4 0 0% 412 543 Prot 4 4 5.0 9.5 27.0 38.6% 3.5 1.0 0.0 4.5 None 21.7 0.33 119 1900 12 0 0 1.00 0 0 Yes 0.91 100% 1% 0 131 0 j Jo 100 74 73!1 1900 1900 1900 1900 12 12 12 12 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.877 0.969 0 1805 1650 0 0.227 0 423 1650 0 Yes no 25 25 816 406 22.3 11.1 0.70 0.70 0.96 0.96 100% 100% 100% 100% 2'4 2% 1% 1% 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 143 77 77 no 0 220 847 0 Penn NA NA 2 6 2 2 2 6 5.0 5.0 5.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 43.0 43.0 43.0 61.4% 61.4% 61.4% 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 None None None 35.7 35.7 0.54 0.54 Synchro 8 Report Page 1 000916 f -'Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl .,> vie RaHo 0.93 Con~ol Delay 46.8 Ou8118 Delay 0.0 Total Delay 46.8 ~OS D Approach Delay 46.8 Approach ~OS D 90th %le Green (s) 22.5 9Qth _%11j, Tenn Code "1ax 70th %ile Green (s) 22.5 70\h %lie Term Code Max 501h %ile Green (s) 22.5 501h %lie Term Code Max 30th %ile Green (s) 22.5 30th %Be Tenn Code Max 10th %He Green (s) 18.2 10th %lie Term Code Gap Queue Length 501h (ft) 216 Queue Length 95!h (ft) #406 Internal Link Dis! (ft) 603 Tum B.ayumgth (fl) Base Capacity (vph) 616 Slarvatloo Cap Reductn 0 . . . ., . Spllback Cap Reductn 0 storage Cap ~ctn 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.88 Ania Type: Other Cycle Length: 70 Aclualed Cycle Length: 66.5 Nafurei Cycle: 7ll Conb"ol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97 t ' t ! 0.97 0.68 .· 74.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 74.3 4.5 E A 74.3 4.5 E A 38.5 38.5 38.5 Max Max fl91d 38.5 38.5 38.5 ·Max Max Hold 38.5 38.5 38.5 Max Max fi91d 38.5 38.5 38.5 Max Max Hold 25.4 25.4 25.4 Gap Gap Hold 81 14 #147 65' 736 326 247 1286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.89 0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.3 lnlersectlon LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 97 .2% ICU Level of Servb! F Analysis Period (min) 15 90th !life Actualad Cycle: 70 70th !life Actuated Cyde: 70 50th %lie Actuated Cyde: 70 30th %lie Actuated Cycle: 70 10th 1111e Adi.lated Cycle: 52.5 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown Is maximum after two cycles. 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl City ol Renlon 06/20/2014 Page2 000917 -._,, ff'\ fJf.(, w~ ~[l ~c,l"'Jpk dl-'r Po c..11..c.-f ' Lanes, Volumes, Timings (J..J; n-6-,-. WL) 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl 06./20/2014 .,, " "" t l ,I Lane C<xlfiguruons V Volume (vph)-. 375 119 100 74 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 $1orage Length (ft) 0 0 0 storage Lanes 1 0 0 Tll!Mir (,e!'91h_ ift) 25 25 lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 0.967 0.850 Flt Protected 0.963 0.969 $aid. Flow (pro!) 1752 0 0 1805 1881 1599 Flt Pennltted 0.963 0.757 Said. Flow(penn) 1752 0 0 1410 1881 1599 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 42 770 Link Speed (mph) 25 25 25 lilk Distance (ft) 683 816 406 Tl'IIYel Tane (s) 18.6 223 11. 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehk:les (%) 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% Adj. _Aow (vph) 412 131 143 n n 770 s~_red Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Aow (vph) 543 0 0 220 71 no Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Algnment Left ~ Left Left Lalt Right Median Wdlh(ft) 12 0 0 Link Ollset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Wdth(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Tum Lene Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Number of Delectors 1 1 2 2 1 Detector T~ale Left Left Thru Thru Ri!llt Leading Detector (ft) 20 20 100 100 20 Tralliig Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Deleclor 1 Posltion(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 iletectcr 1 Slze(ft) 20 20 6 6 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex O+Ex Ci+Ex Detedor 1 ChaMel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 Detector 2 Slze(ft) 6 6 IJeler::lor 2 Type Cl+Ex a+Ex Detector 2 Channel _Detecla' 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 Tum Type Pro! Penn NA NA Penn Protected Phases 4 2 6 Pennitted Phases 2 6 PM peak 3:00 pm 09/22/2010 Synchro 8 Report City of Rental Page1 000918 • -- Lanes, Volumes, Timings 341: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl 06/20/2014 t + ~' -t "-• ' I,, ' ' ' --~ -• Detector Phase ~Phase- "''111!llm .i-l1illl (s) Minimum Spll (s) 1~ Splt(s) · Total Split(%) ~ cir_een (s) Yellow T1111e (1) All-R~cf Tllllll (s) lost Time Adjust (s) Total lost Time (s) leaclllag Lead-lBg Optimize? Vehlcte Extension (s) Recall Mode Ad Effct Gnien (s) Actuated g/C Ratio v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay LOS .Approach Delay Approach LOS Queue leng1h 50\h (It) Queue length 95th (ft) Internal link_ llst (ft) Tum Bay leng1h (ft) _ease Cap!dfy. ('l)lh) Starvation Cap Reductn $JJilback Cap Red~ctn storage Cap Reductn Rswced vie Ratio 4 5.0 9.5 22.0 48.9% 17c5 3.5 1.0 0.0 4.5 3.0 None 14.4 0.40 0.74 17.9 0.0 17.9 B 17.9 B 67 #247 603 925 0 0 0 0.59 Al8aType:·-Other Cycle leng1h: 45 Actuated Cycle length: 35.6 Natura Cycle: 45 Control Type: kiuated-Uncoordinated Maxinllln v/c Ratio: 0-74 2 5.0 9.5 2s:o 51.1% 18.5 3.5 1.0 3.0 None 2 6 6 5.0 5.0 5.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 23.0 23.0 23.0 51.1% 51.1% 51.1% 18.5 1~.5 181i 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Nona None None 11.7 11.8 11.8 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.47 0.12 0.74 13.5 9.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 9.0 6.1 B A A 13.5 6.3 B A 34 10 0 56 29 51 736 326 20 770 1027 1222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.07 0.63 Intersection Signal Oelay.1_1.2 lntemction LOS: B lnt""'8cllon Capacity Ublzalion 61-6% ICU level of Service B Analysis Pariod (min) 15 # 951h pe«:anile volume exceeds capactty, queue may be longer. Queue shown IS maximum after two cycles. 000919 -AM PCA Yv-.i 1'+1 EiC VOLL\f"E • C \, 'J\,i N A L-".l!13 .,J) Timings 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl OOfl0/2014 .), l' '\ t ! Ul19 Configurations V 4 f. ,Vajiie (vph) 642 77 100 137 67 197 Ideal Flow(~) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ~ W!cilh (fl) 12 1:i 12 12 12 12 Gnide (%) 0% 0% 0% Slmige Lengll (ft) 0 0 0 0 Slaage lall8$ 1 0 0 0 t l,englh (ft) llpllf .. 2li 25 um, UUI. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped !like Faclor Fri 0.985 0.899 Ftt Protscted 0.957 0.97~ Said Flow (proQ 1756 0 0 1772 1658 0 Flt Pennllfed 0.957 0.582 Said Flow (perm) 1756 0 0 1053 1658 0 RiititTum on Red Yes Yes Said Flow (RTORJ 12 228 Link Speed. (mph) 25 25 25 Link Distance (It) 973 828 981 :Travel 'tlme (s) 26.5 22.6 26.8 Conn. Peds. (11hr) ponfl. Bikes l#hv'J Peak Hour Faclor 7 0.89 0.89 0.72 0.72 0.78 0.78 ~rowth Factor~ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehldes (%) 2% 2% 5% 5% 3% 3% Bu~~ (#l!lr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) MiH3lock traffic(%) 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (-;ph) 721 87 139 190 86 253 Slwed l.al)e Traffic(%) Lene Group Flow (-;ph) 808 0 0 329 339 0 .Tum Type· · Plot Penn NA NA Protected Phases 4 2 6 Pennllled Phases 2 Detecklr Phase 4 2 2 6 i;wlk:h Phase Mnfmum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 .Miumum Spilt (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Total Sp6t (s) 42.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 Total Spit (%) 56.0% 44.0% 44.0% 44.0% Yellow T1rne (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 ~Tlrne(s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Tme Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/tag. Leid-lag OpHmlze? Recal Mode None Nooe None None Act Elfci Green (s) 33.7 24.7 24.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.36 0.36 1Nt peak 5:00 am 08/18/2010 Tactics Synchro 8 Report City of Renton Page 1 000920 -~ Timings 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl .> ~Ii:~ --,r~ Comrol Delay 34.1 ~l!Uec~ 0.0 T lllal Delay 34.1 LOS C ,twoach Delay 34.1 NiP!J!iii:ii Lps C 9011 ftle Graen (a) 37.5 8Qlj "llftlllT!l Code MIIX 7Dlh %Re Green (1) 37.5 7001 ftfte·Teini Code Max 50fh %De Green (s) 37.5 50th %lie term Code Max 30th %lie Grem (s) 33.9 30th %ile Term Code Gap 1 oth %He Green (s) 22.6 101h %le Tenn Code Gap Queue Length 50th (Ill 322 ~.!! ~[h_951h (it) . -~ internal Link Dist (ft) 893 tjin'~Y~~glii lftJ 88111 Clpeclty (vph} 1010 ~~Cap~ 0 Spllblck Cap Reductn 0 $fonige_ Cap Re<kJctn 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.80 Area Type: Olhef =~~gilt 67.7 Nahl!al C)'de: 75 . Contol Type: Actllaled-Uncoordinated .Maximum v/c Ra,.o: 0.92 ") ~ t ! Q.86 0.45 44.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 44.3 8.1 D A 44.3 8.1 D A 28.5 28.5 28.5 Max Max Hoid 28.5 28.5 28.5 Max Max Hold 28.5 28.5 28.5 Max Max H\>ld 24.0 24.0 24.0 Gap Gap Hold 15.2 15.2 15.2 Gap Gap Hoid 135 33 112 :'!!4' 748 901 458 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 0.40 Intersection Signal Delay: 30.4 Intersection LOS: C ln!nactioo c.i,paaty Utilzallon 79.9% .._,,-ICY be'i81 of Service D Analysis Period (nin) 15 90II %ff11 AcfualecfCycie: 75 7oth %lie Aclleted Cyde: 75 501h ~lie Acllrted Cycle: 75 30th %lie h*lated Cycle: 66.9 .10th %lie Actl!l!ied C)de: 46.8 # 9501 percentile volume IIXC8eds capacity, queue may be longer. Clu9\ffl shown-ls maximum mfer two C)'des. 333: 156th Ave SE & SE 142nd Pl City ofRenkln 06/'20/2014 Page2 000921 TOM 9645W 156th AV SE NB SB NB+SB HOUR END 0 100 7 13 20 100 200 6 8 14 200 300 4 2 6 300 400 12 3 15 400 500 38 3 41 500 600 • 89 18 107 ) 600 700 145 82 227 700 800 228 137 365 800 900 165 67 232 900 1000 136 85 221 1000 1100 • 132 92 224 1100 1200 · 124 96 220 1200 1300 113 110 223 1300 1400 108 135 243 1400 1500 , 186 147 333 1500 1600 , 167 176 343 1600 1700 155 175 330 1700 1800 161 192 353 ) 1800 1900 130 165 295 1900 2000 99 119 218 2000 2100 70 108 178 2100 2200 47 77 124 2200 2300 21 45 66 2300 2400 13 36 49 2356 2091 4447 Sheet1 SE 142ND PL WB EB 28 26 14 17 8 13 8 13 12 30 50 168 128 630 259 692 282 665 217 442 208 310 248 293 265 269 308 288 453 316 606 454 725 441 723 465 578 389 343 266 231 223 170 151 102 104 56 64 6022 6729 Page 1 EB+WB TOTAL 54 74 31 45 21 27 21 36 42 83 218 325 , 758 985 · 951 1316 · 947 1179 659 880 518 742 . 541 761 534 757 596 839 769 1102 1060 1403 · 1166 1496 , 1188 1541 . 967 1262 609 827 454 632 321 445 206 272 120 169 12751 ~ a, C) C) C) 24 June 2014 Renton Hearing Examiner re: The proposed Enclave development along 156th Ave SE For the last 34 years, I've lived within a half mile of the 154th Pl SE/156th Ave SE arterial corridor which runs adjacent to the Enclave development site. This 1. 77 mile route connects Maple Valley Hwy (SR-169) with the arterial network on the plateau east of Renton. I'm here because I've driven all or portions of the corridor perhaps thousands of times. I'm also here because I don't live in city, residing the unincorporated area in one of Renton's Potential Annexation Areas. As a resident of a neighboring jurisdiction (i.e. King County), I'm here to assure you are aware of the impacts we're witnessing outside Renton's jurisdiction. It doesn't appear that a holistic plan or vision for the corridor exists. This, not surprisingly, results in a mosaic of changes that all but ignore impacts outside their immediate epicenter. It means were designing things based on formulas, without the availability an integrated vision to orchestrate the changes. Renton has a subarea approach to community planning. At last check, only the boundaries of the subarea that includes the corridor have been created. Renton needs a comprehensive subarea plan for this plateau before it makes one more decision that, once made, is essentially impossible to correct. If wrong, the "cost of quality" also increases dramatically. It's not clear if Renton is operating the way intended as evidenced by comments on King County Transportation Concurrency Management Program, and the City Council Resolution for an ILA with King County that includes transportation. Renton's Transportation Concurrency Program Management Plan mentions that much of the load on the city's transportation system is out of their control, coming from decisions made in other jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the city appears to be ignoring the reverse where decisions made in the city impact transportation systems in other jurisdictions. The City's intent to be sensitive to impacts their decisions make on other jurisdictions should be clear. • Renton Resolution 4165 1 that calls for staff work on creating an Inter-Local Agreement with King County that was intended, among other things, to include a commitment by the city to comprehensively evaluate transportation issues that are analyzed and prioritized by the county. • Renton comments2 on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program update to King County Code 14. 703 where the city "requests that King county 1 Renton Resolution 4165, 10 December 2012, Inter-Local Agreement (ILA) between Renton and King County. 2 Letter from Jennifer Henning to Josh Peters, 18 December 2013, "Comments on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14.70 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139'" Place, Renton, WA 98059 1 000923 establish Level of Service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary•. But what is not clear is how the decisions Renton has made align with that intent. This certainly includes development and the transportation system. If Renton were to follow its recommendation to King County Transportation Concurrency Management Program, Travel Shed 12 would be expanded to its "natural" boundaries (as opposed to stopping at jurisdictional boundaries). At a minimum, this would cause all road segments along the 154th/156th arterial ccrridor to fail transportation ccncurrency. Following the Transportation Concurrency RCW, this would require development denial until allowed response plans were committed. No such response plans exist in Renton. The decisions regarding the Enclave development application are highly questionable in context of 1) goals for the entire 1541h/156th arterial corridor, and 2) impacts to other jurisdictions, including King County and Washington State. From a Transportation Concurrency perspective, Renton is permitting add~ional daily trips in a road network that will increase load on road segments currently failing King County transportation concurrency that are within a mile and a half of the arterial corridor. All the unincorporated area road segments along the arterial corridor are in King County Travel Shed 12. Under King County's method, if more than 15% of the road segments in a travel shed fail concurrency, the entire travel shed fails. This approach recognizes the interconnected nature of the road system and, analogous to water sheds, recognize the most road users travel routes, not just intersections or road segments. The travel sheds recognize that development doesn't just impact roads and intersections near the project, bu1 drives trips onto routes that will likely impact roads and intersections some considerable distance away. Renton, on the other hand, approaches transportation concurrency completely differently. The Level of Service is an index last updated in 2002 that essentially is the sum of distances traveled using three different types of routes over a fixed period of time. The Renton transportation model is updated annually with, among other things, new net trip data. As long as the predicted miles are below the 2002 index, the entire system passes transportation concurrency. 3 King County Roads has proposed changes to their transportation concurrency that could impact this situation, but staff has advised that the changes are significant and might involve Code and Comprehensive Plan. Regardless, we expect quite a bit of discussion before decisions are made. Interestingly, Renton has expressed ~s opposition to the proposed county changes. Some residents from the area have also provided comments opposed to portions of the proposed changes. 4 "King County's Transportation Concurrency Management Program Update to King County Code 14. 70 should consider areas within and outside of its jurisdictional boundaries in applying the concurrency test. The City of Renton requests that King county establish Level of service concurrency requirements comprehensively for the transportation shed irrespective of political boundaries such as Renton municipal limits or the Urban Growth Boundary. This will provide the ability to understand and evaluate the true impact and movement of vehides on our road infrastructure. This will in tum give clear infonnation on which impact fees and mitigation can be based." Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, WA 98059 2 000924 Although there are some interesting elements to this approach, Renton's transportation concurrency will not fail for a very long time so developments, like Enclave, that may have local transportation service level issues, we always be issued a concurrency certificate. It's clear that the Transportation Concurrency laws strongly intend for jurisdictions to work together because of the possibility of impacts outside the permitting jurisdiction. This situation exists throughout the east plateau. This cross-jurisdictional issue also includes the Interstate 405. The 1541h/156 1h arterial corridor is formally identified as a bypass route for that interstate, and is identified for improvement in the WS DOT Interstate 405 Corridor Plan'. Radical improvements have been made at the Cedar River crossing, and on Coal Creek Pkwy between Renton and Newcastle, a major destination for traffic on the 1541h/1561h corridor. The county continues to prioritize flow improvement projects along 128'" Ave SE, the major intersection route at the north end of the 154'"11561h corridor. In the context of the 1-405 program, plans like putting in an electric stoplight to replace the 3-way stop makes no sense. Assuming one of the objectives is to allow relatively unencumbered traffic flows along the 1-405 alternate route, stop lights should be reserved only for major intersections, something the 3-way stop is a long ways from being. One can do all sorts of speculation about things like political will and funding availability, but the raw facts are 1) the corridor is part of an accountable plan, 2) that plan is bigger than Renton, and 3) major investments have been made. Unfortunately, Renton Transportation and Community and Economic Development modified the mitigations required of the Enclave developer to add mitigation of the cost of putting a stoplight at the intersection'. That decision is extremely presumptive about the validity and lack of importance of the WS DOT Interstate Program. There is no indication in the Enclave permitting or, for that matter, any of the other development permits issued by Renton along the corridor that the designs are aware of and aligned to the vision pass-through vision for the arterial network and the role the 1541h/156'" arterial segments contribute. There are questions about Renton's Transportation Concurrency Management Program. Although these will need to be addressed during the next update, it is purely coincidental that any analysis of the impact to intersections or road segment travel times are even included in the permitting analysis for Enclave. It was the developer that included the delay analysis for the 3- way stop, something not required by Renton SEPA or concurrency. Unlike what's called for in the RCW, Renton concurrency does not drive development at all. In fact, it appears to have no relevance to development decisions. 'The WS DOT "Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects" (28 May 2008) identifies over 150 individual projects including improvements to ·key arterials". Projects are included that extend from SR-169 through Newcastle. • Letter from Chip Vincent to Roger Paulsen, 22 May 2014, "Enclave at Bridal Ridge Preliminary Plat' Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 1391h Place, Renton, WA 98059 3 000925 Development on this plateau, with disturbing trends and impacts, is far from over. The plateau continues to be a desirable development area. My last com men! is to make sure we stay aware of where we are in development on the plateau. Some years ago, most of the large vacant parcel development was completed but development on the plateau is far from over. There are a number of annexations in different states of progress all driven by developers and all intended to get vested under Renton's rules, certainly including concurrency and without benefit of a holistic plan for the corridor, let alone the entire plateau. Based on what we're aware of we expect to see development applications for at least 150 new dwelling units generating over 1,200 daily trips, much of which will use at least a portion of the 154'"t156th corridor. The decisions that are impacting the corridor transportation and the look and feel of the community need to be stopped before it becomes impossible and/or of significant cost to change the decisions. I recommend the HE rule that all development permitting that will impact the 1541"/156'" arterial corridor be judged as not allowed until such time as 1) Renton can demonstrate its intended interregional coordination and mitigation plans, and 2) be in possession of a holistic plan for the area. Attachments: • WS DOT Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects, 28 May 2008, one-page summary. • Letter from Chip Vincent to Roger Paulsen. Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-00241, PP, ECF, 22 May 2014, additional mitigation for a stoplight. • Renton Resolution 4165, 10 December 2012, requesting work be done with the objective of an Inter-Local Agreement (ILA) between King County and the city. • Renton comment on King County 2013 Transportation Concurrency Management Program update to King County Code 14.70 • Various maps including King County Travel Shed 12 and transportation needs, the corridor including the 1-405 bypass route, etc. Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, WA 98059 4 000926 .: •• .. _• ' .c·· :·, C . Denis Law ~ City of ~-...:M:ayor~· --------,· [; -ri,.-~'I_ ;,-_ m ~ _ j\' (~.J.filtfil)Jjl! . . Department of Community.and EconomlcDevelop~ent : . . . . . . CE. "Chip"Vincent,Adniinistrator December 18, 201f _·. Josh D. f'eters, AicP;Trahspoitati9n Planning Supervisor . . • Road Service~ Divi;ion;strategit BuslnessOpeiatioris Section . Kfng C~unty Department ~fT;ansp~itation. · KC$~ TR-0317, 201 S~utfiJackson Str~et · Seattle/WA 98104'3856. · VJa ·lC!mail~. Josh,Pete;s@kingcoun!Y'.gov ,· · SUBJ_ECT: Comments on King County 2013 ·Transportation Concurrency ·· : · Managemen!Prog,.im Update to King County Codel4.7o· · Dear Mr; Peters:. Thank you for ~iieptingcomm<:ntsfr~.:n the Crty of Renton regard in~ Klng County's. . . 2013 Transporiation Concurrenq,Managem~lit Program Update. Weunde.rstandthat the comment period.for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) beter-mination of . -· Non>Significance (DNS) ended on N9veniber 22"d, and we regret not providing · comments at thattinie. we appreciate con-siderationof our concerns at this time.·• . . '.. . . . King County's f rimspori:atiori CoricurrencyManai:ementProgram Update to King. County _· t0d~ 14:70 should consider arce~s within arid outside of nsjurisdictionaJ!,oundaries in. applying the conc·urrency test: The City of Renton requests th~t King Co6nty establi;h . level of Service concurren:cy requirements c~mprehensively forthe transportation shel. ; '.irrespective of political bO!Jhdaries such aS.Re_nton rnunicipal .limits or the Urban Growth. B0(!11dary. This will provide th<: ability to understand and e\iaJuatethe true·irnp<1ct and moveirnent of vehicles o~ oJr road tntrastruct~re. This will ,n turn give c1e_ar information - on whic_h impact fees and i,:iit_igation ~an be pased. •. . . . . in addition, w~ encourage King Count,; to expend mitigation fJnds collect:ecf within •. Rerit~n's.Potentia[An~exatiDn Are~ {PA.ti) onprojeruthat ditectiy benefit the tevei of _·· .·. Service withiffthe PM, -. . ·. ~enton city Han •. · l 055 South Gri>dyWa~ .• Rer\ton, w:.Shington 98057 ; rehton,;,.:gov 000927 I I I ."/" ' j • "f_ i . ' j . :' f ' i I I . i . 1 / Josh Peters 2 of 2 December ~~' ~013 ·_ Please feel free to contact me at ihenning@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7286 if you would like to m~et or di_scussthis further. . . . Sincerely, Jen.nifer Henning, Al(:P Plannir1g Director. cc: C.E: "Chip:". Vincent, CEO Adm)ntSt~tOr Gtegg Zimmerman, PW Administrator · . . ·oou~ JacobsOn~-DeputY PO~lk: Wor~ Administrator · Jim Seitz, TrahsportatiOn Systefns. . sOb.Mahn, TranSpoi-tatton Sy~ms •. 000928 I i i I ! ---~-----"------------------------ CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 416 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REQUESTING KING COUNTY BEGIN DISCUSSIONS WITH OTY STAFF REGARDING A POTENTIAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF RENTON'S POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA} facilitates the transformation of unincorporated urban areas to incorporation through either annexation or incorporation; and WHEREAS, the King County Comprehensive Plan has designated the Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs} for the City of Renton wherein annexation is the most likely and preferred choice of incorporation; and WHEREAS, it is in the mutual interest of the City and King County to plan for the City of Renton's PAAs in a coordinated and consistent manner; and WHEREAS, King County should recognize the Comprehensive Planning and Development Regulations of the City within the PAAs, given that the PAAs will most likely at some time be within the City; and WHEREAS, the Puget Sound Regional Council developed VISION 2040, which recognizes the value, benefit, and role for cities planning beyond their incorporated limits for unincorporated urban areas; and WHEREAS, the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs} establish that King County should jointly plan with cities in a collaborative and coordinated manner; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations are in compliance with the GMA; and 1 000929 RESOLUTION NO. 4165 WHEREAS, the City of Renton has adopted Comprehensive Plan land use designations and Development Regulations that could be applied to its PAAs; and WHEREAS, an interlocal agreement establishing a joint effort in planning for Renton's PAAs would be in the best interest of the City and King County; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City requests King County begin discussions with City staff regarding a potential interlocal agreement concerning its Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations for land use development in the City Of Renton's PAAs. SECTION Ill. The City would like the potential interlocal agreement with King County to address the following: A. Testimony and Comments to the King County Hearing Examiner: In land use matters located in Renton's PAAs that are before the King County Hearing Examiner, testimony from the City of Renton, written or verbal, will be allowed to be considered as evidence in the decision making of the Hearing Examiner. B. Comprehensive Planning and Pre-Zoning: King County will endeavor to evaluate their Comprehensive Plan land use designations for consistency with City of Renton Comprehensive Plan land use designations in Renton's PAAs. Additionally, King County will consider making amendments to their land use designations so that they are reasonably consistent with Renton's land use designations and pre-zoning when it has been adopted. 2 000930 RESOLUTION NO. 4165 C. Transportation: Transportation concurrency, levels of service, and high incident accident areas that are analyzed and prioritized by King County will be evaluated comprehensively, considering information and documentation within Renton City limits. D. Transfer of Development Rights: Transfer of Development Rights receiving areas in the PAAs be limited to areas planned for higher densities (zoning that allows for densities of 10 dwelling units per acre and greater). SECTION IV. The Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to enter into the interlocal agreement with King County that jointly plans for Renton's PAAs. PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis 10th dayof December 2012. APPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis 1 0th dayof December 2012. Denis Law, Mayor''"_;· .. :''. Approved as to form: ~c-•·· ~tJ'lA.l~ Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES:1577:11/26/12:scr 3 ' . . . . : ·. _;:?°.',<-.--}· ! ,, f~ .. -- ' )~-', ~ .,._ ' ,.:[·.:· .. . , 000931 / I -~----Denis Law Mayor May 22, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE s'h Place Renton, WA 98059 Community & Economic Development Department CE. "Chip"Vlncent,Administrator RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration, the City conducted an independent study of the 1561 h Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection. The study concluded that the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this location to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142'' Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additional mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur-at a later date as additional funding becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430-6598 or via email at jding@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, • J C. <z. V . ..__ .... _-sJ C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC Members Bonn le Walton, City Clerk Justin lagers, .Applicant Sally Lou Nlper, Owner G. Richard Oulmet,.Qwner Parties of Record Renton Oty Hall • 105S South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 000932 Corridor Program The 1-405 Corridor Program The 1-405 Plan ( • ( / ~ IWtl. CRfB( :' _,/ ~ ,--I.,_·, -- .. a. "'~-~ What is the /-405 Program? The Interstate 405 Corridor Program is a broad term for a program of more than 150 individual, coordinated projects to relieve congestion and improve mobility for motorists, transit and freight users along the freeway's 30-mile length. The full name is "Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects:' The master plan for fixing 1-405 traffic includes all transportation modes, adding up to two new lanes each direction to 1-405, a corridor-wide bus rapid transit (BRT) line and increased local transit service. It will fix bottlenecks such as the SR 167/1-405 interchange, improve key arterials, expand transit centers, and add about 1,700 new van pools and over 5,000 park and ride spaces. The 1-405 Master Plan will ultimately: • Add up lo 2 lanes in each direction in 1-405 Develop a Bus Rapid Transit fine with s/aljans along 1- 405 and expanded /Iansit centers Improve key arterials Accommodate an addrtional 110,000 trips per day ,n the corridor Reduce lime stuck in traffic by over 13 million hours per year -an average of over 40 hours per year per regular user • Produce travel lime savings valued at $569 million each Legend year -MiWl'rwwlrlMw'~ ..,_.,.._,,,,..,,;;,rn:tw,.., l-405Md ...... '"""".., ~fbdM!R!Gl,~SU .......... .. bplllhnt(IITI~ -llusr,,;,,tnnd ----so,;~-MMO! dl/Wlnlllddiltd ----I.Jal--~ 0 1111 i..o kcfti"-"I ~ .,_ ill,-BffT-- [;J --,.. __ .. -"" 5;1D!MW,.._,,....,"""5 • • Save $42 ml/lion each year in decreased traffic accidents Create 1700 new vanpools -a !Oil% increase Increase focal transit service by up to 50% within the study area Build 5,000 new park-and-ride spaces Create eight new pedestrian/bicycle crossings over 1-405 Enhance freight mobility through better interchanges, IIavel lime reduction, and updated and tedmolog,es Provide much-needed economic benefits for Washington State -for each $1 mil/inn spent on new construe/ion, an additional 30 jobs are created " .. .. .} !i ,, '! -~!,, ~ ~I King County has divided it's road system into 25 Travel Sheds which, akin to hydrology watersheds, are based on the recognition of the interconnected nature of the road network and commuter travel routes within the shed. An entire Travel Shed fails concurrency when the performance of more than 15% of the measured road segments within a shed falsl below the designated Level of Service. The Travel Shed approach recognizes that development, even when somewhat remote from segments or intersections, can exhasurbate the situations at those segments/intersections either causing to fail or to add to an already failing situation. 5 of the King County Travel Sheds, including Travel Shed 12, are failing concurrency. It is fundamentally different that Renton's Transportation Concurrency. SW7_!J_S_!_ Legend WTt c::JTrave! Shed 12 ~Renton PAA -Failing Road Segments .ti ••••Transportation Need ~ ' • Trenapor'Cation Need ., • " !I \ ~ ,,. Travel Shed 12 with Transportation Needs r 7 , 1 ~...._, , ,d ,. ;..cw c . • N \ I ll h The entire 1.77 miles of the 154th/156th arterial corridor is failing King County's Transportation Concurrency. " • • .: There is development being permitted within Travel Shed 12 that would have failed King County Transportation Concurrency if the parcels hadn't been annexed. --,,P,UAC_~heme_ Traqsportation_Shed12_ 1 •I • ~ .• I ....... ,,.,. """""'" ~-' l'1r.1 I ~ • ! Renton ·1s perm·rtting development in annexed areas that touch property inside King County's Jurisdiction that is are failing King County Transportation Concurrency. The entire length, along with much of SE 128th St and 164th Ave SE, are listed in King County's Transportation Needs JJ-,-.--,.==="'Ce/:;~-----1 The permitting is allowing increases in vehicle trips immediately adjacent to an area failing Transportation Concurrency. -- Report ·~ b . \ / 154th/156th is the 1.n mile, mostly 2-lane arterial, connecting MapJe Valley Highway (SR-169) with the residential area on the plateau east of It is also changing the configuration of the l 154th/156th corridor by adding sidewalks and intersections with local roads without the benefit of an agreed-upon vision for the corridor. Renton, along with an arterial network interchange -.•. (." .. ··r ,I· connecting May Valley, Issaquah, Newcastle, Bellevue, and Renton. r----11 Renton has create a mitigation to install a stoplight at the 3-way stop. This would be the least The arterial intersects access [· .• ·-· . points for both the developed Cedar River. Trail nd the envisioned Cedar- Sammamish Trail. ,_ ,.~ r. / The arterial passes through an area zoned residential coming to within a mile from three schools. There are sporatic safety measures for bike and pedistrian traffic. There are segments without protection from open culverts. The are line-of-site safety issues at one arterial intersection. -· Renton PAA ,A, Transportation Need -Transportation Need Connects to Cedar River Trail .·~ ( -Trail .»:, -- Pour Creek..s V11incorporatcif}f.rca Cowui[ Restricted line-of-site -· ...... ,...,. .... , .. ~--,,_..., ... "" O•-.., •OO significant intersection along the J..405 bypass route that has electronic traffic control. All others a~ at inter5ections of primary and/or collector arterials. At present, the 154th/156th corridor is -._JoM;;.,·.;., ......... .,., New residential development Significant grade without the benefit of a slow traffic lane identified as a minor arterial. / ··~• -J ___ --: ___ j::___ Some Questions What is the appropriate shared vision for the design of this arterial? Should it have more inter.sections created or designed to limit additional access? Should there be -t bike lanes and safe walking surfaces? Should their be slow-vehicle lanes on portions of the north route? What about the shared experience (e.g. street trees, attention to what is visible from the developments, etc.}? Is Renton development that is changing the road configuration based on an explicit vision for the entire corridor? ,I--...._. 154th Pl/156th Ave Arterial Corridor Thll arterial eorridorconnecling Mapll, Velley Hwy and the SE 12'1111 st artarlllll on 09 FCUAC_ Theme_ l,_.portatigq_Ri,q_ Conldar_ 15411 3'1une 201-4 5 ~1 ~! ~ 1 Legend c::J FOUi CrHka U,11,C D lKbM Gr""""' Boundary RAl\lon PM --H05 15-lthl1MI~ rc1ui. -Pnm.ry..t- -Coloctor•~ffllll --Mni>l"-111 ,, .. _,. ,,- i••' ;i --~ ~ , '.·:!;' \ \ .,., The 154th/156th arterial corridor is identified in the WA State DOT 1-405 bypass plan. The bypass extends from SR-169 north until the route reconnects with 1- 405 near Factoria. Improvements are identified from SR-169 to just north of Newcastle. The Renton mitigation to install an electronic traffic control at the J-way stop would be the only such control over the entire length of the bypass route that involves a Minor Arterial intersection with anything other than a Primary Arterial. ,, .. ,,•; / ..... Mitits ..:; " ;j • 3 -·-··-~n, A -~· ...... , >!><• 11i.,_ I.H• TaV,or .,.oumarn ''"' A co 0, • o• ol o" f! 0 ,, ·.: ... ' o I o, il a: .! CI 0 . ;: I i Ill i 8, t: ~ • 0 l ' Q. LL ~ II) 0 C I ~ ~ F, ~ ·tr A_·_,_·. ~~' ~ "' ~l <u c., <u ~ .... ~ C,_)~ ~ .... ~ ;:i 0 ct ~-~ .. June 24, 2014 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUAl4-000241, ECF, PP. We intend for this letter to supplement Roger's earlier comment letter dated March 23, 2014. Included by reference is Roger's Request for Appeal, dated June 5, 2014. Traffic Study and Impacts In order to make a recommendation that the Renton City Council approve this subdivision request, it is our understanding that the Hearing Examiner must make affirmative findings based in the public record which satisfy the requirements ofRCW 58.17. llO, and the City of Renton Municipal Code. Specifically, RCW 58.17.110(2) provides: (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: {a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and {b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. Dedication of land to any public body, provision of public improvements to serve the subdivision, and/or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 may be required as a condition of subdivision approval. Dedications shall be clearly shown on the final plat. No dedication, provision of public improvements, or impact fees imposed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090 shall be allowed that constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property. The legislative body shall not as a condition to the approval of any subdivision require a release from damages to be procured from other property owners. Our concern is that the record fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project given the acknowledged inadequacies of the 156th Ave SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, and the nexus between this project and the intersection, as established by the City in their revised SEPA Determination. I 000937 More specifically, no adequate study has been performed nor required to inform how the two new access streets proposed as part of this plat. nor other existing adjacent intersections including SE 5th Place and 154th Ave. SE, will function with the installation of a traffic signal at SE 156 1h Ave. AE I SE 142nd PL intersection. See attached ''Neighborhood Detail Map" for intersection locations. Absent this information, the Hearing Examiner cannot make findings based in the record to recommend approval of this subdivision. To do so would be contrary not only to City of Renton Municipal Code, but to State law established to ensure that new subdivisions are only approved when it can be found that they make appropriate provision for infrastructure including streets, and that the public use and interest will be served. While we appreciate the fact that the City of Renton, after reviewing Roger's April 161h Request for Reconsideration, has decided to utilize the SEPA Determination to require mitigation associated with the 156th Ave. SE/ SE 142nd PL intersection, it has functionally changed the environment with which this plat will interact, without an understanding of the likely impacts associated with a proposed new traffic signal. Our concern is that, in attempting to address a failing level of service at this intersection, the City may actually be creating a situation where ingress and egress from the proposed plat is nearly impossible (or certainly unsafe) due to increased traffic queues on 15~ Ave. SE associated with a signalized intersection. A subdivision can only be approved when the Hearing Examiner can make findings that the interface with the public street system serves the public interest. It is simply not possible to make this finding when the record lacks the necessary information to evaluate whether an appropriate provision has been made in this regard. We urge you to recommend denial of the proposed plat until the necessary traffic studies have been completed and reviewed, to inform whether affirmative findings can be made that allowing two new access points to 156'h Ave. SE as part of this plat are in the public interest, and until the impacts upon adjacent existing intersections including SE 5'h Place and 154th Ave. SE are adequately understood. The public should be given an adequate period of time to review this information prior to any further proceedings. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide a primary point of access, and conventional intersection alignment, at the 156'h Ave. SE / SE 142nd PL intersection, including what the City now recognizes as appropriate signalization. This approach is supported by the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Ref: Objective T-A and Policies T-2, T-3, T-9, T-14, T-15), and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection that are now a part of the public record. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity As raised in Roger's initial comment letter, and his April 16th Request for Reconsideration, we remain concerned that the City's "Notice of Application .... " (attached), with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns we have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public engagement in the environmental (SEPA) review of this project. 2 000938 In short, the notice states that a citizen having concern, and who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"d. Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting until April 22"d, the opportunity to provide input that would inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed .. As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the original Threshold Determination being issued. We believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on June 24'11, and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEPA determination for this project. We fully understand the efficiency the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but we urge a careful review of these notices to understand the concern we once again raise here. Rear Yard Designation With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where · the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (Ref. Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), we ask, as part of the recommended conditions of approval, that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty ofroom to accommodate a proper rear-yard setback on proposed lot #4. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 40 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest to the east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any 3 000939 up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunities provided by this project. If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact us as shown below. Sincerely, R.~:2ffll11!lefi 6617 SE 5th PL Renton, WA 98059 ( 425)228-1589 RogerAPaulsen@cs.com Attachments: Neighborhood Detail Map Notice of Application Jas M~n1: rldy M. Pa'-u-Is_e_n __ 17 SE 5th PL Renton, WA 98059 (509)996-8160 J asonMPaulsen@gmail.com 4 000940 I g -~ y,;g altuiifflriJRilfl'E kfr!GE . SE 5th PL. Proposed Road A Proposed Road B Intersection Intersection Intersection I IIIIIIIIIIL ~ ::: ) /xf r;\,,i ' -~ ' I / I Tl -1 _ , , rx 1 A TT11111,, '= '-, 7 --, Tli, 11 ::: ~ ~!1E:-;; ._,,. 1 V 11TI I := • • ArMa8-. / ...... -r ,/, -, ,..,. .... / I I ,;;..Tl-i;t ''-lh . '-~I '-1.__.HJJ.JI !i:_ -1,1--L----I ... .. ....._ >--I;': ~-::;.;;;..~ c... / t--I I I I I 11;- J • ~ ~ _:__ I i-llBl'h-/'7'/f/-:J-l--,-.....,........l '.:'" ~ "'-I,.; C ~ I::: 1 "T I I I I I~ ~ 11 ~ .~ I / I', ,r 1 (l I____., SE 142nd PL. f _ 154th St. SE I ,\I~ , 1.IT lnter~~~tion 1 1 . 1:: L Intersection w ~ LOS F l '---'-+ I'--_,.._.__ 8www.w1ww.._. ~•wa...ww .._ =I'-~ r flTJ1-..... 1 ~ ...: ~~ ~-Ill ~~Y~~~ i I '" ' @ ~ .SI, .. flC::] ~ .. -.,., ... , .... CITY oF RENTON NORTH __ h-t.., • 1-·-"· 1Hi ~.t.k~ .., .. NIIIHi:irllXXI DIW.W ats l'RO.ECT JrlCL 13117 COl'ISISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoninc/land Use: The subject site Is deJignall!d Residential I.ow Density (COMP-RLOJ on the City of Renton Comprehenstve land Use Map and R4 on the Ot(s loning Map .. Environmental Documents ~ Evaluate the Proposed ProJec:t: Development Reculatlons: Envlronmentil (SEPA) O>ecklist Used For Project Mlliptfon: The project wlll be· st.ibJect to the City's SEPA ordinance. RMC 4-2·110 Resldentfaj Development. and other applicable codes and regulations u approprlate. Proposed Mltlptloi\ Measures: The followfng Mitfgation Measures wUI Ukely be imposed on the· proposed project. The5e ~commended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by exlstin1 code:$ and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shan be requ;red ta comply With the submitted g~te,hnlcal report. • Project canstructjon shoU be required to camply with the submitted !raffle study. Comments cm the above application must be submitted In wrltfngto JIii Dine., Senlor Planner, CED-f>lannfng 01\tision, 1055 South Grady Wayt Renton, WA 9B057t by S;OO PM on Man::h 24, 2014. This matter Is also tentatively schedtded for a publk hearfnc on April 22, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Councl Chambel'l, Seventh FIOOf", Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. ff' you are Interested in attendlng the hearing, please contact the Pla.nrllng Dlvisfon to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled .at (425) 430-6578. If comments cannot be submitted kl writing by the date Indicated above, you may stlll appear at the hearing aod present yolJI" comments on the proposal befon: the Hearin& Examiner. lf you haw questions about this proposal, or wish ta be made a party of reeord and rec,eive additional In.formation by maif, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submit, writt!n comments wil! automatically become a party of record and wm be notified Of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, Senior Emf: jding@rentonwa.gov Planner; Tel: (42SJ 430-6598; PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAWNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION Jf you would Uke to be made • party of record ra recetve further Information on this proposed project. complete thfs form and retum to: City of Renton, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. N•rne/F!le No.: The Enclave at Bridlo Rldge/LUA14-000241. ECF, PP NAME:----------------------------- MAILING AODRESS: ______________ Oty/State/Zlp: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ------------- 000942 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNS-M) A Master Applkatlon has been filed and accepted with the Department of Communlty & Economfc Development (CEO) -Plannlng DMslon of the City of flenton. The followlnc briefly descrfbel the appllcation and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: March 10, 2014 tlJAt4-000241, ECF. PP The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PEtOJECT OESCRJPTION: Proposed subdivision of a B..8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result In th~ creation: of 31 lots and 2 tractS (Tracts A and B) and ·a new public. street. The proposed lots would range ln size from 8,0SO square feet to 1.Z,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provid~ via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14·0002SO) Is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 142305!.ll22 which will result in 30,175 square fE!et of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATJON: 14038 156VI Ave SE OPTIOf'lAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED IDNS.M), As. the Le•d A;iency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unltkely to result from the proposed project.. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City Df Renton is using the Optional DNS.M process ta give notice that a DNS- M ls Ukely to be issul!d. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are Integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period followfng the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significante- Mitlgated {DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will foUow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 27, 2014 March 10, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagel"5 / PNW Holdings, UC/ 9675 SE 35t11 Street Suite 10S, Mercer Island, WA 98040 f EML: Justln@americanclassichomes.com Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studle:s: location where application ,rnay be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: Environmental (SEPAJ Review~ Preliminary Plat Revrew Construction, Bulldint, fire Drainage Report, Geott!chnical Report, Trafflc Study Department of Community & Economtc Onelopment (CEO)-Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Wi.y, Renton, WA 98057 Pubfit hearing Is tentatfvply schtduled for April 22, 2014 before the Renton Hearing E:icaminer in Renton Ce1uncll Chambers at 10:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of recor.d to receive further information orf this proposed project, complete thi.$ form and return to: atyof Renton, CEO-Planning: Division, 1oss So. Gtady Way, Renton, WA 980S7. Name/Fil~ No.: The Endave at Bddli= R1dge/LUA14.000241, ECF, PP NAME:_-------------------------------- MAILING ADORESS: _______________ Oty/State/Zip: __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.a -------------- 000943 F .i,.Jn to the Hearing Examin&. State Jaw (RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Signature 000944 ,~ __ ,on to the Hearing Examir,_, State law (RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our contention that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Signature • • .,;J ,(.1,'--lski ~· , "J h1,~l.k, . /h.J, 000945. I-_., ,on to the Hearing Examim,. State law (RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Joe IS II ,s ~-\,.__, \\' ~Y)~\'t.,. Address bfiJfl J!i, / '11'' 5 T ,fe,1,"1,.,tt, b57 1~ 'Zl f SF f/.{111,. 5, f/.f'tvtO,i Wil. jJS"Q 000946 • .A, .• on to the Hearing Examin .... State law (RCW 58.17) and the Growth Management Act require local governments to ensure that transportation ·. and other essential public facilities be at adequate levels before any development project can be approved. It is our belief that the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development has failed to meet that requirement. Name (printed) Signature Address ,S.I• • l. ,e. sr ... ~ ,.,,,, . .-.,-k ~ ·'71' A£ I' "b/' (,. 6 llj :5 t::. 6~"' Pt..- f? -·"'- C,,t1e~ 1.. f. ldt..L.£ ,r !l-. ,./~l)J:&;Qf. ;JC/ iJ-) -/J/, t:£, ,1,µ.. S' r; lv~ Du.lz.sl'\.eA.L\ ,/i, / IJ 0:. f'. ..... I 1-sq 2.~ +. \ 5~,,. AfP,. <vf Mc, v u A n 1-/v 1? LJ Y'lt.~ :-t:1 . 21:, -//,.1;09 SE#"jl . 'R ,) _J'1 l ' M IJ ,ebc'/AU .t\ .,, "· -, ti} .. . • . -.. ~E 5-Ht.1'1 -, '·" ., . ,_,. ,c.,, ' " . , . 000947 You are here : .l.oo!!g : Roads and Iransoortation : Transoortatlon Projects · Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program {TIP) Annually, the City of Renton updates a Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (ITP). It Is a planning document adopted by the Renton City Council. The TIP: • Reflects involvement by citizens and elected officials. • Implements the City of Renton Mission Statement. • Is used to coordinate transportation projects and programs with other Jurisdidions and agencies. • Is a multi-year planning tool for the development of the transportation facilities within the City. • Is required for State and Federal funding programs. • Is a vital part of planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). • Is mandated by State law. Projects and programs can be found listed with the appropriate Transportation Division section on eadl of their web pages: Transportation Planning, Transoortation Design, and Transoortation Ooe@tions and Maintenance. Copies of the TIP can be purchased from the City Derk's Office, 425-430-6510. Questions about the TIP process can be directed to the Transportation Systems Division, 425-430-7321. Page 1 ofl ES.: ID Toe 2014-2019 Six-Year TIP was adopted on June 24, 2013. 000948 City of Renton Washington 2014-2019 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program . .,.,. NE 4 ri St at Whitman Ave NE (replace once completed) Mayor Denis Law Hearing: June 24, 2013 (tentative) Gregg Zimmerman Adopted: ... , 2013 Public Works Administrator Resolution: ... . SECTION ONE PURPOSE OF SIX-YEAR TIP PROGRAM • PurposeofSix-YearTIP • Vision Statement • Mission Statement • City Business Plan 1-1 1-2 1-2 1-2 000950 CITY OF RENTON SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2019 PURPOSE • Reflects involvement by citizens and elected officials. • Implements the City of Renton Mission Statement. • Used to coordinate transportation projects and programs with other jurisdictions and agencies. • Multi-year planning tool for the development of the transportation facilities within the City. • Required for State and Federal funding programs. • Vital part of planning under the Growth Management Act. • Mandated by State Law. 1-1 000951 --·~ ... -·-·-· ····-. ---~~-----,-,-~---·-·-·---~·<· --·••.-.... -------·-· ··=--··~-----,-~--· ~-----·-----··,~~~-------~---~-----·--- Renton Business Plan VI• SI• Ofl Renton: The center of opportunity in the Puget Sound Region where families and businesses thrive M • SI• Qfl The City of Renton, in partnership and communication IS with residents, businesses, and schools, is dedicated to: • Providing a safe, healthy, welcoming atmosphere where people choose to live • Promoting economic vitality and strategically positioning Renton for the future • Supporting planned growth and influencing decisions that impact the city • Building an inclusive city with opportunities for all • Meeting service demands through high quality customer service, innovation, a positive work environment, and a commitment to excellence 2013-2018 Goals Provide a sale, Promote economic Support planned Building an Meet service healthy, vibrant vitality and growth and influence inclusive city with demands and community strategically position decisions that opportunities for all provide high quality Renton for the future impact the city customer service • Promote safety, health, • lmprCY\'e access to city and security through • Promote Renton as the • Foster development services and programs • Plan, develop, and effective communication and make residents and and service delivery progressive, opportunity. of vibrant, sustainable, businesses aware of maintain quality services, rich city in the Puget Sound attractive, mixed-use opportunities to be involved infrastructure, and amenities • Facilitate successful region neighborhoods in urban with their community neighborhoods through centers • Prioritize services at community involvement • Capitalize on • Build connections with levels that can be sustained opportunities through bold • Uphold a high standard ALL communities that reflect by revenue • Encourage and partner and creative economic of design and property the breadth and richness of in the development of quality development strategies maintenance the diversity in our city • Retain a skilled workforce housing choices for people of by making Renton the all ages and income levels • Recruit and retain • Advocate Renton 's • Promote understanding municipal employer of choice businesses to ensure a interests through state and and appreciation of our • Promote a walkable, dynamic, diversified federal lobbying efforts, diversity through celebrations • Develop and maintain pedestrian and employment base regional partnerships and and festivals collaborative partnerships bicycle-friendly city with other organizations • Provide critical and and investment strategies complete streets, trails, • Nurture entrepreneurship that improve services and connections between and foster successful • Pursue transportation relevant information an a neighborhoods and partnerships with and other regional timely basis and facilitate • Respond to growing community focal points businesses and improvements and two.way dialogue between service demands through community leaders services that improve city government and the partnerships, innovatiori, • PrC'v'ide opportunities quality of life community and outcome management for communities to be • Leverage public/private • Encourage volunteerism, better prepared for resources to focus • Balance development with participation and _ci_vlc developm_ent on environmental protection emergencies economic centers engagement SECTION TWO SIX-YEAR TIP MAP • TIP Map, Exhibit A • Map Index, Exhibit B 2-1 2-2 000953 s . ; t t ..... r-_..,,-. ., fH{f.?'-~ ?--'--'·-·· ' ::ti€· ,/ (JL:·:. .. , _,,.. >···.t· ; ,., ...... ,, ! , ~ . I l ,_1 l''.~•AA';,',--\ ,; l ,.r:_:::J r~:;~\~~.,.::~~-~-~ ,~J-"<')l, ..... ,j' ' '.: /Y H··'··!··:-<'····'-·"- ' 1, .i . ·. City of Renton -2014-2019 TIP Exhibit "A" ,.-~-. ... J.,..-I .----'~ .. r~ ·,.: ... ·1-.;.A --~-- ·!"'"--..:· ._._) ,: . -J '·· __ .... :.f'1 I ,,__.,.., I I , ...... . , .. ... __ I , . I·"'"~ .-" I -~-'-----!"11 ··.- Ii I ·· )···=~-~,_ _f-1... • . ., I ...... . -. ' ' ( I -. . I ~ i I , ... _.~, ~--,-r, I . , .. I c----T ,,m:-f..J ••·L '. t'"· ·-~-J ' : -~ ... : ._L' i ,, .'' .. -:-, .. 000954 EXHIBIT 'B' City of Renton 2014 -2019 Transportation Improvement Program Map Index TIP No. Project Title I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Street Overlay Program Arterial Rehabilitation Program Logan Ave N Improvements SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection NE 3'd/NE 4th Corridor Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th to Sunset Blvd NE Rainier Ave S Phase II -S 2nd Street to Airport Way Park Ave North Extension 116th Ave SE/Edmonds Ave SE Improvements Carr Road Improvements NE Sunset Blvd (SR 900) Corridor Improvements Sunset Area Green Connections Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Road SW/68th Ave S South 7th Street -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Road S S Grady Way -Main Ave to West City Limits Houser Way N -N 8th St to S Lake Washington Blvd Lake Washington Loop Trail Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail Walkway Program Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacement NE 31st St Culvert Repair Maple Valley Highway-Half Bridge Attenuator Bridge Inspection and Repair Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program Intersection Safety and Mobility Traffic Safety Program Preservation of Traffic Operation Devices Program Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Barrier Free Transition Plan Implementation City Center Community Plan Project Development/Predesign Arterial Circulation Program Environmental Monitoring I% for the Arts Program Lake Washington Boulevard -Park Avenue N to Coulon Park Lind Avenue --'SW 16th to SW 43rd 2-2 000955 SECTION THREE DEVELOPMENT & PRIORITIZATION OF THE SIX-YEAR TIP • General Programming Criteria 3-1 • Specific TIP Development Activities 3-3 • Summary Table of Projects and Programs: 3-5 000956 DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF THE SIX-YEAR TIP I. General Programming Criteria The yearly update of the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is part of an ongoing process intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Six-Year TIP is also linked with various state and federal funding programs, regional/inter-jurisdictional planning and coordination processes and the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Projects are developed and prioritized based on community needs, specific goals to be achieved and on general programming considerations. Those general programming considerations are: Priority. As shown on page 3-5 the projects and programs are prioritized by type by City staff with final approval by the City Council during the annual update of the TIP. The prioritization assists staff in assigning the limited resources to projects and programs and reducing resources during funding shortfalls. In general staff expends more resources on higher priority projects in the fust three years of the TIP, and when applying for grants staff will consider these projects first unless other lower priority projects better meet the particular criteria of a grant program. Planning. How, at a local and regional level, a project fits with, or addresses identified future transportation goals, demands and planning processes must be evaluated. This is strongly influenced by ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans. Financing. Many projects are dependent on outside grants, formation ofLID's or the receipt of impact fees. Prioritization has to take into account the peculiarities of each of the various fund sources and the probabilities of when, and how much, money will be available. Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with, or interdependent on, other projects taking place, this is reflected in their relative priorities. Past Commitment. The !eve! of previous commitment made by the City in terms of resources, legislative actions or inter-local agreements also must be taken into consideration in prioritizing TIP projects. In addition to the general considerations discussed above, there are five specific project categories through which the TIP is evaluated and analyzed. They are: • Maintenance and Preservation of Existing Infrastructure • Corridor Projects • Operations and Safety • Non-Motorized Projects 3-1 000957 • Others These categories provide a useful analysis tool and represent goals developed through an evaluation of the City's transportation program in response to input from citizens and local officials and to State and Federal legislation. Taken as a whole, the five categories provide a framework for evaluating projects both individually and as part of a strategy that seeks to meet and balance the transportation needs of Renton during a time of increasing transportation demand, decreasing revenues, and growing environmental concerns. Although each project can be identified with an important concern that allows it to be classified into one of the five categories, most projects are intended to address, and are developed to be compatible with, multiple goals. Maintenance and Preservation of the Existing Infrastructure is a basic need that must be met by the program. The Mayor and City Council have addressed the importance of sustaining strong programs in this project category. The State Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to assess and address the funding required to maintain their existing transportation systems. The City of Renton owns and maintains 250 centerline miles of streets. Corridor Projects are oriented toward "moving people" through a balanced transportation system that involves multiple modes of transportation. Included are facilities that facilitate the movement of transit and carpools. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 51 Century Act (MAP-21 ), the State and Federal Clean Air legislation, and the State Commute Trip Reduction Act (CTR) have added momentum to regional efforts and placed requirements on local jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these transportation elements. Operations and Safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts, accident records and geometric data, but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. Non-Motorized Projects have been developed with major emphasis on addressing community quality of life issues by improving and/or protecting residential livability while providing necessary transportation system improvements. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in this category. Other Programs involve planning of transportation improvements necessitated by new development and new transportation capital improvements. Below is a more specific discussion of the activities involved in TIP development. 3-2 000958 II. Specific TIP Development Activities TIP project and financial development activities are intricately intertwined and involve interactions with many groups and agencies at the local, regional, state and federal levels. Within the Transportation Systems Division of the City of Renton, project development involves year-around coordination among the Maintenance and Operations, the Planning and Programming and the Design Sections. The Transportation Maintenance and Operations Section compiles accident and traffic count data, performs level-of-service calculations needed to identify operationaVcongestion problems and tracks al1 transportation-related complaints, suggestions and requests that come into the City. The Transportation Design Section, through the TIP's Overlay Program and Bridge Inspection and Repair Program, works closely with the Maintenance Services Division to establish structural ratings for the City's roads and bridges. These and other data are being used by the Planning and Programming Section to develop transportation improvement projects, prepare grant applications, interface with ongoing state and federal transportation programs, and develop a TIP that supports the goals of the City's long-range Comprehensive Plan and short-range business plan. The Transportation Planning Section works with King County Metro Transit, the Puget Sound Regional Council, Sound Transit, and other groups and agencies to assure consistency between Renton's transportation policies and programs and those of the region. Such consistency is required by the Growth Management Act and related legislation and by federal and state grant programs. Ongoing transportation planning activities, such as updating the Transportation Element in the Comprehensive Plan and the development of sub-area plans, play an important part in identifying and prioritizing transportation improvement projects. Within the City of Renton, there are actions and interactions involving other departments and divisions, the private sector, the City Council and Administration, which strongly influence the direction of the transportation program. For example, the transportation system is significantly impacted by land use decisions, private development proposals and by public water and sewer extensions which increase transportation demand by making possible higher density and/or intensity of land uses. Such proposals need to be monitored and analyzed in regard to how they individually and collectively create the need for transportation improvements. All departments and divisions in the City, the City Council, and the Administration are solicited each year to provide input, discuss, and comment on the Six-Year TIP. 3-3 000959 Additional input is also gathered through interactions with other public and private organizations and through public meetings held in the community concerning specific transportation projects and programs. At the City, State and Federal level there are new laws and regulations that create the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs. Examples include the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act (MAP-21), the Growth Management Act, the Clean Air Act, the Commute Trip Reduction law, the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Water Management Ordinance. All of these laws have tremendous impacts on the development and costs of transportation projects. Interconnection and/or interdependence among TIP projects and with projects by other City departments and by other jurisdictions is another element that affects the development, the prioritization and the timing of transportation projects. Equally important is the likelihood, the time frame and the amount of outside funding that will be obtainable to finance transportation projects. In summary, with its heavy dependence on many different and unpredictable sources of outside funding and with the significant impacts created by ongoing local and regional land use decisions, transportation project development is a continuous activity comprised of a multitude of diverse elements. 3-4 000960 CITY OF RENTON • PUBLIC WORKS -TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION • 2014-2019 TIP Six-Year Total Proiect Tvoe TIP Prioritv Project Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Period Total Funded Unfunded 1 1 Street Overlav 737,000 750,000 773,000 837,000 870,000 916,000 4,883,000 4,883,000 .. C 2 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 1,085,000 404,000 425,000 446,000 468,000 468,000 3,296,000 3,296,000 ----- • 0 27 3 Preservation of Traffic Ooer Device Proqram 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 372,000 372,000 gi 23 4 Brldae Inspection & Reoair Program 25,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 525,000 175,000 350,000 . ~ ii 20 5 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Reolacem Prog 175,000 100,000 100,000 130,000 130,000 100,000 735,000 735,000 ,10. 21 6 NE 31st St Culvert Reoair 80.000 80,000 80,000 22 7 Maple Vallev Hiohway Attanuator 130,000 405,000 535,000 5'-000 - 24 8 Roadway Safetv and Guardrail Program 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 105,000 105,000 -4 . SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 286,646 286,646 286,646 - 4-A . SW 27th St• Loan Reoavment 150,000 150,000 150,000 450,000 450,000 --14 . S 7th St -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 993,230 200,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 4,800,000 8,593,230 993,230 7,600,000 10 . Carr Road Improvement& 1,670,000 721,000 2,391,000 2,221,000 170,000 3 1 Loaan Ave N Improvement& 700,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 7,700,000 800,000 6,900,000 J!l 7 2 Rainier Ave S • S 3rd St 1o Airoort Wau 3,420,000 2,780,000 8,400,000 3,400,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 u 16 3 Houser Way N • N 8th St to Lake Washington B 765,000 1,230,000 1,880,000 3,8_75,000 96,000 3,779:000 .. '[ 11 4 NE Sunset Boulevard ISR 900) Corridor 1,000,000 2,700,000 8,870,000 13,430,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 II. 6 5 Duvall Ave NE • NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 1,810,000 1,650,000 8,590,000 12,050,000 12,050,000 ~ 0 5 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 762,000 2,220,000 4,440,000 555,000 160,000 8,137,000 28,000 8,109,000 'Q 6 'E 8 7 Park Ave N Extenaion 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 0 0 12 8 Sunset Area Green Connections 2,920,000 8,875,000 6,505,000 18,300,000 18,300,000 15 8 S Gradv Wav • Main Ave to West Cilv Limits 450,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 • • 116th Ave SE lmorovements 1,500,000 3,200,000 4,000,000 8,700,000 8,700,00J! 35 10 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 36 11 Lind Ave SW. SW 16th Stto SW 43rd S1 250,000 1,350,000 1,900,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 13 12 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/68!h Ave S 50,000 5,300,000 5,350,000 5,350,000 ,£ ~ 25 1 Intersection Safetv & Mobiliw Program 182,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,432,000 1,432,000 - "' 26 2 Traffic Safetv Proaram 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 236,000 236,000 Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail 570,000 685,000 1,255,000 1.~ -... 18 1 ;OO 0 = -I! 17 2 Lake Washinaton LOOD Trail 350,000 1,200,000 3,450,000 5,000,000 50,000 4,950,000 0 O 29 3 Barrier-Free Transition Plan lmolementation 30,000 30,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 41,000 206,000 206,000 Zo :i; 19 4 Walkwav Proaram 140,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,390,000 890,000 500,000 32 1 Arterial Circulation Proaram 110,000 120,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 150,000 815,000 815,000 31 2 Project Develooment & Pra-Deslan Proaram 100,000 111,000 114,000 115,000 115,000 120,000 675,000 675,000 ~ 33 Environmental Monitorina Proaram 10,000 10,000 10,000 " 3 '8, 28 4 ITS Proaram 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 180,000 34 5 1% for the Arts Proaram 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 90,000 30 6 Citv Cen1er Communltv Plan Sunnorl -Total Sources 6,631,876 14,545,000 18,964,000 38,670,000 37.520.000 35,422,000 151,752 876 21,104,876 130,448,000 '"~ 3-5 3rd Croft !1;11AM SECTION FOUR EXPENDITURES & REVENUES • Total Project Expenditure Summary 4-1 • City of Renton Funds 4-2 • Summary of Funding Sources 4-3 • Itemized Funding Sources: • Vehicle Fuel Tax 4-4 • Business License Fee 4-5 • Proposed Fund Balance 4-6 • Grants In-hand 4-7 • Mitigation In-Hand 4-8 • Other In-Hand 4-9 • Undetermined 4-10 000962 0 0 0 co en w SIX-YEAR PROJECT COST SUMMARY• CITY OF RENTON -2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TIP Project TiUe 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1 Street Overlav 737,000 750,000 773,000 837,000 870,000 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Proaram 1,085,000 404,000 425,000 446,000 468,000 3 Logan Ave N Improvements 700,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 286,646 4-A SW 27th St -Loan Reoavment 150,000 150,000 150,000 6 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 762,000 2,220,000 4,440,000 555,000 6 Duvall Ave NE • NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 1,810,000 1,650,000 7 Rainier Ave S -S 3rd St to Airport Wav 3,420,000 2,780,000 8,400,000 3,400,000 8 Park Ave N Extension 9 116th Ave SE lmorovements 1,500,000 3,200,000 10 Carr Road lmnrovements 1,670,000 721,000 11 NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900! Corridor 1,000,000 2,700,000 8,870,000 13,430,000 12 Sunset Area Green Connections 2,920,000 8,875,000 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SWIS8th Ave ! 50,000 14 S 7th St -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 993,230 200,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 15 S Gradv Wav -Main Ave to West Cltv Limits 450,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 16 Houser Wav N -N 8th St to Lake Washlnmon I 765,000 1,230,000 1,880,000 17 Lake Waahinaton Looo Trail 350,000 1,200,000 3,450,000 18 Lake to Sound IL2S) Trail 570,000 685,000 19 Walkwav Proaram 140,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacem Prog 175,000 100,000 100,000 130,000 130,000 21 NE 31st St Culvert Reoair 80,000 22 Maple Valley Highway Attsnuator 130,000 405,000 23 Brldae lnsaection & Reoalr Prooram 25,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 24 Roadway Safety and Guard_rall Program 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 25 lnteraectlon Safetv & Mobllitv Proaram 182,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 26 Traffic Safety Proaram 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 27 Preservation of Traffic Oper Device Program 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 28 ITS Pronram 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 29 Barrier~Free Transition Plan lmolementation 30,000 30,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 30 Cm. Center CommunitV Plan Sunnort 31 Project Oevelooment & Pre-Dealan Proaram 100,000 111,000 114,000 115,000 115,000 32 Arterlal Clrculation Program 110,000 120,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 33 Environmental Monitorina Proaram 10,000 34 1% for the Arts Pronram 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 -- 35 1,000,000 1,000,000 36 Lind Ave SW. SW 16th St to SW 43rd St 250,000 1,350,000 Total Exoenditures 6,631,876 14,545,000 18,964,000 38,670,000 37,520,000 Bil<·Y..,_Pn>LSum •tncludlng unfunded amounts. 4-1 3rd Draft Period 2019 Total Communitv Planning Area 916,000 4,883,000 Citvwide 468,000 3,296,000 Citywide ~~ 7,700,000 City Center 286,646 Vallev 450,000 NIA 160,000 8,137,000 Hiohlands & East Plateau -8,590,000 12,050,000 Hiahlands & East PlateaL· 18,000,000 Citv Center 1,600,000 1,600,000 C!!}'. Center -4,000,000 8,700 000 Benson 2,391.000 Talbot & Benson 26,000,000 CJty Center, Highlands & East Plateau 6,505,000 18,300,000 Highlands 5,300,000 5,350,000 West Hill 4,800,000 8,593,230 Citv Center 3,000,000 Citv Center 3,875,000 Citv Center 5,000,000 Citv Center 1,255,000 Citv Genier & Vallev 250,000 1,390,000 Citvwide 100,000 735,000 Citvwide 80,000 Kennydale 535,000 Cedar River ---- 100,000 525,000 Citvwide 25,000 105,000 Citywide 250,000 1,432,000 Citywide I 40,000 236,000 Citvwide - 62,000 372,000 Citvwide 30,000 180,000 Cirvwide 41,000 206,000 Citvwide City Genier 120,000 675,000 NIA -150,000 815,000 NIA 10,000 NIA 15,000 90,000 NIA 2,000,000 City Center 1,900,000 3,500.000 Vallev 35,422,000 151,752,876 """""'' ,1;11 TIP 1 2 3 4 4-A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ 13 14 15 16 --17 ~ - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ~ 32 33 34 35 36 CITY FUNDS (VEHICLE FUEL TAX+ BUSINESS LICENSE FEE+ IMPACT FEE) 2014 • 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Street Overlay 737,000 75.tJ 0000 773,000 837,000 870,000 916,000 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 385,000 404,000 425,000 446,000 468,000 468,000 Logan Ave N lmorovements 95,000 50,000 50,000 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection ---- SW 27th St -Loan Repayment 150,000 -· . 150,000 150,000 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 20,000 8,000 Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE Rainier.Ave S -S 3rd St to Airport Way Park Ave N Extension 116th Ave SE Improvements Carr Road Improvements 30,000 NE Su11set Boulevard (SR 900) Corridor Sunset Area Green Connections -·--·-~--- Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/68th Ave S -- S 7th St -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 68,000 S Grady War -Main Ave to West City Limits ----- Houser Way N -N 8th St to Lake Washington Bl . --35,0CIO 16,000 45,000 Lake Washington Loop Trail 50,000 Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail - Walkway Program 140,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacem Prog 175,000 100,000 100,000 130,000 130,000 100,000 NE 31st St Culvert Repair 10,000 . Macie Valley Highway Attenuator Bridge Inspection & Repair Program 25,000 -30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Roadwav Safety and Guardrail Program 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Intersection Safety & Mobility Program 182,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Traffic Safety Program 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Preservation of Traffic Oper Device Program 62,000 62,000 -·· 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 ITS Program 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Barrier-Free Transition Plan lmolementatlon 30,000 30,000 -__ 25,000 40,000 40,000 41,000 City Center Community Plan Support Project Development & Pre-Design Program 100,000 111,000 -~ 14,000 115,000 115,D_O_O 120,000 Arterial Circulation Program 110,000 120,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 150,000 --- Environmental Monitoring Program 10,000 1 % for the Arts Proa ram 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Lind Ave SW -SW 16th St to SW 43rd St Total Sources 2,375,000 2,422,000 2,390,000 2,350,000 2,385,000 2,405,000 Period Total 4,883,000 2,596,000 195,000 -- 450,000 28,000 30,000 - 68,000 ·- 96,00() 50,000 890,000 735,000 10,000 175,000 105,000 ~~ 1,432,000 236,000 372,000 180,000 206,000 675,000 815,000 10,000 90,000 -- 14,327,000 05ln/201J 11.11 4 • 2 3rd Draft SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES 2014-2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ITEM SIX-YEAR PROJECT COSTS: Piannina Design R-0-W (includes Adminl Construction Contract Construction Manaaement Other/ Post Const. Services Sub -TOTAL SIX-YEAR COST SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee Prooosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand Mitioation In-Hand Other In-Hand Sub -TOTAL SIX-YEAR FUNDED Undetermined Sub -TOTAL SIX-YEAR UNFUNDED • :ll()TAL SOURCES -FUNDED & UNFUNDED - ~ot included in the programmed above en Period 2014 2015 2016 2017 370.000 710,000 403 000 265.000 894,000 4,434,500 3,315,500 4,826,500 770.430 3.095 000 3 000 000 4,280.000 4,279.057 5.564 500 10,780,500 25.997.500 303,389 706 000 1430000 3 266.000 15,000 35,000 35 000 35,000 6,631,876 14,545,000 18,964,000 38,670,000 640,000 650,000 660 000 670,000 1,630,000 1,712,000 1,670 000 1,670 000 3,970,230 521,000 105 000 60,000 60,000 10,000 286 646 1,000,000 1,000 000 6,631,876 3,943,000 3,390,000 2,350,000 10 602 000 15 574,000 36.320.000 10,602,000 15,574,000 36,320,000 6,631,876 14,545,000 18,964,000 38,670,000 4-3 3rd Draft I 2018 2019 Period Tota . 305 000 265 000 2,318 000 1,466,500 3,936,500 18 873,500 2 650,000 3,100 000 16 895 430 29,657,500 25.129,500 101,408,557 3.406,000 2.956 000 12 067,389 35 000 35,000 190,000 37,520,000 35,422,000 151,752,876 680,000 680,000 3,980,000 1,695.000 1,715,000 10.092.000 4.491,2: 10,000 10,000 255,0C 2 286 646 2,385,000 2,405,000 21,104,876 - 35,135,000 33,017 000 130 648,000 35,135,000 33,017,000 130,648,000 37,520,000 35,422,000 151,752,876 OSJ22J2o13 13·l4 VEHICLE FUEL TAX 2014 • 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Period TIP Prolect Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 1 Street Overlay 640,000 650,000 660,000 670,000 680,000 680,000 3,980,000 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 3 Logan Ave N Improvements --~- 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection ---4-A SW 27th St -Loan Reoavment --- 5 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 6 Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 7 Rainier Ave S -S 3rd St to Airport W":Y_ 8 Park Ave N Extension ---~ -9 116th Ave SE Improvements 10 Carr Road lmprovemente 11 >---NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) Corridor 12 Sunset Area Green Connections 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/68th Ave S 14 S 7th St • Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S ~-~-- 15 S Gradv Way -l\.1ain Ave to West City Limits 16 Houser Way N -N 8th St to Lake Washington B ·-·--- 17 Lake Washington Loop Trail 18 Lake to Sound (US} Trail ,_19_ Jtlalkway: Program 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Repiacem Prog 21 NE 31st St Culvert Repair ~! Maple Valley: Hlghwa~ Attenuator --.. - ---- Bridae Inspection & Repair Proaram 24 Roadwav Safety and Guardrail Program 25 Intersection Safety & Mobility Program --- --~· 26 Traffic Safety Program 27 Preservation of Traffic Oper Device Program -- 28 ITS Program - 29 Barrier-Free Transition Plan Implementation 30 Cltv Center Community Plan Suooort ---- 31 Project Development & Pre-Oesi11n Program I 32 Arterial Clrculation Proaram -- I 33 Environmental Monitorina Proaram 34 1% for the Arts Proaram 35 36 Lind Ave SW • SW 16th St to SW 43rd St Total Sources 640,000 650,000 660,000 670,000 680,000 680,000 3,980,000 IJ __ Ta """"'" 11.11 4 • 4 3rd Draft BUSINESS LICENSE FEE 2014. 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Period TIP Prolect TIiie 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 1 Street Overlay 97,000 100,000 113,000 167,000 190,000 236,000 903,000 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Proaram 385,000 404,000 425,000 446,000 468,000 468,000 2,596,000 3 Loaan Ave N Improvements 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 4-A SW 27th St • Loan Repayment 150,000 150,000 150,000 450,000 5 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 20,000 8,000 28,000 6 Duvall Ave NE· NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 7 Rainier Ave S • S 3rd St to Airport Way 8 Park Ave N Extension 9 116th Ave SE Improvements 10 Carr Road Improvements 30,000 30,000 11 NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) Corridor 12 Sunset Area Green Connections 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/6Bth Ave S 14 S 7th St. Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 68,000 68,000 15 s Grady Way· Main Ave to West City Limits 16 Houser Way N • N 8th St to Lake Washington Bl 35,000 16,000 45,000 96,000 17 Lake Washington Loop Trail 50,000 50,000 18 Lake to Sound IL2S) Trail 19 Walkway Prnnram 130,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 830,000 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacem Pro11 175,000 100,000 100,000 130,000 130,000 100,000 735,000 21 NE 31st St Culvert Repair 10,000 10,000 22 Macie Valley Hlahway Attenuator 23 Brldae lns....,.tlon & Reoair Proaram 25,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 175,000 24 Roadway Safetv and Guardrail Program 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 105,000 ·~ 25 Intersection Safety & Mobility Prnoram 182,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,432,000 26 Traffic Safety Program 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 236,000 27 Preservation of Traffic 0Dflr Device Program 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 372,000 28 ITS Proaram 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 29 Barrier-Free Transition Plan Implementation 30,000 30,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 41,000 206,000 30 Cm, Center Cammunltv Plan Suppart 31 Project Development & Pre-Deslan Pro11ram 100,000 111,000 114.000 115,000 115,000 120,000 675,000 0 32 Arterial Circulation Prnnram 110,000 120,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 150,000 815,000 ' 33 . Environmental Monitoring Program 10,000 10,000 I 34 1% for the Arts Program 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 ' 35 36 Lind Ave SW. SW 16th St to SW 43rd St Total Sources 1,630,000 1,712,000 1,670,000 1,670,000 1,695,000 1,715,000 10,092,000 a ......... _u.o 4 • 5 3rd Draft Q Q Q co en co USE OF FUND BALANCE 2014 • 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TIP Prolect Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 Street Overlay 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Pro1:1ram --- 3 Logan Ave N Improvements 4 SW 27th SUStrander Blvd Connection -4-A SW 27th St • Loan Reoavment ·--. -- 5 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 6 Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 7 Rainier Ave S -S 3rd St to Airport Way 8 Park Ave N Extension ------- 9 116th Ave SE Improvements -10 Carr Road Improvements 11 NE Sunset Boulevard-lSR 9001 Corridor -- -12 Sunset Area Green Connections 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW168th Ave S 14 S 7th St -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 15 S Gradv Way -Main Ave to West City Limits 16 Houser Way N -N 8th St to Lake Washington B 17 Lake Washington Loop Trall 1s--Lake to Sound fL2S) Trail -- ··------19 Walkway Pro_11ram 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Reolacem Proa 21 NE 31st St Culvert Repair ----~---~ 22 Maole Valley Hl11hwav Attenuator 23 Bridge Inspection & Repair Program 24 Roadwar Safety and Guardrail Program 25 Intersection Safetv & Mobilit}I Proaram 26 Traffic Safety Program 27 Preservation of Traffic Oper Device Pro11ram - 28 ITS Program 29 Barrier-Free Transition Plan Implementation - 30 City Center Community Plan Support 31 Project Development & Pre-Design Program ~ 32 Arterial Circulation Program 33 Environmental Monltorln11 Program --- 34 1% for the Arts Program 35 36 Llncf Ave SW· SW 16th St to SW 43rd St Total Sources Pn:>l'ClftdFun<IBo,I.,,°" 4 -6 3rd Draft Period 2018 2019 Total ---- - -----. --~- ---- --- 0!512U!01~ 11-11 GRANTS IN-HAND 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Period TIP Protect Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 1 Street Overlav 2 Arterial Rehabllltatlon Proaram 700,000 700,000 3 Lo11an Ave N Improvements 605,000 605,000 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 4-A SW 27th St -Loan Reoavment 5 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 6 Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th St to sunset Blvd NE 7 Rainier Ave S -S 3rd St to Alrnort Way 8 Park Ave N Extension 9 116th Ave SE Improvements 10 Carr Road Improvements 1,670,000 521,000 2,191,000 11 NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) Corridor 12 Sunset Area Green Connections 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/68th Ave S 14 S 7th St -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 925,230 925,230 15 S Gradv Wav -Main Ave to West Cltv Limits 16 Houser Way N -N 8th St to Lake Washington B 17 Lake Washington loop Trail 18 Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail 19 Walkwav Prnnram 20 Sidewalk Rehabllltatlon and Replacem Pro11 21 NE 31st St Culvert Repair 70,000 70,000 22 Maple Valley Hlahwav Attenuator 23 Bridge Inspection & Repslr Program 24 Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program 25 Intersection Safety & Mobllltv Prooram 26 Traffic Safetv Program - 27 Preservation of Traffic Onar Device Prnaram 28 ITS Proaram 29 Barrier-Free Transition Plan Implementation 30 City Center Communitv Plan Support 31 Project Development & Pre-Oesl11n Proaram ,. 32 Arterial Circulation Proaram C 33 Environmental Monltorlna Proaram • 34 1% for the Arts Program • 35 . 36 Lind Ave SW-SW 16th SttoSW43rd St Total Sources 3,970,230 521,000 4,491,230 Gnort..in.Hllnd 4 -7 3rd Draft MITIGATION IN-HAND 2014-2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Period TIP Project Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 1 Street Overlay 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 3 L_!)gan Ave N Improvements 95,000 50,000 50,000 195,000 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 4-A SW 27th St -Loan Repayment 5 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 6 Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE . 7 Rainier Ave S -S 3rd St to Airport Way . -8 Park Ave N Extension 9 116th Ave SE Improvements 10 Carr Road lmorovements 11 NE Sunset Boulevard !SR 900) Corridor 12 Sunset Area Green Connections 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/68th Ave S 14 S 7th St -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 15 s .. Gra~y Way -Main Ave to West City Limits -----. 16 Houser Way N -N 8th St to Lake Wash~ton B 17 Lake Washington Loop Trail 18 Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail t-· --. ---·· 19 Walkway Program 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 ··-·· 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacem Prog 21 NE 31st St Culvert Repair 22 Maple Valley Highway Attenuator ·--Bridae Inspection & Repair Program 23 24 Roadwav Safety. and Guardrail Program -25 Intersection Safetv & Mobility Program 26 Traffic Safety Program 27 Preservation of Traffic Oper Device Pr"9ram 28 ITS Program ··-- 29 Barrier-Free Transition Plan Implementation . 30 City Center Community Plan SuPDOrt 31 Project Development & Pre-Design Program 32 Arterial Circulation Program 33 Environmental Monitoring Program 34 1% for the Arts Program ·-,. 35 36 Lind Ave SW -SW 16th St to SW 43rd St Total Sources 105,000 60,000 60,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 255,000 Wtag111<>n_lr>hli.:I 05/22f2013 11:11 4 -8 3rd Draft TIP 1 2 3 4 '4-A 0 O' 0 co ..... -1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 OTHER IN-HAND (INCLUDES: CITY UTILITIES, SOUND TRANSIT & WSDOT AGREEMENTS) 2014. 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Tltie 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Street Overlay Arterial Rehabllltation Program Loaan Ave N Improvements SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 286,646 SW 27th St -Loan Rena• ment NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE Rainier Ave S -S 3rd St to Almort Wav Park Ave N Extension 116th Ave SE Improvements Carr Road Improvements NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) Corridor Sunset Area Green Connections Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/6Bth Ave S S 7th St -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S S Grady Wav -Main Ave to West Cltv Limits Houser Wav N -N 8th St to Lake Washlnoton B Lake Washington Loop Trail Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail Walkway Program Sidewalk Rehabllltatlon and Realacem Pr"" NE 31st St Culvert Repair Maole Valley Hlahwav Attenuator Brldae Inspection & Repair Proaram Roadway Safetv and Guardrail Program Intersection Safety & Mobility Program Traffic Safety Program Preservation of Traffic Ooer Device Proaram ITS Program Barrier-Free Transition Plan Implementation City Center Communltv Plan Sunnort Project Develnnment & Pre-Oeslan Prn<Jram Arterial Circulation Program Environmental Monitoring Proaram 1% for the Arts Proaram 1,000,000 Lind Ave SW -SW 16th St to SW 43rd St Total Sources 286,646 1,000,000 Olherjn_H•nd 05r22r.201J 4 -9 3rd Draft Period Total 2,000,000 2,000,000 11.t1 C) C) C) co .... N UNDETERMINED 2014-2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TIP Project Tille 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1 Street Overlay 2 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 3 Logan Ave N Improvements 3,350,000 3,550,000 4 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection ·- 4-A SW 27th St • Loan Repayment 5 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 762,000 2,220,000 4,440,000 535,0_()0 6 Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 1,810,000 1,650,000 7 Rainier Ave S -S 3rd St to Airport Way 3,420,000 2,780,000 8,400,000 3,400,000 8 Park Ave N Extension 9 116th Ave SE Improvements 1,500,000 3,200,000 10 Carr Road Improvements 170,000 _!1_ NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) Corridor 1,000,000 2,700,000 8,870,000 13,430,000 12 Sunset Area Green Connections 2,920,000 8,875,000 13 Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/6Bth Ave s 50,000 14 S 7th St -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S . 200,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 15 S Grady Way -Main Ave to West City Limits 450,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 16 Houser Way N -N 8th St to Lake Washington B 730,000 1,214,000 1,835,000 17 Lake Washington Loop Trail 300,000 1,200,000 3,450,000 18 Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail 570,000 685,000 19 Walkway Prooram 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 e-~~ Sidewalk Rehablllta_Uon and Replacem Prog NE 31st St Culvert Repair ._E_ Maele Valley Highwa~ Attenuator 130,000 405,000 23 Bridge Inspection & Repair Program 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 ~- 24 Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program 25 Intersection Safetv & Moblllty Prooram 26 Traffic Safety Program ·----27 Preservation of Traffic Ooer Device Prooram ~28 ITS Program 29 Barrier-Free Transition Plan Implementation 30 City Center Community Plan Support 31 Project Development & Pre-Design Program ~ 32 Arterial Circulation Program 33 Environmental Monitoring Program 34 1 % for the Arts Program 35 36 Lind Ave SW • SW 16th St to SW 43rd St 250,000 1,350,000 Total Undetermined 10,602,000 15,574,000 36,320,000 35,135,000 Ufl'~&.m 4-10 3rd Draft Period 2019 Total - 6,900,000 152,000_ 8,109,000 ----~ 8,590,000 12,050,000 18,000,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 4,000,000 8,700,00_0 170,000 26,000,000 6,505,000 18,300:000 5,300,000 5,350,000 4,800,000 7,600,000 -3,000,000 3,779,000 4,950,000_ 1,255,000 100,000 500,000 535,000 70,000 350,000 ··~ 1,900,000 3,500,000 33,017,000 130,648,000 ""'"'" 13 14 SECTION FIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS • Summary of TIP Projects & Costs • Detailed Project Descriptions 5-la 5-1 to 5-36 000973 TIP 1 2 3 4 4-A 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 - 33 - 34 36 - 2!.. CITY OF RENTON· PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 TIP Total Project Costs Project Title 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Street Overlav 737,000 750,000 773,000 837,000 870,000 916,000 Arterial Rehabilitation Program 1,085,000 404,000 425,000 446,000 468,000 468,000 Logan Ave N Improvements 700,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 SW 27th St/Strander Blvd Connection 286,646 SW 27th St • Loan Repayment 150,000 150,000 150,000 NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor 762,000 2,220,000 4,440,000 555,000 160,000 Duvall Ave NE • NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE 1,810,000 1,650,000 8,590,000 Rainier Ave S . s 3rd St to Airport Way 3,420,000 2,780,000 8,400,000 3,400,000 Park Ave N Extension 1,600,000 116th Ave SE Improvements 1,500,000 3,200,000 4,000,000 Carr Road Improvements 1,670,000 721,000 NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) Corridor 1,000,000 2,700,000 8,870,000 13,430,000 Sunset Area Green Connections 2,920,000 8,875,000 6,505,000 -------Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Rd SW/68th Ave S 50,000 5,300,000 S 7th St. Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd S 993,230 200,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 4,800,000 S Gradv Way -Main Ave to West City Limits 450,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 Houser Way N • N 8th St to Lake Washington Bl 765,000 1,230,000 1,880,000 --Lake Washington Loop Trail 350,000 1,200,000 3,450,000 Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail 570,000 685,000 Walkwav Program 140,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacem Prog 175,000 100,000 100,000 130,000 130,000 100,000 80,000 --NE 31st St Culvert Repair Maple Valley Highway Attenuator 130,000 405,000 Bridge Inspection & Repair Program 25,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Intersection Safety & Mobility Program 182,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Traffic Safety Program 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Preservation of Traffic Oper Device Prooram 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 ITS Program 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Barrier-Free Transition Plan lmelementatlon 30,000 30,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 41,000 City Center Community Plan 5_upport -Project Development & Pre-Design Proaram 100,000 111,000 114,000 115,000 115,000 120,000 •rteriai Circulation Program 110,000 120,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 150,000 nvironmental Monitorln9_Program --10,000 % for the Arts Program 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ind Ave SW. SW 16th St to SW 43rd St 250,000 1,350,000 1,900,000 Total Sources 6 631 876 14.545,000 18 964000 38 670 000 37 520,000 35,422.000 ---~1a D~ Six-Year Total Total Period Total Funded Unfunded 4,883,000 4,883,000 3,296,000 3,296,000 ----- 7,700,000 800,000 6,900,0_Q() 286,646 286,646 450,000 450,000 -- 8,137,000 28,000 ----8,109 '100 12,050,000 --- 12,0t JO ---18,000,000 1 a.or JO 1,600,000 1,40v,v00 8,700,000 8,7_00,000 2,391,000 2,221,000 170,000 26,000,000 26,000,000 18,300,000 18,300,000 -- =5,350,000 5,350,000 8,593,230 993,230 7,600,CJQO 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,875,000 96,000 3,779,000 5,000,000 50,000 4,950,0()() 1,255,000 1,255,000 1,390,000 890,000 500,000 735,000 735,000 80,000 80,000 ~ 535,000 --- 53~ 'lOO -525,000 175,000 -105,000 105,000 '19 --1,432,000 1,432,000 236_,000 236,00_0 ----~ 372,000 372,000 180,000 180,000 206,000 206,000 675,000 675,000 815,000 815,000 --10,000 10,000 90,000 90,000 -----2,000,000 2,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 151 752.876 21 104,876 130 100.019 11 11 AN, CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Street Overlay Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA Proj: 122108 Communltv Plannina Area: NIA TIP No. 1 CONTACT: Bill Wressel 425 .430 .7 400 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Annual program for repairing and resurfacing existing roadways, maintaining the City's Pavement This program funds overlays on neighborhood streets and collector streets. The Arterial Management System and providing data for deficiency ratings. Installation of ADA compliant curb ramps Rehabilitation Program funds principal and minor arterials. has been incorporated into the annual Street Overlay Program in accordance wtt:h federal requirements. -JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) overlay and slurry seal of streets provide for improved driving surface The Transportation/Aviation Committee recommends $100,000 be allocated for and are highly cost-effective ways of avoiding expensive repairs and reconstruction. The Pavement maintenance of existing alleyways. The budget is reflected in the Overlay Program Management System and biennial survey of roadway conditions greatly improve the efficiency of the ($50,000) and in the Arterial Rehabilitation Program ($50,000). Only funded amounts are Overlay Program. shown in future years of the TIP. Once the pavement report is completed (later this year), an assessment of the funding needs will occur. Funded: 16.656.939 !Unfunded: Proiect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Proarammed SnAnt In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 1 116 1 116 Preliminarv Enaineerina 105 893 1 593 14 300 90.000 15 000 15.000 15,000 15 000 15 000 15.000 R-0-W /includes Adminl Construction 6.215 430 858 730 815 700 4541.000 680.000 693.000 716.000 780 000 813 000 859 000 Construction Services 334 500 42 500 40000 252,000 42000 42.000 42.ooo· 42000 42 000 42 ODO Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 6,656,939 903,939 870,000 4,883,000 737,000 750,000 773,000 837,000 870,000 91f --; SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax 5 180,000 600 000 600,000 3,980 000 640.000 650.000 660 000 670 000 680.000 68( Business License Fee 1 165 000 126 000 136 000 903.000 97000 100 000 113000 167 000 190,000 236 vvO Prooosed Fund Balance 311 939 177 939 134.000 Grants In-Hand ( 1'1 Grants In-Hand /21 Mitioation In-Hand Other In-Hand <1 l --In-Hand (2) .ermined TOTAL SOURCES 6 656.939 903.939 870.000 4.883 000 737 000 750 000 773.000 837.000 870 000 916 000 °'"ill """""" 11111\M 5·1 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PRQ_GRAM Arterial Rehabilitation Program Functional Classification: Vanous Proj. Length: NIA Proj: 1221 B6 Communitv Plannino Area: NIA TIP No. 2 CONTACT: Bill Wressel 425.430.7400 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: This program provides for the rehabilitation of principal and minor arterial streets. Installation of ADA-Paving schedule: 2014: SW Grady Way; 2015: Benson Rd S (SR 515 to 106th Ave SE); ~mpliant curb ramps has been incorporated into the annual Arterial Rehabilitation and Overlay 2016: Benson Rd (106th Ave SE St to S Puget Or); 2017: Benson Rd S (S Puget Dr to S programs according to new federal requirements. Eagle Ridge Dr); 2018: Benson Rd S (S Eagle Ridge Orto 1-405 bridge approach); 201' Airport Way (Rainier Ave S to Logan Ave S). This order may change depending on futu, ' ratings. A preservation STP grant in the amount of $700,000 was awarded to Renton, 1 use in 2014. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: The Overlay Program (TIP #1) concentrates to a great degree on maintaining residential streets, where The Transportation/Aviation Committee recommends $100,000 be allocated for relatively small traffic volumes and less truck and bus traffic make standard asphalt overlays a long term maintenance of existing alleyways. The budget is reflected in the Overlay Program means of maintenance. Arterial streets can often deteriorate rather quickly and often require more costly ($50,000) and in the Arterial Rehabilitation Program ($50,000). Funds for 2013 will be rehabilitation measures and/or costly temporary repairs to avoid more extensive deterioration. used as match in 2014 for the STP preservation grant to overlay SW Grady Way. Funded: 14 001 672 Unfunded: Proiect Totals Programmed Pre-2014 Six.Year Proaram ITEM Programmed Spent In 2012 2013 Total EXPENSES: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Plannina ~n:iinarv Enoineerina R-0-W /includes Adm)nl --- ·------ ~· _____ ., Construction 4.001 672 339 672 366 000 3 296,000 Construction Services 1 085,000 404 000 425 000 446 000 468 000 468 000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 4,001,672 339,672 366,000 3,296,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1,085,000 404,000 425,000 446,000 468,000 468,~-"1 Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 3 301,672 339 672 366 000 -~-2,59§,.QOO 385.000 404 006 425 000 446 000 46~00 468 000 Prooosed Fund Balance 1 ..:rants In.Hand rSTP-Preservation 700 000 700000 700000 Grants In-Hand 121 Mitination ln-H~~~ Other ln'.Hand {11 -Ot 1ri:Hand {21 -- u, I-. termmed TOTAL SOURCES 4.001 672 339 672 366.000 3.296 000 1.085 000 404 000 425 000 446.000 468.000 468.000 ~· =, 11:11AM .., ·-· 'l .. A n .... H Logan Ave N Improvements CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: Principal Arterial Proj. Length: o.76 mi Fund: 317 Proj: 122303 Communit'v Plannintl Area: Cit\! Genier TIP No. 3 CONTACT~ James 'Nllhoit 425.430.7319 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Reconstruction of the roadway pavement, adding a northbound lane from N 6th St to N 8th St, new curb, The C~y was awarded a STP grant in the amount of $951,000 to start design in 2013. gutter and sidewalks, landscaped buffer between sidewalks and travel lanes (east side of Logan Ave N), Right-of-Way acquisition and construction shown for 2015 and 2016 is pending future improvements on the Cedar River bridge (west side) to accomodate bicycle crossing, streetlighting, grant funding availability. pedestrian scale illumination, crosswalks, pedestrians ramps, channelization, traffic signal pre-emption, stormwater quality and conveyance system. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: The condffton of the roadway pavement has deteriorated (due to increase in commuter and freight volume) to the extend that total replacement may be needed. Included with the improvements are urban roadway amenities to implement "Complete Streets" practice per City code. 'funded: 11240111 'Unfunded: 6 900 000 Promct Totals Programmed Pre-2014 Six-Year Pronram ITEM Programmed Soent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planninn 39760 39760 Preliminan, Enc ineerino 1 100 275 275 400 000 700000 700 000 R-0-W (includes Adminl 1 100 000 1 100,000 1 100 000 Construction 5 120.000 5.120.000 2 000 000 3120 000 Construction Services 780 076 76 780 000 300 000 480000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 8,140,111 40,111 400,000 7,700 000 700,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS: vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 20.000 20.000 Prooosed Fund Balance 20.111 20 111 Grants In-Hand ISTPl 951.000 346,000 605 000 605.000 Grants In-Hand 12\ Mitiaation In-Hand 249.000 54.000 195 000 95 000 50 000 50,000 Other In-Hand /1) Other In-Hand (2) ~termined 6 900 oo• 6 900 000 3 350000 3 550000 TOTAL SOURCES 8.140.111 40 111 400 000 7 700 000 700.000 3.400.000 3 600000 -=, ._,.. ..... 5.3 3rd Draft - - 11.11 ... M CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014-2019 TRANJ:,flORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SW 27th Street/Strander Boulevard Connection Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Proj. Length: 1.27 miles Proj: 122239, 122240 Communitv Plannina Area: VaUev TIP No. 4 CONTACT: Keith Woolle, 425.430.7318 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: This project provides a critical four/fWe-lane arterial that will serve as a connector to West Valley Ph.1 Seg. 1 is complete. Grants include: TEA-21 funds of $745,563 (2003); various Highway (SR 181) and East Valley Road, as wall as an arterial connector to SR 167 from the south. The discretionary totaling $1,677,185 (2005-2009): a $4.6M STP Regional; $7.75M from project will provide a grade-separated crossing at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington FMSIB; and $4M from Sound Transit. An interfund loan in the amount of $700K was Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks. Bicycle and pedestrian connections will be provided to the approved for the current phase. The loan repayment is reflected in a separate TIP (Loan Tukwila Station and the Interurban Trail. Repayment· TIP No. 4-A). JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: A new east-west arterial roadway will connect the cities of Renton and Tukwila and provide significant Completion of the current phase (Phase 1 -Seg 2a -2 lane roadway from Naches Ave congestion reHef to existing arterials. The new road will provide access to the new Tukwila Station, a SW to the Sounder Station, including a BNSF bridge) is anticipated for beginging 2014. multi-modal center being developed by Sound Transit immediately north of the new alignment. By City of Tukwila will take the lead for future phases. undercrossing the UPRR and BNSF railroads, the new arterial will provide significant benefits to both freight mobility and general motorists. I Funded: 29 500 431 Unfunded: Proiect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Proarammed S ...... nt Pre-2013 2013 Total EXPENSES: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Planni11g_____ Preliminarv Enaineerina 5.030 912 5 030 912 R-0-W /includes Admin) 3.737 830 3 510 830 --227 000 Construction 15694516 --9.418.870 6 026,369 249 257 249,257 Construction Services 2,027 729 947 729 1,042,611 37389 37,389 Phase 1 Sea 1 desian/constr. 3 009 442 3.009.442 TOTAL EXPENSES 29,500 431 21,917,785 7,296,000 286,646 286,646 SOURCES OF FUNDS: vehicle Fuel Tax lnterfund loan 700 000 700,000 Gen Fund & Proo.Fund Balanc, 2.084 707 2 084 707 - -~ ln-Har,_d_(§tate ~ Fedl 2,408,422 2.408 422 Granls ln-Hand-iFMSIBl 7,750iQQQ 4 440,819 3,309,181 Mitiaation In-Hand _ -~57,500 557 500 Bonds 2 799 500 2 799 500 4 563655 2 772,795 1.790 860 /3 Is In-Hand rSTP Grant+ TIBI 7 350 000 5 154 041 --_2,195,959 - C of Tukwila Reimb. ,-,,,.,,ra, 1000000 1 000,000 --- In und transfer 286646 286 646 286 646 - Q r ProeQ~d ----- --~--------U termined . TOTAL SOURCES 29.500 431 21.917 785 7.296 000 286.646 286 646 i 5 • 4 3rd Draft I CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SW 27th Street/Strander Boulevard Connection -Loan Repayment Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA Community Planning Area: Vallev TIP No. DESCRIPTION: STATUS: This project will account for the SW 27th SVStrander Blvd Connection loan repayment. The loan was approved by Council in May 2011 and will be amortized over a 5-year period, at a 2.25% interest rate. The interest amount to be paid over the life of the loan is $50,000. CHANGES: 4-A Funded: Prolect Totals Pronrammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Proarammed Snant Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 EXPENSES: Loan reoavment 749.181 149,590 149 591 450000 150 000 150 000 150 000 Preliminarv Enoineerina R-0-W <includes Adminl Construction Construction Services Phase 1 ~ 1 desian and con TOTAL EXPENSES 749,181 149,590 149,591 450,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 749181 149 590 149 591 450000 150 000 150 000 150 000 . Gen Fund & Proo.Fund Balanr_J tr,rants In-Hand (State & Fed) Grants In-Hand <FMSIBl Mitiaation In-Hand Bonds Other: Sound Transit+ FRB GCDts In-Hand ISTP Grant! ~ HfTukwila Reimb. 11tem1ined TOTAL SOURCES 749,181 149,590 149,591 450,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 UI 5-4A 2nd Draft Proj: CONTACT: Keith Woolle\l 425.430.7310 ' ' ·, 749.1811 Unfunded: 2017 2018 2019 . . C - CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor Improvements Functional Classification: Principal Pro]. Length: 2.2 mi Proj: 122176 Communitv P1annlnn Area: Hic,hlends & East Plateau TIP No. 6 CONTACT: Keith Woollev 425.430.7318 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: ..... his project involves a series of improvements in this corridor to improve traffic operations such as The estimated cost for design and construction of all corridor improvements (from Sunset rechannelization and traffic signal modifications, possible transit priority signal treatments and queue Blvd N to the east City limits) is $40M. Phase 1 consist of the construction of a new signal ·umps. This project will seek to meet pedestrian, transit and bicycle needs. and other improvements at NE 4th St and Whitman Ave NE. The project received a gra .. · from TIB for Phase 1. Programmed expenses (2015-2019) are placeholders for future phases. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: !This corridor has a strong potential for transit usage and is experiencing rapid residential and retail Future phases are dependet on the receipt of additional grants. growlh. The NE 3rd/4th Corridor Study was adopted in May 2005. The study refined the corridor transportation needs and costs, including pedestrian, transit, bicycle improvements, as well as streetscape enhancement. 1Funded: 13 .. 779 321 !Unfunded: 8 109 000 Proiect Totala Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Programmed Soent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 218 420 218.420 ,,, ___ --Prelimina!_Y Eng_in~erini:a 1 237 698 775 698 462 000 462,.QOO R-0-W /includes Adminl 390 947 83 947 7,000 300 000 300 000 Construction 8 919,36_6 603,366 1,676,000 6,64Q,(l00 2,000,000 4 000,000 5oopoo 14~0_9_9 Construction Services 1 121.891 13 891 373 000 735 000 220,oqo 440 000 55 000 . ___±Cl, 000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES , 11,888,321 1,695,321 2,056.000 8,137,000 762,000 2,220,000 4,440,000 555,000 160,, 1 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehic~ Fuel Tax Business License Fee 446162 357162 61,000 28,000 20 000 8000 Prooosed Fund Balance 1,082.562 _ 199,464 883,098 Grants In-Hand <TIB) 1,536,897 764,995 771 902 Grants In-Hand 12l Mitiaation In-Hand 373,700 373.700 Other In-Hand IKC W0#90l 300 000 300,000 Qtsr In-Hand /Franchise Reim 40 000 40 000 ----~ Is Proposed r Proaosed --~ u, t.termined 8.109000 8 109 000 762 000 2 220 000 4.440 000 535 000 152 ODO TOTAL SOURCES 11.888.321 1.695.321 2.055 000 8 137.000 762 000 2 220 000 4.440 000 555 000 160.000 NEJrd_NE4ti =" 111\AM 5 -5 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2.014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Duvall Ave NE -NE 7th St to Sunset Blvd NE Functional Classification: Minor Arterlal Proj. Length: 0.67 ml Communitv Plannlna Area: Hiahlands & East Plateau TIP No. 6 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj; 122702 CONTACT: Jim Seitz 425.430.7245 Widening roadway to five lanes, including new pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, stonn Construction of the project pending outside funding. Project will enhance safety for drainage, channelization and bike lanes from NE 7th St to the intersection with Sunset Blvd NE. pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicular along this corridor. The cost estimate has been revised to City's complete Street standards. ' , JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: \, Complete a missing link of 5-lane roadway, bicycle ranes and sidewalks on Duvall Ave NE, from NE 4th Project is unfunded. St to Sunset Btvd NE. Condition of the existing roadway pavement requires road reconstruction. I Fundert ~t 1 11nfunded : 1 12.050.000 Project Totals Prnnrammed PreR2014 Six Year Program ITEM Programmed Soant Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 10 000 10,000 10 000 PreliminaTV Enoineerino 1200000 1 200 000 800000 400000 R-0-W (includes Adminl 2 250 000 2 250 000 1.060 000 1250000 Construction 7,700 000 _2,700,000 7.700 000 Construction Services 890 000 890 000 890 000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 12,050,000 12,oso.000 1,810,000 1,650,000 8,590,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS: . Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee . -'.. Prooosed Fund Balance ..;rents In-Hand (1) Grants In-Hand (21 Mitiaafion In-Hand .Q_t~__ln-Hand {1} 0 er In-Hand (2) u ~termined 12050000 12050000 1810000 1650000 8 590 000 TOTAL SOURCES 12.050.000 12 050,000 1 810.000 1.650 000 8 590 000 - """"'" 05/2:mu!J 1111 .... ._ ... 5-6 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014-2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Rainier Ave S • S 3rd Street to Airport Way Functional Classification: Principal Communitv Plannin11 Area: Citv Center Proj. Length: 0.31 ml TIP No. Proj: 7 CONTACT: Jim Seltz 425.430.7245 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Phase 2 of the Rainier Ave Corridor Improvements will extend the improvements from where the current Planning to determine the roadway cross section and outreach started in 2013, under the project ends to Airport Way. Project elements include roadway and sidewalks widening with Project Development and Pre-Design Program. Cost of the Rainier Ave S improvements streetscaping, adding pedestrian-scale illumination, transit facility improvements (shelters, benches, estimated at $1 SM. information kiosks), planted buffer strips and landscaped medians. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Rainier Ave is a critical corridor in central Renton with existing operational problems and in need of infrastructure enhancements to provide greater ease of non•motorized and transit-based travel. Improvements will enhance traffic flow and reduce accidents. I Funded :I I Unfunded :1 18,000 000 Proiect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six Year Program ITEM Proa rammed Soent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planninn 80 000 80000 80.000 Preliminarv Enc ineerina 2 620 000 2.620 000 1 840 000 780000 -- R-0-W /includes Adminl 3 500 000 ----- 3 500,000 1500000 2 000 000 - Construction 10 250,000 1.Q,;>50 000 7 300 600 2,950,000 Construction Services 1550000 1.550 000 1.100,000 450 000 Post Construction Services ---- TOTAL EXPENSES 18,000,000 18,000,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS: 3,420,000 2,780,000 8,400,000 3,400,000 Y_!~icle Fuel Tax Business License Fee Pronosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand <n Qrants_ In-Hand (2) - Mitiaatio_n In-Hand ------Olher In-Hand (11 Riiiior ln-Handi2l -... u-termined 18 000 000 18 000 000 3 420 000 2 780 000 8400 000 3 400 000 co TOTAL SOURCES 18,000,000 18,000,000 3,420,000 2,780,000 8,400,000 3,400,000 - < 111 ... ,.,2 _, ,11, ....... 5-7 3rd Draft Park Avenue North Extension Communltu Plannino Area: Citu Center DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length; 0.23 mi TIP No. STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 8 CONTACT: Jim Seltz 425.430.7245 hoe project will extend Park Ave N to the north of Logan Ave N, to provide access to Southport, PSE This is an economic development project that will likely be on hold until there is some property and The Boeing Company. Improvements incfude bicyde and pedestrian facilities, illumination, proposal by the property owners to develop the area north of Logan Ave N. landscaping. f JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: With the additional development growth in the North Renton area, which includes The Landing and the The project is estimated at $9M. Cost beyond 2019 not shown. Southport residential/office deveropment, this project will construct improvements to extend Park Ave N. r-unaea : unrunnea : 1,nut ,uu1 Prolect Totals ProQrammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Program ITEM Proa rammed Soant Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planning Preliminarv Enaineerina 800 000 800,000 ~000 R-0-W /includes Admin) 800000 800 000 800 000 Construction Construction Services Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 1.600,000 1,600,000 1,600 noo SOURCES OF FUNDS: . Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee Proposed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand {1} Grants In-Hand /21 Mitiaation In-Hand Other In-Hand r 1 l o-r In-Hand (21 -u-termined 1 600.000 1 600,000 1 600.000 tn TOTAL SOURCES 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 5 -8 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 116th Ave SE Improvements Functional Classification: Minor arterial Fund: 317 Proj. Length: 2.5 mi Proj: Communitv Plannina Area: Benson TIP No. 9 CONTACT: Jim Seil2 4~5 4M.7145 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Widen roadway to provide a 3-lane roadway with bike lanes along 116th Ave SE and Edmonds Ave SE, CED is leading the Benson Hill Community Plan with community outreach, and as an including new pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, traffic signals, storm drainage, outcome will recommend a roadway cross section and first phase project limits, based on channelization and landscaping from Puget Drive SE to south City limits. the neighborhood needs. The priority, cost and schedule for the phased improvements, be determined through Arterial Circulation studies. • !JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: 116th Ave SE is classified as a minor arterial. It has generally two lanes of traffic with left-tum lanes at The project Is estimated at $30M (of which $14M are for right-of-way to meet the City's signalized intersections and intermittent two-way-left-turn-lane south of SE 168th. Non-continuous Complete Street standard). Improvements from SE Petrovitsky Rd to SE 168th St will be segments of sidewalk exist along the roadway. Improvements will enhance vehicular, bicycle and part of Phase 1, based on the Benson Hill Community Plan. pedestrian safety along this important north-south transportation corridor. Funded: Unfunded: 8,700 000 Proiect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Proa rammed Soent Pre-2013 2013 Total EXPENSES: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Plannino Preliminarv Enaineerinc 1400000 1,400,000 1 000,000 400,000 R-0-W (Includes Adminl --1,000,000 1,000 000 500 000 500,000 Construction 5 500.000 q,§_00 000 2 000 000 3 500,QQQ Construction ServiC8s 800,000 -800000 300 000 500,000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 8,700,000 8,700,000 1,500,000 3,200,000 4,000,l SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax BUsiness License Fee . -- Pronosed Fund Balance - Grants ln-Hand <11 Grants In-Hand <2l -- MitiQation In-Hand ------ 6iher In-Hand 11 l - o-r In-Hand (21 --. -· ~termined -8 700 000 8 700 000 1 500 000 3 200000 4 000 000 CO TOTAL SOURCES 8,700,000 8.700.000 1.500 000 3 200 000 4,000 000 -11 ... 5-9 3rd Draft ~, 1\:11"'M Carr Road Improvements Communitv Planning Area: Talbot & Benson DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: Major Anerial Proj. Length: TIP No. 10 STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122920 CONTACT: Juliana Fries 425430.7232 IA corridor design report prepared by King County in 2003 identified the need for roadway improvements The City was awarded a $3.241,000 grant for signal timing along SW 43rd St/SE Carr from Benson Dr SE (108th Ave SE) to Talbot Rd S. Potential improvements vary from roadway Rd/SE 176th St/SE Petrovitsky Rd Corridor and widening of the SE Carr Rd/Benson Dr SE realjgnmentlwidening at several locations to address geometric deficiencies, widening to S·lane roadway (SR 515) intersection. These are Phase 1 improvements. Future roadway improvement (2 lanes westbound, 3 fanes eastbound), to a new 4-5 lane roadway, including bicycle lanes on new options include spot safety improvements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, roadway alignment. The total project cost is estimated as $72M. widening and roadway on new alignment. ,' IJUSTIFICA TION: Carr Road is classtfied as a principal arterial. lt has four lanes of traffic with lefMum lanes at CHANGES: intersections. Improvements are necessary to enhance vehicle traffic capacity and safety for vehicles, Funding shown in 2014 and 2015 are for completion of Phase 1 construction and bicycles, and pedestrians on this major east-west transportation corridor. finalization of scope, cost and schedule for futures phases. Fund•d ! 13 271 000 Unfunded : • 170 noo Project Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six.Year Prooram ITEM Proarammed s-nt Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 200,000 200.000 200 000 Preliminarv Engineerina 215 000 150 000 65000 65000 R-0-W I includes Ad min l 1 440.000 900 000 540.000 540 000 Construction 1 486.000 1486000 1000000 486 000 Construction Services 100.000 100.000 65.000 35 000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 3,441,000 1,050,000 2,391,000 1.670,000 721,000 SOURCE OF FUNOS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 30000 30000 30.000 " Proposed Fund Balance Grants In.Hand <Federal Safef\11 3 241 000 1 050.000 2191000 1 670.000 521.000 Grants In-Hand !2l Mitioation In-Hand Other In-Hand I 11 01 er In-Hand (2l u 1t=otermined 170,000 170 000 170 000 • TOTAL SOURCES 3,441,000 1,050,000 2,391,000 1,670,000 721,000 """"'" 11-11 M'I "'411 UI 5 -10 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM NE Sunset Boulevard (SR 900) Corridor Improvements Functional Classification: Principal Pro]. Length: 3.0 mi Communitv Plannino Area: City Center, Highlands & East Plateau TIP No. 11 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122902 CONTACT: Jim Seitz 425.430.7245 This corrklor needs a series of key improvements in this corridor to improve traffic operations such as The Sunset Area .Planned Action EIS initiated in 2010 delineated transportation needs channelization, traffic signal modifications, signal treatments, possible queue jumps, access along Sunset Blvd from N Park Dr to Monroe Ave NE, as a Phase 1 project. The cast of management through installation of medians. This project will seek to also address pedestrian, transit the first phase is estimated at $26M. The project is currently on the PSRC Countywide and bicycle needs. The corridor limits are from l-405 on the west to the east City limits. Contingency list for Design funding. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: IThls corridor has strong potential for transit usage and is experiencing residential and retail growth. I Funded :I 200 ooo, Unfunded: 26 000 000 Proiect Totals Programmed Pre-2014 Six Year Proaram ITEM Programmed Soent Pre-2013 2013 Total EXPENSES: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Plannina 200,000 200,000 ·----Preliminarv Enaineering 2,ZQQ,000 2 700 000 -1000000 1 700,000 R-O·W <includes Adminl 2 100 000 2.100 000 -1000000 1 100 000 Construction 19.100.000 __ 19,100,000 7,000 000 12.100000 Construction Services 2, 100..QQ9 2 100 000 770 000 1,330 000 Post Construction Services -··--- TOTAL EXPENSES 26,200,000 200,000 26,000,000 1,000,000 2,700,000 8,870,000 13,430,000 C SOURCES OF FUNDS: \lehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee ·--- Prooosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand l1) .. --r· Grants In-Hand 121 Mitiaafion In-Hand -. -~-·· ·--·-.--- l"'"oo,c,rn . 200 000 200 000 In-Hand ·---·-·-ts Pro~sed I STP l termined 26 000 000 26.000 000 1 000 000 2 700 000 8870000 13 430 boo TOTAL SOURCES 28,200,000 200,000 26,000,000 1,000,000 2,700,000 8,870,000 13,430,000 5 • 11 3rd Draft • Sunset Area Green Connections Community Planning Area: Hlahlands DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: N/A TIP No. STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 12 CONTACT: Jim Seitz 425.430.7245 iThis project will construct multi-modal improvements identified in the Sunset Area Community Planned The total cost of project is estimated at $18.3M. Schedule, estimates and selection of !Action Study. Roadways will be widened/extended/realigned to provide for future traffic flows. Several streets to be improved to be determined. Significant cost participation will be required from residential streets will be developed as "green connections" improving pedestrian mobility and enhance development interests. the neighborhood. Roadways included are NE 10th St, NE Sunset Lane, Harrington Ave NE, NE 12th St, Edmonds Ave NE, Jefferson Ave NE, Kirkland Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE. µusTIFICA TION: CHANGES: Improvements to these streets are key to support the redevelopment of the Sunset Area Community in the Highlands area, bounded by NE 21st St on the north, Edmonds Ave NE on the west, NE 7th St on the south, and Monroe Ave NE on the east. The City in partnership with the Renton Housing Authority aspires to redevelop the Sunset Terrace public housing community and encourage private redelopment in the Planned Action Study area over a 20-year period. I Funded :1 I Unfunded :I 18.300.000 Project Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six Year Program ITEM Proa rammed Spent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina Preliminarv En1:1ineerin!l 1 940,01 K 1 940,000 1 940,000 R-0-W fincludes Ad min 1 980.000 980000 980.000 Construction 13 860,000 13 860 000 8 000,000 5.860.000 Construction Services 1520000 1 520.000 875 000 645,000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 18,300,000 18,300,000 2,920,000 8,875,000 6.505,0~ SOURCES OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax -Business License Fee Prooosed Fund Balance - Grants lrrHand tn Grants In-Hand (2\ Mitiaation In-Hand Other In-Hand /CED) Ot er In-Hand ,!! i:.termined 18.300 000 18.300 000 2,920 000 8.875 000 6.505 000 TOTAL SOURCES 18,300,000 18,300,000 2,920,000 6,875,000 6,505,000 """"'" 1111AM .... .... 5 -12 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014-2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Oakesdale Ave SW/Monster Road SW/68th Ave S to SR 900 Functional Classification: Fund: 317 Proj. Length: 0.92 mi Proj: Communitv Plannina Area: West Hill TIP No. 13 CONTACT: Bob Mahn 425.430.7322 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Widen existing roadway to four lanes plus two-way-lefHurn-lane where needed and bike lanes. Realign A preliminary destgn study was completed in 1999. Scope, cost and implementation Beacon Coal Mine Road approach to intersection with the new Oakesdale Ave SW roadway. Includes schedule to be determined. The project cost is estimated at $30M, with the City's share new roadway, curbs, sidewalk, drainage, street lighting, traffic signals, channelization, retaining walls and estimated at $12M and King Co. at $18M. City's share is programmed in future years. lwidening the existing bridge. Phase 1 of improvements will address drainage problems between the Monster Rd Bria, • and the City limits. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: lwin serve growing north-south traffic demand. Cost beyond 2019 not shown. Funded: ,unfunded: 15,350 000 Proiect Totals Prourammed Pre-2014 Slx .. vear Pro1:1ram ITEM Proa rammed S""nt Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planninn 50,000 50,000 50 000 Prelimina~ Engineed!!9..____ ____ --~000,00Q t----· ~·~~g-ggg--3 ,IJ_O_Q, 00() R-0-W !includes Admin\ 2,300,000 2 300,000 Construction Construction Services Post Construction Service$ - TOTAL EXPENSES 5,350,000 5,350,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 50,000 5,300,, 1 Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee -Pronosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand t1l -- Grants In-Hand f1 l Mitioation In-Hand -- --~ -- Other In-Hand (1) 0.,,., In-Hand f1 l CJ -~ UOtermined 5 350.000 5 350.000 - 50 000 5 300 000 ... TOTAL SOURCES 5.350 000 5 350 000 50 000 5,300 000 -or =, 11111,"4 5 -13 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM South 7th Street -Rainier Ave S to Talbot Road South Functional Classification: Fund: 317 Proj. Length: 0.3B mi Proj: 122151 Communitv Plannlna Area: Cltv Center TIP No. 14 CONTACT: James Wilhoit 425.430.7319 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: !Widening the existing roadway to 3 lanes (2 Janes EB and 1 lane WB) and a separated multi-use trail. The S 7th St Project -Traffic Analysis Report provided alternatives for corridor Included will be new curb, gutter, wider sidewalks, streetlighting, channelization and landscaping. Also improvement options. The planning level cost estimate is $8M. Phase 1 of the project is included is a new traffic signal at Shattuck Ave S and modifications to other signals in the corridor. the installation of a traffic signal and an eastbound right-turn lane at the intersection of S 7th St and Shattuck Ave S. Funding for the Phase 1 improvements will be provided through a $500,000 STP grant and a $585.230 TIB grant. ' JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: This segment of the S 7th St corridor connects Talbot Rd S (SR 515) with Rainier Ave S (SR 167). This Costs beyond 2019 not shown. All future phases of the corridor improvements are segment of S 7th St is part of a designated east-west ped/bike route through the City's commercial core unfunded. and an important link between regional trails. The South Renton Neighborhood Study has identifted S 7th St as needing streetscape improvements. 1Funded: 11 217 500 Unfunded: 7.600.000 Proiect Totals Programmed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM ProQrammed Scent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 32 270 32 270 Preliminarv Enalneerina 1312000 96 000 1.216 000 16,000 200 000 700 000 300,000 R-0-W /includes Adminl 1 926 430 96 000 1.830 430 230430 700 000 900.000 Construction 4 860800 4.860 800 660 800 4.200 000 Construction Services 686,000 686 000 86 000 600 000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 8,817,500 32,270 192.000 8,593,230 993,230 200,000 1,400.000 1,200,000 4,800,00~ SOURCE OF FUNDS: ~ehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 100.000 32.000 68.000 68,000 ~ Prooosed Fund Balance 32,270 32,270 Granls In-Hand tSTP\ 500 000 66 ODO 434,000 434,000 Grants In-Hand (TIBl 585 230 94 000 491,230 491 230 Mitiaation in-Hand Other inrooosed KC Metro1 0 " r In-Hand (1\ u termined 7.600000 7 600000 200 000 1400000 1200000 4 BOO 000 TOTAL SOURCES 8,817,500 32,270 192,000 8,593,230 993,230 200,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 4,800,000 •• --, 11.11 AM co 5 -14 3rd Draft S Grady Way -Main Ave to West City Limits Communltv Plannina Area: City Center DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: Pro]. Length: NIA TIP No. STATUS: This project will perform a comprehensive analysis of multi-modal transportation improvements, including Fund: 317 Proj: 16 CONTACT: Jim Seitz 425 4307245 Phase 1 will remove the islands at the intersections of S Grady Way with Lake Ave s and review of potential transit improvements along Grady Way, such as BAT lanes and traffic signal priority Shattuck Ave S, to allow for a continuous eastbound lane from Rainier Ave S to Talbot Rd. (TSP). Included are modifications to the traffic signal, new pedestrian crossings and channelization. The costs shown are for Phase 1 improvements only, which are currenl unfunded. JUSTIFICATION: Removal of the obstructlons and reconfiguration of the right turn lanes to eastbound through lanes will add much needed capacity to the S Grady Way corridor. CHANGES: 1Funded: Unfunded: 3.000.000 Prolect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six~Year Proaram ITEM Programmed Soent PreM2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina Prelimina"' Enaineerina 450,000 450,000 450 000 R-0-W rincludes Adminl Construction 2.200 000 2 200 000 1 100 000 1100~00 Construction Setvices 350 000 350.000 175 000 175 000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 3,000,000 3,000,000 450,000 1,275,000 1 275,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee Prooosed Fund Balance ' Grants In-Hand {1} Grants In-Hand r11 Mitiaation In-Hanel___ other rnrooosed KC Metro) ca,, In-Hand (1) •, ,. ftermined 3 000 000 3000 000 450000 1275000 1 275 000, TOTAL SOURCES 3,000,000 3,000,000 450,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 ' "C'' =" 1!e'11\M 5 -15 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 SIX YEAR TIP Houser Way N • N 8th St to Lake Washington Blvd Functional Claaaification; NIA Fund: 317 Communltv Plannlna Area: Cllv Center DESCRIPTION: STATUS: This project will widen and realign the existing one Jane roadway to a two-lane roadway and includes New project intersection improvements to convert Houser Way N to a two-way operation. Includes new roadway, curbs, pedestrian--bicycle path, drainage, signals, lighting, signing and channelization. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: The City of Renton travel demand model predicts traffic volumes increasing significantly in the North Renton Area in the near future. One of the recommendations to improve northbound access to Lake lwashington Blvd is to convert Houser Way N to a two-way operations, between N 8th St and Lake Washington Blvd. Prolect Totals Proarammad Pre-2014 ITEM Proarammed Soant In 2012 2013 Total 2014 EXPENSES: PlanninQ Preliminarv Enaineerina 600.000 600.000 R-0-W (includes Adm in) 165 000 165,000 Construction 2 740 000 2 740 000 Construction Services 370,000 370.000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 3,875,000 3,875,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 96000 96.000 Prooosed Fund Balance Grants ln~Hand ( 1) Grants In-Hand /2l Mitiaation In-Hand Other In-Hand (11 ~ er In-Hand /21 ~etermined 3 779 ODO 3 779 000 TOTAL SOURCES 3,875,000 3,875,000 ,40 .. 5 -16 3rd Draft Proj. Length: NIA Proj: TIP No. 16 CONTACT: Bob Mahn 425.430.7322 •. !Funded: 196 oon ,unfunded : 13 779.000 Six-Year Proaram 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 600.000 165.000 1090000 1650000 140.000 230 000 765,000 1,230,000 1,880,000 35,000 16 000 45 ODO : 730 000 1 214 000 1,835 000 I 765,000 1,230,000 1,880,000 """"'" 11·11Al,'I ' Lake Washington Loop Trail Communitv Plannino Area: Citv Center DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 TRANSPQRJATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: varies Proj. Length: TIP No. STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122802 17 CONTACT: Jim Seitz 425.430.7245 The project will provide a shared use regional trail from the Cedar River Trail and extending to the north Right-of-Way costs not included in the planning level cost estimate, since it is assumed city limits along Airport Way and Rainier Ave N. Project elements include a 12.foot shared path separated from the travel lanes by an 8-foot landscaped strip. that the project can be completed within the existing Airport Way and Rainier Ave N right of ways. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: The project will separate pedestrtans and bicyclists from the vehicular traffic, enhancing safety and enCOuraging residents to use active transportation modes. t-unaea : ' uhlunoea: 4, ·"'"' Proiect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Proa rammed Soent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 50000 50,000 50 000 Preliminaiv Enaineerina 350 000 350 000 300 000 50 000 R-0-W /includes Adminl Construction 4,000 000 4 000,000 1 000,000 3 000 000 Construction Services 600 000 600000 150 000 450,000 DevelonAr Reimbursement - TOTAL EXPENSES 5,000,000 5,000,000 350,000 1,200,000 3,450,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS: uehicle Fuel Tax . Business License Fee 50000 50-000 50000 -~ Pronosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand (1) Grants In-Hand 121 -Mitiaation In-Hand ---- -- Other - ~n-Handl2l ~ ~termined 4950 000 4,950 000 300 000 1200000 3 450 000 TOTAL SOURCES 5.000,000 5.000 000 350 000 1.200 000 3.450 000 ~t1t---=u H:11AtJ 5 -17 3rd Draft Lake to Sound (L2S) Trail Communltv Plannlrm Area: Cltv Center & Valley DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA TIP No. STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122903 18 CONTACT: Jim Seltz 425.430.7245 The Lake to Sound (L2S} Trail Is a joint partnership between the cities of Renton, SeaTac, Tukwila, This project was awarded a federal grant In the amount of $800,125 for design and Burien and Des Moine~. in coordination with King County. The 17-mile L2S Trail will provide an east-environmental documentation of Phases: A -Naches Ave SW (Renton) to Fort Dent Park west connection between the shoreline of Lake Washington (Renton) and the shoreline of Puget Sound (Tukwila), and B -Des Moines Memorial Drive S (SeaTac and Burien). Phase A of the (Des Moines). grant amount is estimated to be $300,000 and no City match is required. King County_;- leading the design. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: ' Phase A will connect Fort Dent (Tukwila) to the larger system of regional trails in South King County, Design of the Fort Dent Park Connection is 60% complete. Design for Phase A to be including the Green River Trail, the Interurban Trail and the Cedar River Trail. Phase A goes from completed in Fall 2014. Construction of Phase A (through Renton) estimated at $1.25M. Naches Ave SW (Renton) to Fort Dent Park (Tukwila). Phase A will provide a 12-foot wide asphalt paved Construction will begin in winter 2014-2015, pending new grant funding. 1muttiRuse trall, with 2-foot gravel shoulders. Funded: I Unfunded: 11.255.000 Project Totals Programmed Pre-2014 Six-Year Program ITEM Programmed Spent Pra-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina Preliminary Eni:1ineering R-0-W fincludes Adminl Construction 1100000 1.100·000 500,000 600,000 Construction Services 155.000 155 000 70000 85 000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 1,2551000 1,255,000 570,000 685,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax ·. Business License Fee - Prooosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand 11) Grants In-Hand (2) Mitiaation In-Hand Other ot-ln-Hand Un ermined 1255000 1255000 570 000 685 000 TOTAL SOURCES 1,255,000 1,255,000 570,000 685,000 "'w """''"' 11:11AM 5 -18 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Walkway Program Functional Classification: NIA Fund: 317 Proj. Length: NIA Proj: 120009 Communltv Plannlna Area: Cituw!de TIP No. 19 CONTACT: James \Mlhoit 425.430 7319 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: tThis program provides for the design and construction of non-motorized transportation facilities for The Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study was completed in 2009 and is being used to pedestrians. Projects are identified and prioritized using criteria from the Comprehensive Citywide select projects that move into the design and construction phases. lwalkway Study, Council direction, and through coordination with the City's Neighborhood Program. I JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Providing safe and convenient non-motorized facilities is an inlegral part of a complete transportation The design of the sidewalks on Taylor Ave NW and NW 4th St is being funded under this network. Specific improvements will respond to the needs of school children, the aged and persons with program. The design is undeiway and is estimated to be completed in 2013. Construction disabilities, and support increased use of transit. is anticipated to start in 2014. 1funded: 11015000 Unfunded : 1500 000 Proiect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Program ITEM Proa rammed Soent In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: PlanniM 30 000 30000 5000 5,000 5,000 5 000 5,000 5.000 Preliminani Enc ineerina 165 000 15LOOO 150.000 25.000 -25 000 25000 25,000 25,000 _ 25.000 R-0-W (includes Admin) Construction 1.195 000 95 000 1,100,000 100 000 200,000 200,000 200,900 200 000 200.000 Construction Services 125 000 15,000 110,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 ~000 PO~Sf Construction Services -- TOTAL EXPENSES 1.515,000 125,000 1,390,000 140,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,1· ·I Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 930_,QQO 100 000 830 000 130 000 140 000 140 000 140 000 140 000 140,000 Pronosed Fund Balance 25 000 25,000 Grants lf1::Hand (1) Grants In-Hand (2\ ' Mitiaation In-Hand tsidewalk mi 60,000 6Q,OD0 10 000 10.000 10 000 10000 10 000 _ ·--10.000 0th r ln:i:land 111 - Ot In-Hand 121 ~--ilk \ermined 500 000 500 000 -100 000 100 000 100 00-0 100 000 ---100 000 TOTAL SOURCES 1,515,000 125,000 1,390,000 140,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 _,. ~, 11:11 AM 5 -19 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 20M_-201]_ TRAl',l_l3PORTATION IMPBOVEMENTEROGRAM Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacement Program Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA Communitv Plannlno Area: Cih,u,ide TIP No. DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122801 20 CONTACT: BiH Wressel 425.430.7400 This program provides for the replacement of existing curb and gutter, sidewalks, and curb ramps where The 2013 program will continue work in the Maplewood Glen Neighborhood. such facilities have deteriorated or have been damaged. } JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: !This program will address deficiencies and provide safe and convenient non-motorized facilities for The program is scaleable ta funding availability. Traditionally $250K were ta be allocated pedestrians in neighborhoods with damaged or deteriorated curb and gutter, sidewalks, and curb ramps. far this project. There are some places where curb ramps do not exist or are not to current ADA Standards and they will be upgraded through this program. Funded: 1129 8331 Unfunded :1 Prolect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Proarammed S=nt In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planning Preliminarv Enaineerina 10.000 5 000 5000 5000 R-0-W fincludes Adminl Construction 1 080.118 145118 215 000 720 000 160 000 100 000 100,000 130 000 130,000 100 000 Construction Services 39,715 11,715 18 000 10.000 10000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 1,129,833 156,833 238,000 735,000 175,000 100,000 100,000 130,000 130,000 100,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: -.., Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 935 000 100 000 100 000 735 000 175 000 100 000 100 000 130 000 130 000 10t 2 Pronnsed Fund Balance 194 833 56 833 138 000 Grants ln.-Hand (1\ Grants In-Hand (21 - Mitiaafon In-Hand Other In-Hand { 1) o•-In-Hand f2) IQii termined I TOTAL SOURCES 1.129.833 156 833 238 000 735 000 175.000 100 000 100.000 130,000 130.000 100 000 .., -5 • 20 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRAN_SPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM NE 31st Street Culvert Replacement Functional Classification: NIA Fund: 317 Proj. Length: NIA Proj: 120026 Communitv Planninn Area: Kennvrla\e TIP No. 21 CONTACT: Derek Akesson 425.410.7317 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: The 2009 flooding on May Creek caused damage lo the NE 31st St culvert. SelUement of the asphalt This projecl was awarded in 2010 a FEMA grant in the amount of$ $101,961, State share roadway above an existing culvert occured after the high creek flows. The gablon headwall is starting to of $16,993, and City share of $16,994 for repair to the existing culvert. In 2012 FEMA collapse, which may cause the culvert to completely fail. The existing gabion headwall and culvert pipe increased the grant amount by $322,072, State share of $53,678 and City match of need to be replaced. $53,678. Design of a bridge sructure to replace the failing culvert is underway. Construction to start in 2013 and be completed in 2014. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: NE 31st St is the only public access to six homes. Failure of the culvert will result in elimination of general and emergency access, thus the importance of the repair. Funded: 1570 990 Unfunded: I Proiect Totals ProQremmed Pre-2014 Six-Year Prooram Programmed Soent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 EXPENSES: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Plannino -----Prelimina!Y Engineering 90990 11 190 -79 800 -R-O·W I includes Admin} Construction 420,000 35oi900 70000 70000 Construction Services 60,000 ' _ §Q,000 10 ODO 10 000 ·--Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 670,990 11,190 479,800 80,000 80,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 65,096 55,096 10000 10 000 Prooosed Fund Balance 11.190 11,190 Grants In-Hand (FEMA) 424,033 364 033 60,000 60.000 Grants In-Hand /State sharel 70,671 Mitiaation In-Hand 60,6]1 10 000 10,000 I---- Other In-Hand l1l -- -o-r In-Hand 12\ ----· -----~tenmined TOTAL SOURCES 670,990 11.190 479.800 80 000 80.000 J I 3111l,,,,.1 ~" 11 llAM 5 -21 3rd Draft Maple Valley Highway Attenuator CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: Princiapl Arterial Proj. Length: NIA Fund: 317 Proj: Communitv Planning Area: Cedar River TIP No. 22 CONTACT: James VVilhoit 425.430.7319 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: This project will remove an existing concrete barrier end treatment located eastbound (east of tt-e Riviera The design report is complete and was funded by the Roadway Safety and Guardrail ll\partments). A new concrete barrier will be extended westerly approximately 400 feet and a new impact Program (TIP# 24). Construction pending funding availability. attenuator will be installed et the end of the new concrete barrier. The project will also provide a 2-foot wide shoulder along SR-169 between the outside through lane and the face of the barrier. , JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: , Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) is a major arterial carrying 43,100 vehicles per day. This project will improve safety for eastbound traffic on Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) at this location, which has been the site to numerous collision impacts. !Funded: Unfunded: 535 000 Pro]ect Totals Programmed Pre-2014 Six-Year Pronram ITEM ProQrammed S""nt Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina Preliminarv Enoineerino 100.000 100 000 100000 R-0-W /includes Adminl 30 000 30000 30000 Construction 350 000 350 000 350 000 Construction Services 55 000 55000 55000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 535,000 535,000 130,000 405,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee .· -Prooosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand /1) Grants In-Hand 121 Mttiaation In-Hand Other In-Hand 111 Ot-In-Hand (2\ ~ermined 535 000 535,000 130.000 405 000 co TOTAL SOURCES 535,000 535,000 130,000 405,000 ""..q''"""" ..,,,,,.,, ,,.,, ... ..,. 5 • 22 3rd Draft Bridge Inspection & Repair Program Communitv Planninn Area: Ci'=ide DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 20_1<1_-_2019 TRANSPORTATION IIVIPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA TIP No. STATUS: 23 Inspect all roadway bridges owned by the City every two years to determine bridge sufficiency and load Biennial bridge inspections will occur in 2015. ratings, and identify any seismic retrofit needed. Undertake minor repairs and preventative maintenance as needed. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Fund: 317 Proj: 120106 CONTACT: Derek Akesson 425.4307337 Inspection program must be done for safely and funding purposes and as part of WSBIS Program to Funds shown under construction are for minor repairs to bridge structures. determine structural deficiencies, physical deterioration, or functional obsolescence and to qualify for ~ederal bridge replacement grant funding. Repair fund'ing is prov'1ded to accomplish lower cost improvements, identified through the inspection program, that will increase 1he safety and extend the longevity of the structures. 1Funded: 1376 369 ,unfunded: 350.000 Project Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Programmed S Dent In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannino -10.500 ~f:!li~ft Enaineerina 255 069 10 069 185 000 60 000 10 000 10 000 10000 10,000 10 000 R-0-W /includes Adminl Construction 281 300 6 300 275 000 55 000 55,000 55 000 55,000 55.000 Construction Services --Post Construction Services/0th 190 000 190.000 15 000 35 000 35 000 35 000 35 000 35, 1 TOTAL EXPENSES 726,369 10,069 191,300 525,000 25,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100 SOURCE OF FUNDS: -Jehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 230 000 55.000 175.000 25.000 30.000 3ii·.ooo 30.000 30.000 30 000 Prooosed Fund Baiance 146.369 10,069 136 300 " - Grants In-Hand /FEMAl . ·~ Grants In-Hand (State Sharel ---~. --~9!'tion In-Hand Ot 1F r In-Hand ---- Ot In-Hand --- - iQi 350.000 70 000 70000 70000 70 000 70.000 termined 350 000 TOTAL SOURCES 726.369 10.069 191.300 525 000 25 000 100 000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100 000 -co-°""""" ''.11,.,"4 5 • 23 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Roadway Safety and Guardrail Program Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA Communitv Plannina Area: Citvwide TIP No. 24 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: This program will provide lower cost guardrail improvements each year and improve the safety of the roadside environment. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: This program will implement roadside safety improvements including barrier systems and hazardous object removal. !Funded: Proiect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Proarammed Soent In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 EXPENSES: Planni_, Preliminarv Enoineerlna 88001 49.701 20300 18 000 3,000 3 000 3000 R-0-W (includes Admin) Construction 80000 5000 75000 10 000 10 000 10000 Construction Services 12000 12.000 2000 2,000 2000 Post Construction Services/0th TOTAL EXPENSES 180,001 49,701 25,300 105,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 125.000 10 000 10 000 105,000 15 000 15 000 15000 Prooosed Fund Balance 55001 39 701 15 300 Grants Iii-Hand ,1, Grants In-Hand (21 Mitiaation In-Hand ;~:~~ Prooosed Pronnsed ermined TOTAL SOURCES 180,001 49,701 25,300 105,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 --5. 24 3rd Draft Fund: 317 Proj: 120110 CONTACT: James \IVilhoit 425.430.7319 180.001 Unfunded: I 2017 2018 2019 3.000 3.000 3000 10 000 15 000 20 000 2.000 2000 2,000 15,000 20,000 25,,,"ll 15.000 20 000 26 ,.,6 ~- 15,000 20,000 25,000 """"'" 1l11Al,I CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Intersection Safety & Mobility Program Functional Classification: N/A Fund: 317 Proj. Length: NIA Proj: 122601 Communitv Plannina Area: NIA TIP No. 25 CONTACT: Chris Barnes 425.430.7220 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: !This program will install new traffic signals or make improvements to existing signals identified by the The priorities and schedules for new traffic signals will be set by the Transportation Transportation Systems' Traffic Signal Priority List. Systems' Traffic Signal Priority List. The list is determined by citizen concerns, intersection safety, mobility needs. and intersections that meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Historically, on the average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed every two years to meet safety Traffic signals high on the warrant priority list include SW 41 st St & Oakesdale Ave SW, and mobility needs. This program budgets for projects needed to meet increasing demand, and the need SE Carr Road & 103rd Ave SE, and SW 34th St & Lind Ave SW for signalized traffic control. Elements used to prioritize project intersections may include vehicular approach volumes, accident analysis, signal-warrant analysis, and pedestrian volume. Funded: ,1 600 000 !Unfunded : I Pro"'ct Totals Prnnrammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Program ITEM Proi:arammed Spent In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannino Preliminarv Enaineerina 282 000 30 000 252.000 32 000 R-0-W (includes Adminl 44 000 __ 44,00() . 44.000 44000 44 OO_Q Construction 1150000 120 000 1 030,000 1 ;\Q,_000 180.000 180,000 180-000 1Sq1ooor--180 000 1 :onstruction Services 168.000 18.000 150 000 20000 26000 26,000 26.000 26000 2§,000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 1,600,000 168,000 1,432,000 182,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,1. SOURCE OF FUNDS: vehicle Fuel Tax -~ Business License Fee 1.600.000 ~QOO ~-1,432 000 182,000 250 000 250 000 250 000 250000 250 000 Prooosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand 11\ ----Grants In-Hand 121 --Mitiaation In-Hand -~---- Other In-Hand ··~ O...,.r In-Hand --.~ .~ -~:d ed TOTAL SOURCES 1600000 168 000 1432000 182 000 250 000 250 000 250,000 250 000 250.000 I , __ ~, 11.11,J.M 5 -25 3rd Draft Traffic Safety Program Community Planninq Area: Cltvwide DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA TIP No. STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122115 26 CONTACT: Eric Cutshall 425.430.7423 This ongoing yearly program provides funding for special small-scale traffic safety improvements that are The City was awarded a $300,000 Safety grant for a HAWK signal at Duvall Ave NE and identified and require materials, labor or equipment beyond the normal scope of City maintenance activities. This program includes providing materials for railroad crossing upgrades and converting school zone signs to electronic operation. NE 12th St and pedestrian countdown signals at various intersections. Another Project is to install traffic signal uninterruptable power supply/battery backup systems (UPS/BBS) at three critical intersections per year, pending sufficient funding. UUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Historically, this level of traffic safety improvements are required on an annual basis. This program budgets for safety projects to address these needs. Projects are typically identified through citizen concerns, analysis of accident records or observation by City Traffic Operations and Maintenance ' personnel. The Traffic Operations Section identifies and prioritizes locations. 1Funded: 1656.319 Unfunded: , Proiect Totals Pronrammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Proa rammed Srw1nt In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planninn 3393 3 393 Prelimina!)I' Engineering 70000 R-0-W Cincludes Admin) 44,500 25500 3 000 4,500 4.500 -4 500 4500 4,500 Construction 526926 86926 247 500 192.500 30 000 32 500 32500 32 500 32 500 32 500 Construction Services 56000 38000 18 oao 3000 3 000 3000 3000 3000 3000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 656,319 90,319 330,000 236,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,00<_:! Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 286000 20000 30 000 236000 36000 40000 40000 40000 40 000 4(. -" Prooosed Fund Balance 70,319 70 319 Grants In-Hand 1lfV~ooT+SafelV1 300 000 300 000 Grants In-Hand /WTSCl Mitiaation In-Hand Other In-Hand '1l _,,_ In-Hand /2\ !Qi Dtermined • TOTAL SOURCES 656,319 90,319 330,000 236,000 36,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 ~ '""':.a, 5 -26 3rd Draft """"" 11:11.o.M CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014-2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGBAM Preservation of Traffic Operation Devices Program Functional Classification: NIA Communitv Plannina Area: Cit"""de Proj. Length: NIA TIP No. DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122904 27 CONTACT: Enc Cutshall 425.4307423 Replace failed or failing traffic signal vehicle detection loops and repair pavement as required to achieve Ongoing yearly program. Replacement of traffic signal detection loops, traffic signs, traffic proper installation and assure reliabilijy. This program also provides for the replacement and/or signal, street lighting poles and pavement markings is dependent upon yearly inspections. relocation of signs that are obsolete, faded, poorly located or no longer appropriate, and replacement of damaged luminaire and stgnal poles. These poles have been damaged in unknown incidents where reimbursement through normal channels is impossible. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Most of Renton's signals require extensive vehicle detection systems to provide traffic count data needed for the intersection controllers and TACTIS signal coordination system to operate effectively. Pavement deterioriation due to heavy traffic volumes, trucks, and adverse weather has increased the need for detection loop replacement. Funded: 1496.000 !Unfunded: Prolect Totals Programmed Pre.2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Prourammed S=nt In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planninn 7,118 7118 Preliminarv Enaineerina R-0-W {includes Ad min) --· '- 62.000 Construction 488.882 5 982 110.900 372 000 62 000 62000 62000 62,000 62 000' Construction Services Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 496,000 13,100 110,900 372,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 621 ... Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 447100 13100 62,000 372 000 62 000 62 000 62 000 62 000 62.000 62.,9.Q(J Pronosed Fund Balance 48,900 48,900 ----Grants JnMHand 11) Grants In-Hand (2) . - Mitination In-Hand Other In-Hand 11) Ot,r In-Hand (2) -· - Un"""'termined -TOTAL SOURCES 496.000 13.100 110.900 372 000 62 000 62.000 62.000 62 000 62,000 62 000 l ,.-a ~, 11:11 AM 5 -27 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -201~ TRAll!_SPORTATION IMPRO'\,/_l;_M_ENT PROGR_AM Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA Communu-.• Plannlna Area: N/A TIP No. DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122162 28 CONT ACT: Chris Barnes 425.430.7220 Provides for improvements to the operational efficiency of the roadway system, including development Upgrading of all signal controllers to be compatible with the new central system has been and implementation of signal coordination programs, signing and channelization improvements, completed. surveillance control and driver information system (SC & DI), transit signal priority, Intelligent Traffic Systems (ITS) Master Plan and signal improvements such as protective/permissive phasing. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Improving the capacity and efficiency of the existing roadway system is a very cost effective element of the transportation program. I Funded: 1321.085 ,unfunded: I Project Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Programmed Sn.ant In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planninc Preliminary Enoineerino 35 000 5 000 30 000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5 000 5000 R-0-W fin eludes Ad min I Construction 251,085 111085 20 000 120 000 20 000 20000 20 000 20,000 20,000 20.000 Construction Services 35000 5000 30.000 5 000 5 000 5000 5000 5000 5000 Post Construction Services/0th TOTAL EXPENSES 321,085 111,085 30,000 180,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 SOURCE OF FUNOS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 260 000 50000 30,000 180 000 30000 30000 30,000 30,000 30000 3( J Pro~osed Fund Balance 61 085 61 085 Grants ln-Hand l1\ Grants In-Hand (2) Mitiaation In-Hand Other In-Hand (1\ Ot _,. In-Hand (2) -. Un ~termined -TOTAL SOURCES 321.085 111 085 30.000 180 000 30.000 30 000 30.000 30000 30.000 30.000 "' Cl "'""""' 11:11.0.M w 5 • 28 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014-2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Barrier-Free Transition Plan Implementation Functional Classification: NIA Communitv Plannina Area: Cit""'de Proj. length: NIA TIP No. DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122705 29 CONTACT: James 'Nilhort 425.430.7310 This program implements projects that support the City1s effort to transition pedestrian facilities within the A project list will be developed based upon sites identified in the Transition Plan section of right-of-way into conformity with provisions contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Guidelines. This program provides funding for designing and building features on an "as needed" basis the City of Renton Comprehensive Citywide Sidewalk Study. in response to individual requests to improve access for individuals with special needs. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: A programatic approach is required to ensure compliance with federal law. Traditionally $SOK were to be allocated for this project. I Funded :1 236.4621 Unfunded :i Project Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six Year Proaram ITEM Proa rammed S=nt In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 38.462 462 10,000 28000 5 000 5,000 3000 5.000 5000 5.000 Preliminarv Enoineerirv1 R-0-W /includes Admin) Construction 181,000 ------20,000 161,000 22000 22,000 20,000 32,000 32,000 33,000 Construction Services 17 000 17 OOQ_ 3000 3 000 :moo 3,000 3000 3 060 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 236,462 SOURCES OF FUNDS: 462 30,000 206,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 40,000 40,000 41.~ Vehk:le Fuel Tax Business License Fee 236 000 30 000 206 000 30000 30,000 25 000 40 000 40000 41 000 Prooosed Fund Balance 462 462 Granls lr>-Hand C1l Grants In-Hand L1) Mitiaation In-Hand -----. Other In-Hand (1) ---·- Qt...-In-Hand (2) ~ --·- Unnstermined -TOTAL SOURCES 236462 462 30,000 206000 30 000 30,000 25 000 40.000 40 000 41.000 ~~ 5 • 29 3rd Draft =" 11·11AM I City Center Community Plan Support CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 SIX YEAR TIP Functional Classification: Proj. Length: N/A Fund: 317 N/A Proj: 122906 Communltv Planninn Area: Citv Center TIP No. 30 CONTACT: Jim Seitz 425.430.7245 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: The City Center Community Plan support will provide traffic operation and circulation improvements The scope and cost of the City Center Plan improvements and strategies has yet to be and strategies such as pedestrian enhancement (sidewalks, landscaping, wayfinding, public art) on determined. Improvements on S 7th St and Park Ave N extension identified in the City major streets, connection improvements to provide multiple circulation routes, evaluation of benefits Center Plan are included in the TIP as separate projects. of one-way streets and traffic awareness to reduce right-of-way to vehicular traffic and provide enhanced space for other modes of transportation. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: The City Center Plan intends to provide better transportation connections for the full range of A feasibility study on the conversion of the one way couplets to two-way streets was transportation modes to improve access to and from the City and overall safety within. The City completed in 2012. Given the high cost of conversion, no additional work will be Center Community Plan was adopted by the council on June 6, 2011. 1.mdertaken in the near term. 1Funded : 49090 ,unfunded: Prolect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Program ITEM Proarammed Scent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannlno 49090 49090 Preliminarv Enaineerina R-0-W /includes Admin) Construction Construction Services Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 49,090 49,090 SOURCE OF FUNDS: "ehicle Fuel Tax Business license Fee 49090 49,090 Proo. Fund Bal. Grants In-Hand (1) Grants In-Hand (2) Mifiaation In-Hand i' In-Hand -Metro Mitia. r In-Hand C2l Uoolletermined .... TOTAL SOURCES 49.090 49090 ·vr-~, tl:11AM 5. 30 3rd Draft ' CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2Qj~_TRA_NSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Development & Pre-Design Program Functional Classification: NIA Fund: 317 Proj. Length: NIA Proj: 122150 Communi .... • Planninn Area: NIA TIP No. 31 CONTACT: J;m Seitz 425.430.7245 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Perform critical activities needed for the development of future CIP projects and far grant applications, Ongoing yearly program. This program includes small studies funding and funds required including scoping, cost estimates, pre-design, interlocal agreements and deficiency analysis. Also to match new grants. provides for the monitoring of active grant projects far compliance with State and Federal laws, regulations and specifications. ~USTIFICATION: CHANGES: !Analyses of existing and projected transportation operation problems, infrastructure maintenance needs, Funding to this planning program has been reduced to cover its internal staff costs. In local and regional mobility goals and revenues/costs are vital to the development of transportation 2013 the planning work under this program included: 1) the coversion of Houser Way N to projects that will best serve the needs of Renton and compete well for grants. Also, to maintain eligibility a two-way operation; 2) the Lake Washington Loop Trail; and 3) Rainier Ave S -Phase ll. for grant funding, the City must assure that project specifications and management comply with current State and Federal standards. I Funded: 1824.511 !Unfunded: Proiact Totals Proarammed Pra-2014 Six-Year Program ITEM Programmed Spent In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 664 511 49 511 100 000 515 000 85 000 85.000 85,000 85000 85,000 90,000 Preliminarv Enc ineerinn 160 000 160.000 _15,000 26000 29,000 30.000 30 000 30,000 R-O·W (includes Adminl -Construction -·· Construction Services Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 824,511 49,511 100,000 675,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 100,000 111,000 114,000 115,000 115,000 120,\ Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 824 511 49 511 100 000 675,000 100.000 111 000 114 000 115 000 1_15 000 120,000 Pronl"lsed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand 111 Granis In-Hand 12\ Mitiaation In-Hand ---- Otherln-Hand ---~In-Hand 121 ~--·--- ·----Un<iliilEirmined .... TOTAL SOURCES 824.511 49,511 100 000 675.000 100 000 111.000 114 000 115,000 115,000 120.000 - ' PN_Do, """"'" 11.1tAlol 5 • 31 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATIQN IMPROVEMENT PROg_RAM Arterial Circulation Program Functional Classification: NIA Fund: 317 Proj. Length: NIA Proj: 120029 Communltv Plannina Area: NIA TIP No. 32 CONTACT: Jim Seltz 425.430.7247 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: This program provides for the short and long-range planning and traffic analyses required to evaluate This project will fund the ongoing planning work which will lead to refinement and/or and update the Transportation Element in relation to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to assess the adjustment of the of improvement projects on the arterial network identified in the impacts of new development proposals, and to recommend local and regional transportation system T ransporlation Element. improvements for all modes of travel. Funding for hardware, software and employee hours required to operate the computer model is also included under this program. ' JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Combined State and Federal Clean Air legislation, the Growth Management Act, and the increasing Community Services (Parks Division) is looking to partnership with Transportation Divis,un importance of making sure that local and regional transportation plans are coordinated to the benefit of to update the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan In 2014. Their estimate for the Master Plan Renton make ongoing multi-modal planning a high priority need. This program will also provide update is $180,000. Staff will seek grant funding for the update in 2014. Transportation coordination with the 1-405 project team, to assure it provides the maximum benefits and minimum Concurrency/LOS and WSOOT Coordination programs has been combined into the problems for Renton's transportation system. Arterial Circulation Program. 1Funded: 1994.242 IUnfunded: I Prolect Totals Programmed Pre-2014 Six-Year Proaram ITEM Programmed Suent In 2012 2013 Total EXPENSES: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Plannino 994 242 59,_242 120.000 815.000 Preliminarv Enaineerina 110.000 120 000 145.000 145.000 145 000 150 000 R-0-W (includes Adminl Construction Construction Services Post Construction Services -- TOTAL EXPENSES 994,242 59,242 120,000 815,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 110,000 120,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 160,000 Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 994242 59,242 120 000 815.000 110 000 Prooosed Fund Balance 120 000 145.000 145 000 145 000 15( : Grants In.Hand <n Grants In-Hand 121 Mitiaation In-Hand -- Other In-Hand l1l Ot= In-Hand 121 = Un,.,llll'"ermined -TOTAL SOURCES 994 242 69 242 120.000 816.000 110 000 120.000 145.000 145.000 145,000 150.000 ~ _,, 11:TlAM 6 • 32 3rd Draft Environmental Monitoring Program Communitv Plannina Area: N/A DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 JH~NSPORTATION IMPROVJ;:MENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA TIP No. STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122187 33 CONTACT: James \Mlhoit 425.430.7319 Monitoring of wetland mitigation installed as an environmental requirement for a project and to perform Attempts to get early acceptance for the Oakesdale Ave SW Phase 1 site were successful. biological assessments as required by the Endangered Species Act. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Monitoring ensures that the wetland vegetation installed is properly established. Creates an account to pay for unscheduled project environmental assessments. Proiect Totals ITEM . EXPENSES: Plannina Preliminarv Enc ineeri!}g_ R-0-W /includes Admin\ Construction Construction Services Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee Prooosed Fund Balance Grants ln-Han<!.(1)_ ~~ ___ Grants In-Hand /2) Mitiaation In-Hand Other In-Hand (11 Ot"..;;;Tn-Hand /2l ~rmined - -TOTAL SOURCES • _o c» ProQrammed Pre-2014 Programmed S=nt In 2012 2013 30 118 118 20,000 30,118 118 20,000 30,118 118 20.000 - 30.118 118 20 000 5 • 33 Total 2014 - 10 000 10 000 10 000 10,000 10 000 10,000 10.000 10 000 3rd Draft !Funded: '30 118 Unfunded: I Six-Year Prooram 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - -- ··----~ --· """""" 11:11AM ' • 1% for the Arts Program Community Plannina Area: NIA DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TR~NSPQRTATION IM_P80VEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: NIA Proj. Length: NIA TIP No. STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122112 34 CONTACT: Juliana Fries 425.430.7232 Funding is tied to the calculated share of eligible types of transportation projects and transportation Program is now based on actual design and construction costs. $13,261 was transferred ir funding subject to the City's 1 % for the Arts Program. All gateway project proposals under this program 2010 for 2009 expenditures. No transfer occur in 2011 (201 O capital expenses were offset are subject to approval of the Arts Commission. by grant revenues not received in 2009). $7,064 was transferred in 2012 for 2011 capital expenditures. µusTIFICA TION: This program transfers funds to Fund 125, which is being managed by the Department of Community CHANGES: and Economic Development. 1Funded: 1112 064 !Unfunded: Proiect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six.Year Proaram ITEM Proa rammed Spent In 2012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina 112064 7064 15 000 90,000 15 000 15.000 15.000 15 000 15 000 15 000 Preliminarv Enoineerino R-0-W (includes Adminl Construction Construction Services Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 112,064 7,064 15,000 90,000 15,000 15,000 15 000 15,000 15,000 16,l'-"''l SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee 112 064 7 064 15,000 90000 15 000 15 000 15 000 15000 15.000 15 vv6 Prooosed Fund Balance Grants ln·Hand (1) Grants In-Hand (2\ Mitiaation ln•Hand QtnA, In-Hand (1\ Q!A In-Hand 121 • ~ ermined TOTAL SOURCES 112,064 7,064 15,000 90,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 .. ~ """""" 11,11 A.M 5 -34 3rd Draft CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 • 2019 TRAN$_p_ORTATION IMPROVEMENT PRO_GRP,M Lake Washington Blvd N • Park Ave N to Gene Coulon Memorial Park Functional Classification: Collector Proj. Length: NIA Communihl Plannlna Area: Citv Center TIP No. 35 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 122121 CONTACT: James Wilhoil 425.430.7319 This project includes road widening, traffic signals, railroad crossings, drainage, curb, gutter, Project received a Railroad Crossing Safety grant in 2001 for the signal and gates on Lake sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Developer to design and construct improvements, and get credit toward Washington Blvd. Railroad grade crossing construction complete except for signal start- mitigation contribution. The developer is completing the project ·1n 3 phases. up requirements. Waiting for developer to continue their construction. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: This project will serve the development and access needs to Coulon Park and the Southport The costs shown below are for the estimated mitigation credit, per agreement with the Development. Agreement with developer to credit traffic mitigation towards the costs of certain developer. Project awaiting developer's schedule to continue construction. This project will improvements. be funded by the development of Southport. Funded: 2,464 083 Unfunded: I Prolect Totals Proarammed Pre-2014 Six-Year Program ITEM Proa rammed Spent Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2016 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannino 14,699 14 699 ~-l~~!l_c!fl EriOineerina B:Q-W {includes Admin) -Construction 2 024 621 373 821 51,000 1,600,000 800,000 800,000 Construction Services 408 429 -~29 3 400 400 000 200,000 200,000 Post Construction Services 15 934 15 934 TOTAL EXPENSES 2,464,083 409,683 54,400 2.000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: vehicle Fuel Tax 14490 14 490 Business License Fee 2 362 2 362 Proposed Fund Balance 9 376 8,826 550 - Grants In-Hand l1) 179 500 125,650 53,850 Grants In-Hand (2\ Mitioation In-Hand 256,353 256 353 -------Other <Develofl"r Exoenditure\ 2.000 000 2 000,000 1,000 000 1000000 Other ln-Handl2\ - ~termined - .a. TOTAL SOURCES 2 464 083 409 683 64.400 2 000 000 1 000,000 1,000,000 0 5 • 35 3rd Draft Lind Ave SW -SW 16th St to SW 43rd St Communitv Plannina Area: Vallev DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2014 -2019 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Proj. Length: 1.69 miles TIP No. 36 STATUS: Fund: 317 Proj: 120024 CONTACT: Bob Mahn 425.430.7322 Widen existing roadway to five lanes where required. Includes new roadway, curbs, sidewalks, drainage, The needs, priorittes and schedules for improvements on Lind Ave SW will be determined signals, lighting, signing and channelization. through Arterial Circulation studies. JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Increasing traffic demands in the Valley due in part to development will create the need for increasing the capacity of this major north/south arterial. A potential project is a signal installation at the intersection at Lind Ave SW and SW 34th St (currently unsignalized). Addttionally, improvements may result from future WSDOT 1-405 plans which include an interchange at Lind Ave SW (currently unfunded). I Funded: Unfunned : 13 500 000 Project Totals Programmed Pre-2014 Six-Year Pronram ITEM Proarammed Soant Pre-2013 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Plannina Preliminarv Enoineerina 480000 480000 250.000 230 000 R-0-W /includes Adminl -- .nnstruction 2 700,000 2 700.000 1,000 ODO 1 700,000 Construction Services 320,000 320,000 120 000 200000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 3,500.000 3,500,000 250.000 1,350,000 1,900,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business License Fee Prooosed Fund Balance - Grants In-Hand (1) Grants In-Hand 121 -- Mitiaation In-Hand other In-Hand (1) Otn-ln-Hand 121 = Unm1,,em,ined 3 500 000 3 500 000 250000 1 350 000 1 900 000 -TOTAL SOURCES 3 500 000 3 500 000 250 000 1.350 000 1 900 000 ~· ... ~· 11.11AM ... 5 • 36 3rd Draft SECTION SIX APPENDIX • Abbreviations & Acronyms • TIP Adopting Resolution 6-1 6-2 001012 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS The following list defmes the abbreviated words or acronyms used in the City of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan. ACP ADA BAT BNSF BRAC CBD CIP CMAQ CTR DOE EB ECL EIS ER FHWA FMSIB GIS GMA HOV ITS LF LID LOS METRO MOU MUTCD NCL NB PMS Precon PS&E ROW RTA SB SCATBd SCL SMA sov ST STP TDM Asphalt Concrete Pavement American Disability Act Business Access Transit Burlington Northern Santa Fe Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee Central Business District Capital Improvement Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Commute Trip Reduction (State Act) Department of Ecology Eastbound East City Limits Environmental Impact Study Emergency Relief Federal Highway Administration Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board Geographic Information System Growth Management Act High Occupancy Vehicles Intelligent Transportation System Linear Feet Local Improvement District Level of Service Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Memorandum of Understanding Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices North City Limits Northbound Pavement Management System Preconstruction Engineering/ Administration ( design phase of project) Plans, Specifications, and Estimates Right-of-way Regional Transit Authority Southbound South County Area Transportation Board South City Limits Structural Matrix Asphalt Single Occupant Vehicle Sound Transit Surface Transportation Program Transportation Demand Management Program 6 -1 001013 TEA-21 TIB TIP UPRR UPS WB WCL WSBIS WSDOT Transportation Efficiency Act Transportation Improvement Board Transportation Improvement Plan Union Pacific Railroad Uninterruptible Power Supple Westbound West City Limits Washington State Bridge Inventory System Washington State Department of Transportation H:\Division.s\TRANSPOR.TA1\PLANNINGVuliana\TIN014\Publish\ACRONYMS.D0C 001014 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. __ _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, UPDATING THE CITY'S SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2014-2019. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has heretofore adopted a "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program" pursuant to RCW 35.77.010, and the plan and program having been amended and modified from time to time as authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after recommendation of the Public Works Department, held a public hearing on June 24, 2013, after notice to the public as provided by law for the purpose of considering adoption, modification, and amendments of the plan and program; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on June 24, 2013, due consideration was given to the proposed changes and amendments for the purpose of updating the plan and program; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The City's "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program" and the City's "Arterial Street Plan" are hereby further amended and modified, all as more particularly shown on the attached Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION Ill. The plan and program, as evidenced by said Exhibits, shall be and constitute the City's "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program" and the City's "Arterial Street Plan", and shall remain in full force and effect until further revised, amended, and modified as provided by law. 1 001015 RESOLUTION NO. __ _ SECTION IV. The Administrator of the Public Works Department and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to file this Resolution, together with the Exhibits, with the Director of Highways for the State of Washington and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this __ day of ______ ....., 2013. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this __ day of _______ _, 2013. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.1601:5/10/13:scr 2 001016 // --CITY OF RENTON June 5, 2014 JUN O 5 2014 RECEIVED City of Renton Attn: City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE · REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom ItMay Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project # LUA14-000241, ECF, PP, dated May 19, 2014. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/or applicant~in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. -·------- Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safety, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments on the Enclave at Bridle Ridge application (Exhibit A) as well as a previous Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination for this project (Exhibit B), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE S"' Place/ 156"' A VE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as is required under SEP A, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe I have the required standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration. 1 001017 -- Until such an analysis is completed and made available for public review as part of a public SEPA review process, it is impossible to know whether the project will result in a traffic condition that meets level of service or adequate provision standards necessary to allow for plat approval by the City. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the May 19"', 2014 Threshold Determination for this project, and require that the applicant prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely Level of Service impacts of the proposed new signal on the two new access streets, as well as on SE S"' Place. • Once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, reconsider the SEP A Threshold Determination for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination .. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SE s"' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 List of Exhibits: List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -R. Paulsen Comment Letter Exhibit B -Request for Reconsideration (April 16"') Exhibit C -Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit D -Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Exhibit E -Ronald Mar Letter Exhibit F -C.E. Vincent Letter Exhibit G -ERC Meeting Summary 3 001018 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT A SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @ Jding@rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should 'include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142"d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142"d that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156thnorth of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress tum from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142"'\ and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to I 56th even more difficult. 001019 EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also ve~ concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand tum (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the l 56th/ I 42"d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the I 56'h/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City ofRenton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and .are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 001020 EXHIBIT A Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed Jot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular Jot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed Jot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-0 I I. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City ( see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March z4th deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April zznd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22"\ but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22"d to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this Jetter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 001021 EXIDBITA If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 001022 April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EXHIBIT B REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.110(E)(2) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.l 10(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all available administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/ or applicant --all in the spirit of the City of Renton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City of Renton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this infonnation for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the fonnat of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this country is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5"' Place/ 156"' AVE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am I 001023 reguesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as required under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my personal safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the reguired standing to bring this Reguest for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Determination. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Determination upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traff ex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: 'The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City ef&nton Policy Guidelines far Traffic Impact Analysis far New Development''. By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately inform itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present and consider both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 001024 It is a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did fil1! provide the minimum information and analysis required by the City ofRenton's own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Determination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second concern also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: 'The Traffic Impact Ana/ysir (Exhibit 10) also includes a Level ef Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vidnz!J ... " This report goes on to conclude that: " ... the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) with the exception of the southbound approach lo the 156" Avenue SE/ SE 142"d Place intersection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intersections other than the 156"'/ 142"" Place intersection. The.y did not. In fact, the 156"' Ave SE/ 142nd intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant. Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SE 5"' Place), the ERC did not require additional information from the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour Gust 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17"'), the analysis completely failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156"' at SE S"' Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Tbreshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156 .. , but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may " ... impose left turn restrictions at that intersection." (See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy" identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Level of Service issue that is likely to be exacerbated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"' / 142"" intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy" will 3 001025 force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156"' / SE 5"' PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156"' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156"', the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected as part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation This concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that we11! identified by the study. Io their Threshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: "It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantjy adversejy impact (sic) the City ofRcnton '.r smet system suiject to the pqyment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156"'/ 142"" intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (RCW 58.17 & the Growth Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the time of project approval. In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156" / 142"d or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concern #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is "cumntjy assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) ... ''. This confirms that work is on-going at this time (April 15"') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 001026 This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. 1bis constitutes an error on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir From: Sent: To: Cc: Subjec.t: Attaclunents: Stove Lee Tuesday, April 1S, 201411:14 AM CrtyClert Reccrds Jan Dfian; Jill Ding; Neil R. Watts; Jennffer T. Henning; Rohini Nair RE: New Public Reo:>n!s Request-PRR-14-085 [Paulsen) TranspoConcPolicyl40415.pdf Stt attached files 1hat are related documentation on the City pr.;;forcollc,m:ency, standards and pmcess relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. I believe this Is the information Mr. Paulsen is seekl';;g: The information, as extracted from the appmved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the Qty administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurreacy can be a combination of lmpro,ements or strategies in place at the-time of building permit issuance~ or within a reasonable amount of time after builtling issuance. per 4-6-070 A.1, or a financial commitment Is placed. A financial comm~ment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid fot the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throll!lhOut the City. Our Transport.rtfon Division is the technical review authority and ~ currently assessing any improvements are warr•nted (if any) (ord. 5675, U-3-20U). The Transportation Oivist'On has currently providecl some direction as to an initial response wirh 1he ratement, "Within the Cit\' of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to pro.id, additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the Stat• is pur,uing) to provide more traffic apacity could attract some tnlffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road.• Thank>. ·Steve Lee, PE, MS, CESCl City of Renton Dev. fngineering Manager ~2S.430.7299 sley@rentonwa.gov Concern #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern, such as the transportation concerns I have raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public eog,igement in the environmental (SEP A) review of this project. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Heating on April 22"". Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 001027 until April 22"'\ the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEP A review and determination, will have passed. (see Exhibit E "Notice of Application ... ") As a result, the record now shows that only two public comment letters were received prior to the 'Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22•', and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEP A determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again 1 to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of this Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P .M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE 5"' Place and 156"' Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156"' • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. Thank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's 'Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administrative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, Roger A Paulsen 6617 SES"' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 001028 List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -SEP A Determination Comment Letter Exhibit B -Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit C -Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D -Environmental Review Committee Report Exhibit E -Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated 7 001029 EXHIBIT C ----------1'HE DfCLAVE A.T BRIDLE RIOCE )()()(-)000( EXHIBIT D THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ADDENDUM TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36 111 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by l!i!!!Ex TRAP-FIG E"XPE:RTS 11410 NE 124111 St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 29, 2014 001031 TraFF/g;x April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW HoldinJJs, LLC. 9675 SE 36 St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: NO!?THWEBT TRArF7C EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St #590 Kirlqalld. \llA 98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional analisis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 h Pl/1561 h Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the original TIA unless otherwise noted. The analysis is summarized as follows: • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142nd Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and wilf continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANAL YS/S AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/1561h Ave SE and 142nd Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 001032 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge queues were observed to back up from the 142"d Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection to SE 5th Pl. in the AM peak hour. The longest queue observed was 9 vehicles. Table 1 shows the calculated level of service at the study intersections for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 1 AM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5'" Pl/ 1561h Ave SE WB(C15.1) WB (C 15.8) WB (C 16.1) North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (C 16.4) South Site Access / NA 156th Ave. SE. NA WB (C 17.0) SE 142"0 Pl/ Overall (F 53. 7) Overall (F 71.4) Overall (F 72.5) 1561h Ave SE Number shown is the average delay in seconds per vehicle which defines the LOS per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual For a side street, stop controlled intersection (i.e. SE s'" Pl./156"' Ave SE) LOS is the average vehicle delay for the worst movement (the side street approach) For an all-way stop controlled intersection (SE 142"d/156"' Ave. SE) the LOS is the average vehicle delay for all movements (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page2 001033 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traff@:.{ PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS PM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/1561h Ave SE and 142°d Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 4 to 6 PM. The peak hour occurred from 4:15 to 5:15 PM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix . . Figure 2 shows the PM peak hour volumes for all four study intersections for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. There were four queues observed that backed up from the 142"d Pl. SE/SE 1561h intersection to SE 5th PI. in the 4 to 6 PM time period. Left turns out of SE 5th Pl. were blocked for a total cumulative time of 9 minutes and 21 seconds. Right turns out of SE 5th Pl. were unproblematic. Table 2 shows the calculated level of service for existing conditions and future conditions with and without the project. The level of service calculations are attached in the technical appendix. TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT SE 5m Pl/ WB (C 15.4) WB (C 16.3) WB (C 16.6) 155th Ave SE North Site Access I NA 156th Ave. SE. NA WB (C 15.2) South Site Access / NA 156th Ave. SE. NA WB (B 13.3) SE 142°0 Pl/ Overall (F 66.4) Overall (F 89.9) Overall (F 92.3) 156th Ave SE (X XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page3 001034 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future conditions except for the 1561h Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. intersection. That intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. Figures 1 and 2 shows the number and percentage of project generated trips passing through each of the study intersections. The percentage of project trips range from a high of 2.23% at the north site access intersection to a low of 0.65 % at the 142nd Pl. SE/1561h Ave SE intersection. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development the study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes. Page4 001035 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH!l!J.y SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The additional information collected for this addendum and resulting analysis supports the conclusions and recommendations of the original TIA. We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 1561h Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page5 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 001036 EXHIBIT E J PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Issue: M E M O R A N o· U M May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes; Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Transpo.rtation Operations Proposed Signal, Southeast 142"d Place at 156th Avenue Southeast Should we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne of cmbayne@gmall.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersection ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast for signal warrants according to Section 4C of the Ma1wal of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4C-1 from the Manual of .Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C'4 from the Manual of Uniform · Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 1561h Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two involved vehicles run off the road to avoid hitting a deer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"d Place and 156th Ave,nue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents. h:\divlsion.s\transpor.tat\operat!o\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc 001037 1- Denis Law Maybr May 22,2014 Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place Renton, WA 98059 · EXHl'!!-T _t:_~ .-lll!C!!l!'ity~of~,,.---. -. --' r -:.-JUll-------,; c·;-,,..r;· ',''-'i ~: i t, .. _ \ &.11'''' i : . ' ·.;,i ·,,:. ··ri .· .. ; l ,., .. ~<. =....... .....,,;;;,,,; . , ' .,#' ,, ~ '&'W\ , Community & Economic Development Department CE. 'Chip"Vincent, Administrator RE: . Enclave at Bridle Ridge Pr~liminary Plat/ LUA14-000241, PP, ECF Dea.r Mr. Paulsen: As part of the review of your Request for Reconsideration,_the City conducted an independent study of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. The study concluded that the 1S6'' Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection warrants the installation of a traffic signal. The City has added and is prioritizing the installation of a traffic signal at this lo.cation to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Although it has been determined that the additional traffic anticipated through the development of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat would not significantly impact the existing traffic situation at the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Place intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the . developer to pay their fair share for the installation of the traffic signal as an additioQal · mitigation measure through SEPA. It is not anticipated .that the installation of the traffic signal would occur as a part of this project, but would occur at a later date as additional funding · . becomes available. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Jill Ding, Project Manager, at (425) 430"6598 or via email at iding@rentonwa.gov. · Sincere.ly, ,. / C <z. V......__. " ___ ·:J C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator Attachments cc: ERC ~embers Bonnie Walton, City Oerk Justin Lagers, Applicarlt Sally_ LoU Niper, Ownl!!r . G. Richard Ouimet, Owner Parties of R@cord Renton 0ty Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law· . M_ayor May 19, 2014 · .. . . . .. Roger Paulsen · · .6617 SE 5th place .... Renton, WA 98059 EXHIB4!i~~ .. ~~~ ~ J t, C: . ·c; t ""-!~Ill'· Community & Economic Development Department · ' · · · · C.E, 'Chip'Viricent, Adminisrr;,tor. . Subject~ . RESPONSETO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION . . . Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ 1.UA14-00024:l, PP, ECF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · Dear Mr. Paulsen: The Environmental Revi.ew Committee (ERC). held a meeting-on May 19, 20H to consider· .. your Request for Reconsiderati.on, submrtted AptH 16, 7014: Plea~e find auach~d to this letter a copy of the dt:tislon of y<;i~r'Request for Reconsideration signed bythe members of the ERC includingonenewSEPA mitigation me.isure: . . . . rtvou have apy questions, please cdntact ~tie project manager, Jill Ding; at (42s1430:6s9s ... ·. or via email atjding@rentonwa.gov. . . . . . . . .. . · S)ncer.ely, .· . . .·-· .· .. ~ . . ' --j::)~er;J1mmfJ!/r/ 0--- . Gregg Zimmerman · · · · · En.vironmental Review Committee, Chair. cc: ·s~hnl~ willt_~-n~. Oty·cie~k . iustjn 1..;,gers/ Applicant ·· 5ally Lou Nipert / Owner G. Richard Oulrriet/Owrier : Parties .of Recor.d · ·. Renton Oty Hall • 1055South \'.ii.dyWw; Renton,Washjngton 98057 • r~ntonwa.gov · · 001039 · · . '· . . .. I I ' .I I I 1 i ·l I i ! ... ) I I ! I i i ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: FROM: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Jill Ding, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14--000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). ___ ,..,.., a· , ·' -•· The DNSeMwas-pubJished on;AptW4;'20l:4.With an appeal peti<,11 that ended on ~~-:-c.;,.,:c,· . .o , 2014. A request for reconsideration of-the SEPA determination was received"oh"A)iri1·17, •· ·--·· 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERCforthe issuance of the $EPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. After conducting the additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has revjewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h:\ced\planning\cum:at planning\projects\!4-000Z41.jill\erc reconsidaation recommendation memo.dot.doeo< 001040 . -,_, .. · .... ;-.. Environmental Review Co. .rttee Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2014 ·.-.. · __ .............. --- project would not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. Wrth the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP}, therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation Fat the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS} Analysis for the 156th . ,.i,W,._A""JI.ZetfJisrisE 142~if-Str~~F~t~rsectiof'i; it cll"ifnci"f \"~fiuci'ea\o:s an~~s{or,th!!"'"" e - ~:,., ... ~---.,~;,,-..:,·----~·-'··th·· ........... ~---4 ~--"~th--r.,:.,.-.a·.~-• .. ··--, ........ , ..... ;···"· .,~; ~.-.. ,.1 ., .. ~ 156 Avenue SE/SE 5 Place intersection. Staff Comment: Item# 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in· peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development". The proposed development would not res·utt in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156"' Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. Tlierefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would result in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h:\ccd'{,!anning\cumnt planningl,)roject.s\14-000241.jill\orc =onsideration recommeodll!ion mcmo.dotdocx 001041 Environmental Review Co4,..J.illttee Page 3 of 4 May 19, 2014 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff con dudes that no further traffic mitigation is warranted for the subject project. 3. Public notice for the proposed-subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice is not misleading as anyone receiving the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the -,.~L;.;:---~, --~ r -,'!,... • ,:-,•.-• • ~ ~-::-•. :.'\ I'~••• • ~--:.,.-.,....,-,,.~~. ·::,_ ~-.• :: ~ ,,.,.-., -.--existing DStf-Mwith on·e "new mitigation measure as follows: . --.. . ----• .; •• --"<• , 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW {dated February 5, 2014). 2. Due to.the existing Level of Service (LOS} designation of Fat the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,43S (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips= 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435} shall be paid prior to the recording ofthe final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425} 430-6510. h:\ced\,>lanninglcumnt plamring\projects\ 14-00024 J .jill\erc reconsideration r==dation memo. dot docx 001042 Environmental Review Cs aittee Page4 of4 May 19,2014 ··------_ .... -..... . Date of decision: May 19, 2014 Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department --·----·. Date signatures; C.E. "Chip»'vincent, Administra or . Department of Community & Economic Development h:\ced\planninglcurrent planning\projc:CIS\14--000241.jill\erc roconsideration recommendation.memo.dot.docx Date 001043 Denis Law ,-· f City oLc, . _ _:May:..or -------1te1.r!DJJ June 9, 2014 Mr. Roger A. Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Place . · · Renton, WA 98059 Re: Enclave at Bridal Ridge; LUA-14-0241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Paulsen: Oty Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Regarding the referenced land use application, the City Environmental Review Committee issued a response to your Aprff16th Request for Reconsideration on May 19, 2014. On Friday, June s'h, you personally filed the following in this office: . ------- 1) · A letter dated June 5, 2014, withdrawing the pending appeal dated April l~was being held pending the outcome of the Response to Request for Reconsideration, Your check #9443 for the appeal fee was returned to you. 2) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014, serving as a new Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental Determination. 3) A letter with attachments dated June 5, 2014, serving as a new Appeal document, accompanied by your check #9490 for the $250 appeal fee. After review it has been determined that there is no option or availability at this time for another request for reconsideration of this matter. The Response to the Request for Reconsideration dated May 19th. clearly sets forth the option for appeal, however there is no option at this point for request for reconsideration. Therefore it is necessary that the Request for Reconsideration filing dated June 5, 2014, be considered invalid and will be marked void. The appeal process, however, will now go forward based on the appeal document you· submitted J.une s; 2014, The receipt for the appeal fee is enclosed. Our appeal notification will be coming to you by separate letter soon. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk Cc: Gregg Zimmerman, ERC Committee Chair Jennifer Henning, Planning Director 001044 1055 South Grady way • Renton. Washington 98057 • (425) 43o-651 O / Fax (425) 43o-6516 • rentonwa.gov E:i:. (3 CARE Co"°'W\Mi,Y Allia~ce to Reacl-i. Dv..t & E~9a9e P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examine City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98057 June 24, 2014 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@hotmait.eom RE: The Enclave,at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat -LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Olbrechts, This copy of my notes is provided for easy reference in the record. We offer a few attached exhibits as well to which I will refer in my remarks. Thank you, Gwendolyn High CARE President CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -LUA14-000241 001045 CARE CoV\,\MLA.Y\iiy Alli~Y\ce to R.e~ch DLA.t ~ t;Y\9~9e P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 206.888.7152 highlands_neighbors@tlotmail.com Gwendolyn High will represent CARE in this matter. She is co-founder and President of CARE and has led CAR E's previous participation in these comparable Land Use Actions in the community: Evendell Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC ODES file No. L01P0016 and L01TY401) Liberty Grove Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC ODES file No. L03P0006/L03TY403) Liberty Grove Contiguous Preliminary Plat and Rezone (KC ODES file No. L03P0005/L03TY401) Nichols Place Preliminary Plat (KC ODES file No. L03P0015) Highlands Park Preliminary Plat (Renton LUA -05-124, PP, ECF) Threadgill Preliminary Plat (KC DOES file No. L05P0026) Heritage Preliminary Plat (KC DOES file No. L07P0009) Cavalla (KC DOES file No. L06P0001 and Renton LUA08-097) Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (KC DOES file No. L04P0034 and Renton LUA08-093) Heritage (KC ODES file No. L07P0009) Saddlebrook (Renton LUA 12-077) CARE has represented the needs and concerns of the East Plateau residents since 2001, as a group of concerned and likeminded neighbors. We incorporated and were recognized as a 501c4 nonprofit in 2003. We have an email list of over 400 households. CARE households own properties and reside in the community surrounding the proposed project. There is considerable potential for this community and the environment to be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is permitted without adequate conditions to mitigate increased traffic, light and stormwater. CARE's participation in this matter is in the public interest. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible land use decisions in this community consistent with state and local laws and regulations. We bring historical experience and familiarity with the existing conditions of our community as well as the detailed understanding of the potential negative impacts that must be adequately mitigated. Our intent is to facilitate the appropriately thorough consideration of the facts that bear on this proposal. This document is not a formal legal argument, but documents the concerns of the community and our requests for adequate mitigations to properly accommodate the impacts from the construction and eventual occupation of the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge subdivision (Enclave). GENERAL ERRORS: Staffs Report to the Hearing Examiner page 3: "E.1.b. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 156th Avenue SE. • Contradicted on p.12 of same report. "E.1.c. Surface/Storm Water:: There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 156th Avenue SE to the north of the project." Pipe is to the south of the project and an open ditch is to the north. TRANSPORTATION: TraffEx TIA page 3: ·15ef' Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions." CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -LUA14-000241 001046 This is a true statement, but it is insufficient to fully describe the situation. SE 142nd PL is not straight at this location and has terrible sight distance. When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 1561h Ave SE, any vehicle waiting to turn either right or left from SE 142 PL onto 1561 " AVE SE will not be able to see. This will be particularly dangerous when vehicles is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project. The driver will be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of the stop sign and the southbound car, and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street. In a scenario with a southbound vehicle turning left into the project, the driver will be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation. If the tractor trailer truck that lives at parcel# 5336700015 is parked where is usually is -the driver will see that truck and very little else. Please see the accompanying Sightlinelllustration.pdf. TraffEx TIA page 4: "A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years." There is no citation to support these assumptions, we therefore ask that the following questions be answered and considered in evaluating the reliability of these unsupported assertions. • Where did this data come from and by what standard is it justified? • How havjl the pipeline projects being built and occupied now been accounted in the analysis?? • How have past and proposed cuts in transit service accounted in the analysis? • How have the effects of the improving economy, and the resulting increase in people commuting to work accounted in the analysis? • Did TraffEx regularly measure the traffic rates over "the last several years" in order to be have this data available for this TIA? ROAD STANDARDS: Report to Hearing Examiner page 10 under Streets section: "As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet." TraffEx TIA page 4 and on to 5: "The south site access is located approximately 250ft north of the 156" Ave. SE/SE 142"" Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard." The southbound stop sign and crosswalk for this intersection is located about at the center point of parcel# 5336700015 which is approximately 70 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site. Figure 2 of the TIA shows that the stormwater tract is proposed to be 95.24 feet wide and Lot 19 is proposed to be 94.59 feet. This yields a measure of 189.86 feet north of the southern boundary of the Enclave site as the proposed location for the south access to 1561" Ave SE. 189.86-70 yields a measure of 119.86 feet which fails to meet the intersection distance standard of 125 feet. Please see the accompanying 156thAveSElntersectionLocation.pdf. Therefore, we request that the street access as proposed be rejected. The original Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit_B_-_ Traffic_lmpact_Analysis.pdf) states (bottom of page 2) that 156th Ave. SE is a "minor arterial". Based on the traffic volumes Renton reported as a result of the citizen recommendation to investigate the need for signalization earlier this year (and which Roger Paulsen graphed) the road segment including this intersection should be classified as at least a minor arterial (12K Average Daily Trips). The table in the code indicates a need for 4 lanes and 91' of pavement to properly accommodate such such levels of use. If the project is permitted as proposed, there is no indication that sufficient right of way will be required to accommodate the eventually required upgrades -particularly considering this is officially designated as a bypass corridor in need of arterial improvements in the attached WADOT 1405 Corridor Plan ( 1405 MasterP\an _ 052808. pdf). Report to Hearing Examiner Page 9 under Streets: "The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements." Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Public Services: No comment recorded from Fire Department re: cul-de-sac. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 001047 There is no evidence in the Exhibits made available to the public that the cul-<le-sac meets the specified standards. Therefore, we request that the street plan as proposed be rejected. Report to Hearing Examiner Page 10 under Schools: "Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 m17e from the project site at 156" Avenue SE & SE s" Place. The proposed project includes the installation offrontage improvements along the 156" Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 156" Avenue SE north of the project along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide safe walking conditions (exhibit 25) ... Continuing on Page 11: The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 156" Avenue SE at SE s" Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 156" Avenue SE and board the bus. New sidewalk from this project will only extend less than halfway to SE 5'" PL. The crosswalk sign is obscured by vegetation. Kids will walk along this arterial, in the dark and rain, in the shoulder ROW, and cross before the bus arrives in order to be there waiting when the bus arrives. Without a lighting plan the public has no way to evaluate what lighting improvements will be made. There should be some improvements to the crosswalk, such as the flashing lights in the pavement on the nearby Duvall Ave SE which is also and arterial on the same 1405 Corridor bypass route, to ensure students' safety under normal conditions during most of the school year. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS: Carlos e-mail.pdf From: Nancy Thompson <Nthompson@rentonwa.gov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast To: "cmbayne@gmail.com" <cmbayne@gma1J.com> Cc: Chris Barnes <CBarnes@rentonwa.gov>, Ron Mar <Rmar@rentonwa.gov> Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic volumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. From the MEMORANDUM 014/18/2014 from Neil Watts (PRR-14-085-Memo.doc): "Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat." 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program page 5-25 (TIP sheet.pdf): "[h]istorically, on average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed every 2 years. It is our understanding that funds from the developer for the project's impact must be used for that purpose within 6 years or returned to the developer. Since the available evidence indicates the signalization cannot be expected within that time limitation, we must expect the mitigation funds to be forfeit and an even longer wail than the 18 years as a result of this loss of funds. This project should not be approved until a plan for the required intersection improvements are programmed -planned and funded. From 4/15/14 email from Steve Lee responding to Roger's Records Request (Public Records Request_ 1_Reply.pdf): CARE "The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1- 405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SEto access Cemetery Road.• The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -LUA14-D00241 001048 These statements contradict everything we have ever heard since 2001. We have been assured by WA DOT, King County, and the City of Renton that there is no option to provide additional north-south access to the East Plateau from the Cedar River Valley. Additionally, while widening of 1405 might add capacity, we are not aware of any even preliminary plans for such activity. If such work has been done, please provide copies. If it does not exist, then this is irrelevant speculation and of no use in evaluation the impacts of this project or the appropriate mitigations/improvements for this corridor. What is not speculation is all the other development activity in the area. • The Enclave project at the 3 Way stop, Hearing on Tuesday, will add 31 houses. • Alpine Estates (Alpine Nursery) is in pre-app for 29 Jots (which requires two access/exit roads. It lies between 160th Ave SE and 161st Ave SE). • The 4.5 acres on the west side of 156th at SE 6th (SE 139th Place) is in annexation (the plan is for 14 lots with a through street between 154th Ave SE to 1561 ' Ave SE.) They tried to include the 5 acres on the west side of 154th in their annexation also, but could not get the required 60% signatures. • The Bumstead Co. is putting 14 homes, Maplewood Park East, on the parcel at 6101 NE 2ND ST (SE 132nd and~152nd Ave S). • The parael at Nile (148th Ave SE) and NE 2nd St. (SE 132nd) is slated for 7 lots. • There is also an 8 lot parcel in pre-app on the east side of 160th Ave SE at SE 1401 ' St. • There is 2 lot short plat at 156th Ave SE and SE136th St. • There are 46 homes planned for the Copperwood project which is slightly southwest of Maplewood Heights Elementary. The listed address for the project is 5001 SE 2nd Pl. The project sign is on. SE 2nd Pl just west of where it intersects 144th Ave SE • And there are 4 plats being actively developed at 210 Duvall Ave SE 31 + 29 + 14 + 14 + 7 + 8 + 2 + 46 + 4=155 The Highway manual standard is to calculate 9.9 vehicle trips per day per house so: 155 x 9.9 = 1534.5 new trips per day. Most will travel some portion of the 156th Ave SE corridor, but each project will be considered independently. The cumulative impact will continue to accrue, and the infrastructure deficit will remain for decades. Virtually all of this traffic will traverse the corridor from the intersection of 154th Ave SE & SE142 Pl (the first intersection at the top of the hill -Tom Carpenter has more detailed information, and there is an email from a neighbor at the end of this document) through the 156'" Ave SE and SE 142"' Pl all the way through the intersection of 156" Ave SE and SE 128'" St. The proposed new connections to SE 1561" Ave SE from this project are at the heart of this vital regional corridor. The travelshed is already over-burdened. We are in the midst of a new development surge. This quality of life in this community and safety of thousands of daily commuters in this corridor new, and It is the City of Ren ton's responsibility to provide infrastructure to meet the needs of the development it permits. STORMWATER/DRAINAGE: Report to Hearing Examiner page 11 under Public Services at the bottom of the page: "The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners association of the maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development." Despite the garbled sentence structure, it seems clear the intent is for the HOA to be responsible for maintenance of the pond and stormwater system. It was our understanding that the code had changed and Renton was taking ownership of all new subdivision stormwater facilities now. CARE The E'.nclave at Bridle Ridge~ LUA14-000241 001049 ERC Report page 5: "According lo the TIR (Exhibit 9}the upstream areas are densely vegetated and any flows entering the project site would be negligible.• Even though this community is on a plateau and not in any flood plane, there are historical drainage complaints everywhere (Drainage Complaints). Even this project site itself has experienced flooding due to a plugged culvert as recently as 1997. The site is directly north of the major groundwater induced landslide in 2006 that blew out the side of the cliff above the Cedar River and filled several houses with mud and debris. The vast majority of development on th is plateau occurred in the 1960s, well before the first King County Drainage Manual (the basis of Renton's stormwater regulations) were adopted in 1964. It will take many more decades to slowly address the systemic lack conveyance and water quality. The system that exists is poorly maintained and chronically undersized. Our homes exist is a state of fragile equilibrium. Every new development pushes the system CARE has the longest and most consistent participation in land use applications and project implementation in this area. In every single project we have participated in (see list above) we have won Level Ill drainage mitigations. Nonetheless, these measures have consistently proved insufficient. We have had to participate repeatedly when these mitigations have failed and neighbors downstream of thOse projects have suffered serious damages to their homes and properties (list drainage complaints and list properties affected by the different projects). Due to our highly compacted Alderwood soils, surface flows are intense to begin with. Since the major wave of development in the 1960s, existing homeowners have implemented site-specific mitigations to deal with this situation, but every time a new project is cleared, new measures have to be installed. Level Ill drainage mitigations should be required here, too. LANDSCAPINGfTREE RETENTION: Report to Hearing Examiner page 6: Proposal to plant Heavenly Bamboo, which is an invasive species with berries poisonous to native birds and should not be used in a plat landscaping plan. • ·'-· i'EO k.1'c .. , .,, (Heavenly bamboo .htm) RCP Policy CD-17 (page 7 of Report to Hearing Examiner) "Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density." But on page 8 of the Report to Hearing Examiner, staff say that installation of the required 15 foot landscaping buffer around the storm drainage pond could not be done because it would cause the loss of at least one lot, even though the project is proposed at 4.45 lots per acre when it is zoned at R-4. In the next paragraph, staff removes the specific requirement of trees in the on-site landscape strips along all frontages. Not only is there no justification for this, and it violates RCP Policy CD-15. In repeated surveys of our community, the trees are the consistently reported as the defining characteristic of our community. We are already losing over 300 significant trees in this project. We ask that this exemption be disapproved for this project. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: To the condition requiring a tree protection easement under section J.5, please add a requirement for prominent and permanent signage announcing the protection of the trees in order to prevent accidental homeowner or HOA removal. CARE The Enclave at Bridle R.idge -LUA14-000241 001050 MISSING DATA: This Hearing is the last opportunity for the public to participate and to ensure that adequate administratively and legally enforceable mitigations are required of and implemented with this project. Staff has allowed several documents essential for the surrounding impacted community to evaluate the effects of the proposed project to be prepared and submitted after this Hearing is concluded. This makes it impossible for meaningful community input on the following: I. Report to Hearing Examiner page 8: City of Renton Arborists report promised 2. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Landscaping Plan 3. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Retention Plan 4. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Tree Protection Easement 5. Report to Hearing Examiner page 12: Street lighting plan 6. Report to Hearing Examiner page 13: HOA maintenance agreement If items 1-4 are not required until application for construction permits, the trees will have already have been removed during the development/site preparation phase of the project and the issues becomes moot. The trees in our community have been consistently and enthusiastically identified in every single one of the land use actions CARE has participated in since 2001. Without item 5, the public cannot evaluate the adequacy of the protections for school children walking to the bus stop on 156th Ave SE or the potential impact to the privacy and enjoyment of their properties. Community members on SE 4'" Place had a months' long challenge of emails and meetings with the City and Puget Sound Energy when new lighting meeting the new standards was installed just 2 streets away. The new lighting was a huge disruption, and we need to ensure the new development does not make sleep at night impossible. A statement from an affected neighbor is included at the end of this document. Renton has a responsibility under RCP Policy CD-15 to ensure that this project is "reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architechtural stypes, and/or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation," etc. We understand that new development will be more dense and the housing styles will be different. Further, we appreciate to beginnings of plans for the tree easements. However, we have repeatedly heard lovely aspirational allusions to responsive development during past preliminary plat Hearings, only to see radically different realities built in our neighborhoods. Cavalla was supposed to save and replant giant specimen rhodies and japanese maples. That didn't happen. There was supposed to be no road in the 162"" Ave SE ROW, but the bulldozers plowed right through -stream and all. The only things we have a hope of actually seeing must be conditions by reference in the Hearing Examiner's report for this project. Given the intense concern about and established history of drainage issues resulting from development projects in the area, the community needs the opportunity to review the "maintenance and responsibility" for the "stormwater facilities" that the HOA will voluntarily take on to ensure adequate measures are in place to prevent off-site damage. We cannot do that without item 6. CARE The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -LUA 14-000241 001051 COMMUNITY COMMENTS: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:47:46 --0700 Subject: Re: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda From: m.rollinger@comcast.net To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com You can also add that nobody goes the speed limit up/down our hill. Ever. Well, unless it's crawling that is. -One neighbor requested "a light" outside of their home (date unknown and I believe the request was directly to PSE) -Nobody, including the requester, was notified before PSE installed 4 extra large cobra head led street lights (large roadway type) on our tiny cul-de-sac (7 houses deep) on -Residents had light pollution/trespass everywhere; in backyards, bedrooms, etc. -City was notified with a list of the issues they caused on 7122/13 -Didn't hear back from the city on the initial email sent until 7/26/13 (after emailing them again) -Petition emailed (with pies) on 7130/13 with one signature missing due to him being gone on vacation -Completed petition hand_ delivered 8/5/13 along with a chat with Mr. Barnes at City Hall -The issues weren't resolved until »1 , , , , v For two months, the residents on SE 4th Place had to deal with overly bright LED lights that were completely inappropriate to the neighborhood. This disrupted people's sleep, made yard use unpleasant and in some cases was a safety hazard (blinded while backing out of garages). Neighborhoods should have a choice/say in the types of lighting used and a study of existing neighborhood houses should be considered. Lighting should also be appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood with minimal light pollution to disrupt the natural world. Marsha Roi linger From: johnson.k.b@hotmail.com To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: FCUAC Meeting Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11 :08:14 -0700 CARE Gwendolyn: I live at 14506 152 PL SE and regularly come up from the Maple Valley Highway to access my home. That involves a left turn at 154th Ave SE and SE 142 PL. It is a challenging enough intersection with limited sight visibility, no left turn lane, and long waits during commute hours. Under existing conditions, the traffic can back up already from the 3 way stop. Frustrated drivers finally decide to go for the left after long waits for breaks in traffic. Unfortunately, I've seen too many oncoming cars slam on their brakes because the left turner didn't really have a big enough break to pass through easily. The Enclave development will increase congestion at our left turn and make more drivers make a left tum into a too- small traffic opening. As the development increases in the East Highlands around Maplewood Heights Elementary, we are seeing an increasing number of people who are making that left turn to access their homes. The increased traffic from the Enclave and its odd street layout will complicate the 3 way stop traffic, increase the number of cars, and back that traffic problem back to our already dicey left turn. I realize that the Enclave development will go through even though I question the wisdom of having its two streets funnel out so close to the 3-way stop. Seems like it is almost making it into a 5-way intersection. But I doubt the County has the appetite to force the builder to change his site plan. For us left turners, a left turn lane would provide some welcome mitigation and straightening out the curve -even just a little -would give more visibility and help safety tremendously. Not sure you can do anything with this but thanks for trying. Kathy Johnson The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-LUA14-000241 001052 From: johnnanney@hotmail.com To: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Subject: RE: CARE Update: 1000+ new trips, Wild Babies, and Meeting Monday Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 08:39:25 -0700 CARE Gwendolyn, The 111 bus line which goes out to Lake Kathleen is scheduled to be truncated in September to not go east of 156th but rather to leave Maplewood and go directly up 156th st. This would only happen during the morning· and afternoon commute hours as there is no service other times. That will be another major disruptive factor to the 156th st corridor. In addition to the bus traffic along 156th, there will be the bus commuters who will drive and try to park along the bus route to connect to the new stops. This will impact the residents along this path plus adding the congestion. An example of this type of "staging" for the bus line is in Kennydale where the entire area is parked up along the 111 route as it heads to the Park and Ride. It adds a lot of congestion at the worst time of the day for it. Not to mention making a number of us no longer have a commuter bus to downtown on weekdays. It also will affect the kids at Liberty who need the bus to get to the Running Start program at Bellevue College whereby they take college classes for both high school and college credits during their high school years . • One of my points was that with the bus stopping all along 156th ..... traffic would be disrupted greatly at the worst time of day at a point where many trips are being added. The parking mess is true all along the Kennydale section of the 111 with people driving to park at bus stops instead of the P&R. John Nanney 16921 SE 144th St Renton, WA 98059 425-830-6525 Alyssa Nanney 16169 SE 146th Pl Renton, WA 98059 425-226-4726 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge. LUA14-000241 001053 Cl Cl ,.II, ~ ct. ~ ~ -..c:<:>T,1 !;;l ~ » ;, " R "' :,. ii; i'l "' r J P1 !_~1 ... J -< ,., ' UI " ~. ~ ~ ;;. ts,(:1§":Mf.","'; " r ,, ~ r ~ n 7 "' 3:: ~ Drainage Complaints -.c 7T11 :~T ,., • n' '.] "' -· r~f.: h;I-' S'," '1!: !iT•1 ;1T ,. " ·C i--' '•F :.-1,1 Io! .. • " ~ '·! • '' • o' ., " ;(. t.JI;: .. rH '.:;.I ,., " , . " ! '!L-'T.•I ::-_ \ J .. -~-- :.~ ·1· \) w ~~1·· r.'1 ·-~· -· _ c~ ,./\ ."1 /i-I.JaE"u1nPl 1 <· ·1 ·----::-J,,. ~-::::=:.::;,i 6 ~ l,,:;t " ~ .,. ,. 3 ·-1 •• , )-'l::: "'- NC.2"l<J: •.:T ,., ~ ,, ~ "' ~ -;: ' rs 1 1· ,/~ ~~· j · ¥1~~,v 11 ',;1 ~ ;<· ·~ L J' " . i::J '"' L.. ~ .: ,.,. !X 1.1 ~-·-· G~ ti t•r-t• uoi-t· [ . · := SE '12B't 0 " "' 1 ,, ·• ,~ "JL:H sr r., _ ,.. ... ~:>l ~ -.. t, t° ·:·Y, 'i!"'lf J w 111. • .il. ·~CJ~:-ST ·•Cl'C !>T :'.3t.3RO !'-T ) .. -,....-!.!:.!'iT•I :::.T -...:..:\'.·,~ ... : Renton ' ,:,,-4.#'.I, ,.f!l-:;q_, -·.::.:..:::::-<~~~~j .. w1---~ ~l":1"-1".l ~.T. ·,.:.1~ "'- n ,. .,, :'.3i:1-..:::,=,_ ~ ,, l\'t:. ,!l'~f.),'i_ . . ... .... > ,., ' -, ._JJ. -t t:· -Ii) J'Ul -._, :; .-,• re:~p; ~I t1 '··---..... l ;Q -· l',J ", 'l-J ~ ~-I ~j ,., ,) ::. ._ ~; .-..,-I L2NCi if'! . 15'_ ;;._: I, \ if Ir ,.., '--"t: ~ 'fl ------'<C IITT P. :~ ~ "--. t 'i!: 1:1TCT ·~i:191 ~T '.~ '·) -< 5' ~"°'"' ,r ..---J~'·• ST ,.:}, ;;11 . r \. l' 1,. :.. ,, ~:, , ,;:.i:-=* i. ~ .......... 1 rts ~~· :· ._,: < ·-; ~~ ..-:•i::: ,;:r \'\.. r~, 1l M ~ 1 -1.tf.:.r,,:.::...1-" r·1 7: :":. . 11"1---.l St' 1:l4r I'>"! ~ -"-I ... -~ , ·; ~ 1·' --$[;".J·l~c. l~ -.r-~,, ,":'l,'i . DTI1~· H sr' _, -~ I~ . "",I~',,' -!;.. '), " · .:,,_ L'i':J '-'~ , / ... I "::"1, 'f:': "'-·.• •"jl l!'""Jl:P. •1t:11~n-< ~~-a, ·:J:' ,.; ..u . ~!;;( l -,,.;'." • ..,,,,.-.... s~aO.T ... $:f SE T~!i,T,1l$r J:*'' ~Ut; r ______ _J,..., ',?. :1 ;.'J' 510:13.<JJ'I "'-.• ~ ... c,,_ ';::._ :Jcuir,tPL : -~ 1 ·, i "' " " " " . ., -J/ :_~ n' ~ ·-f -IUi:tlln-, l . ·, \ ~i,.·.~·.b., =-·· :C: !_:.• -:-11 S,!:~T'•"'-Gr1:snrcT t 1i 8T · _ ,_...., ~ W:-"= 1= § ~~ ~c:rntsr d --~ :IJ m:i ~ ......... ""'-. '..., -V~/: '§_ =-::;.e, • 4~NU ~ r -: •rn-t,ISIT F,'f.~ ~ r·~C ~,.r. ... ~· ---...... --ll'Ut1 ', 'S~fi ' "' -c -:-, ->:! -,. ,,·wc,',sTj 1 ,, ••ss·,.....J• Zc. .l!J i ~"' .... , • • ",... • -'!I ' Al:" T. lo... ~ @ -.~. :. ~'i. --,. ;>.-1'· ~ • 3 ' . 1. ';= ,s( -;; ':"'· •-'l '<:':> ..... t =--S.E·14<11THsr ~. ·~C: -c· -:5 ~. '·. ,1;-,-:l ~?C'1•'iT~9J. ~ ··1,, -".JI! ,.))3 \~~· 'f.· f:.. . ~;_ . -~~ '[~' 71 ,,--µ. ~·1--· • x1-:: '"'wrw sr l'i·! h I '1,i1 • ~ ~"'i· : • ~~ i.,,< ~ ,If-~----~ >-'l ... ~,.... .... ~+ •¥.'·., 'ii-'~")· "-.,, '3}- L .... ,~~ .... ,,,. ··'If: ·r\._..>, ,.-- \, ".J-;~ •. ~,\'_.,.. \ , • t1 , • .,,,.. ..... / · -'I· ~t1,ifT.I-JS'T 1·---~ --w, fil,'c. r--f( ... li' (':i,"{" Sr:;.::;,,,-. L, . ----.1. ,.s;,;c •• ~ IR, ....... _ / .. ~~-~I ' 'IJN.,WA.1-•• · -.. .. , -~·~, ~ ..... ~ '~c ~1.t vAl,: •• , ; "'.s'ro ~-1 ··~ • -~ -\ ' ,.,, oe.. "'""1> ••• ·.•· 1. ,'f"'-~.,. •.. ..\ ,..,.,.,.. ·,, '"', .,.">,.~I'.,.. .. '°''1)-, "·· .,,_ 'ti-"'+ I'! ( lit ........ "Jo:-• • -• '~s,. ?'I . f(l \ __ , Sf: f:Mr1-,1:~, :ct 20011 i<,n,g C-oun1)' {-;F 1(');'1T•1 D: • ,., County B-oun<lary X Mountain Peaks Highways JV Incorporated Ar"a Stre<>ts 1l~•wor Art,:m:11::i L·!!·:..:il ~~,i.., A!fJ ;;~ · '-: ~· ..J • "I .... ~..,,_ '1)-' I:; • ..,.._ 'L .} ~.,_ '··'\t-I -::=:::-::'.:~-.:;-_ . ~~-M~-,.. --........i..._ ---~4.:.Jl w·' ._·-~ C~!d,at,. R,ve,-: p,..., ,, '"''··· "' ' llL,-.,, , .... ,,, "' ' -·:,._~_/ '" :--~~, . L_r..J II -'-.I 0 / ;.i. '.'.F. ·1~1 t,: .. , ··1------..---, "-·-_____,.,.,--... " ;:.;..,-;,"._ 'J .:J. -:' • l ....... ~., ·,. ' ,. ' ' ~ . ·-· "-"'-. ~= ,-:, •• I ,,....------~~-- .:.:1WT·I "'-I ;, --\ · rjjllf \, , ',f-•1-tv:11-f•tl( D 3202_:n_ LelJ!)nd ,11/ Urban Grow th Are a Line ' . Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Drainage Complaints Cl UlhThs::e~ln~fco=rma=t~lo~n~lcnct:::;:-u~d=e~d~o~n~th,:;:l,~ma=p:.:h~a=s•beC:::e=n~,=o=m~p:;;lle~d:n:b~y"K~ln~g~C;a::ou~n~ty:,.,s"la~ff'~~om=~•:-:;,a=n~·e~ty:,.,of:;-:,o=u~,c=e=,~.~n•d'l•;;--:•~ub~,1=,e=ct~l~o~c~h~a~n~g=e~w::;l"th~o~u'l=no;:;l~lc~e~.•K~ln~g'°C=o~u::nly;;;-:ma:::,k'-e~,~n~o:-;:,e~p~,e=,=•~n~la~l~lo~n=,~o~,T---------------I ,i. warranties, express or lmplled, as la accuracy, completeness, tlmellness, or rights to the use of such lnformallon. this documenl Is not Intended for US8 as s survey product King County shall net be liable for any general, special, Indirect, lrlcldental, or consequential damages Including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting lrom the UH or misuse of the lnformallon contained on this map. Any sale of this map or Information on this map Is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 6/2412014 Source: Klng County IMAP. Stormwater (hHp:/lwww.melrokc.gov/GIS/IMAP) t,i King County 0 0 ..a. 0 UI UI Sightlinelllustration r}/fr,,~ Pt. ~,'('1F ~·\~, J:/1t?:'' j..r...i·, ' ·~ .. -.;_,t,...·· -, ~.. . :.,.:ef/:,·::.. "'-~<,pc" ! "'I:·" r. Thi-Information-includH on ltn m-.p h6s b...-, oompila-d by Krlg Count)' staff ~m • •variwty of .o\.1/'Cff Mn ii -~ me Chang• wllhout nolioL Ktng CoYl'rty matt nc ,..p,..Hfllalkl'ft• or -rrarr!in. •:iiprHI er i~d-n to •ecura,cy, oompl9•rteS'I, tilM'inH1. er rights to ~ tn• of such ~-ThtS dOCWMnt is nol lnt.nd~<f for "H H • Wl'VI!')' pn:,dud.. King Cou,ity I ti tMII no1 ta. liablil tor arty gwn..-.r, s~. inand. U'lcitkinlal, or ~Hq\l!l'ltl.ll d.lmag,n mclucling, but not llmrt.cl 'D, Iott r.~t.rH i:M'" '°111 pfQfFts r-esultt'lg from the UH or mitUM of tht! •. K' g Cou t Inform.Ilion a:mt.trn.d on this m•p. Ar1'1 ute of ltl1s map ot n,Orm.aliQ,\ on thrs m,r,p IS prohibtt.d ·~ by Wl'fttlffl p,9rm15t,ior, of King County. In n y 0;111-: e/l&r.201'4 Souroe: King County IMAP• Pn,p,My lnftlrtn.11lon jhttpJ/www.m.trokc.qoy/015J1MAP) 0 0 """' 0 UI en ' '\ \~:--. ,,•" Date: 6/18/2014 .J· .. ,,~,~- ":;:"•,u· Intersection Location . I i:~: •, r:: .,.,.. 1·,t ii' ._,•:-,\"."' A·: C ., _53.Jfj/(t[),~_: !J r,yr,t~ _. 1>c•,, ·~-~- 5J:t6/UtJL1;,1~1.'' ·,, ,ri '.,';::, ,1V,:.-<f1 i I '. .•. ' '•, ':f::~ ' • . ·. -~•;, I~-~ J:.,., ,,:,,·, Jl[J>, \ ',,:. '\·JP\, .,, . source: King County IMAP -Property Information (http:i/www.rnetrol':c.gov/GISl!MAP) ~ King County Corridor Program The 1-405 Plan The 1-405 Corridor Program ,, ; / What is the 1-405 Program? The Interstate 405 Corridor Program is a broad term for a program of more than 150 individual, coordinated projects to relieve congestion and improve mobility for motorists, transit and freight users along the freeway's 30-mile length. The full name is "Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects." The master plan for fixing 1-405 traffic includes all transportation modes, adding up to two new lanes each direction to 1-405, a corridor-wide bus rapid transit (BRT) line and increased local transit service. It will fix bottlenecks such as the SR 167/1-405 interchange, improve key arterials, expand transit centers, and add about 1,700 new van pools and over 5,000 park and ride spaces. The /-405 Master Plan will ultimately, • Add up to 2 lanes in each direction in l-405 • Develop a Bus Rapid Transrt line wrth sflltions along 1- 405 and expanded transrt cen/e1, Improve key arterials Accommodale an additional 110,000 /tips per day in the corridot Reduce time swck in ttaffic by over 13 million hours per year-an average of over 40 hou1, pet year per regular user Legend • Produce travel time savings valued at $569 million each year -MINFflwarlunJ.C..IIICliGu 11'1-n!:.iid-11~ .. J-t;'.li""4~i.qr"*d,i,. ~.,,,tS/IJ57.~~ ............ lnllapl,IT!.si!CBIT)Sfflieii *""krlllidNlllf --Trauft~ ;ftbo;d'-- M#!ll)o'WarddilQ' --Altlriall•~mtnlllll ltdldtrill!/1,-d <) tmWIIA=wPlilt "' "'"""' a/11""'1//Rl.linlls l;;J Traalt CllaQ. #qbfliir~ Iii "-r1t-111i-h11!-. .l.a»-~so- Save $42 million each year in decreased traffic accidents • Create 1700 new vanpoo/s -a 100% increase • Increase local transff service by up to 50% wrthin the study area • Build 5,000 new patli-and-ride spaces Crea/e eight new pedes/Tian/bicycle crossings over 1-405 • Enhance freight mobility tht,mgh better interchanges, ttavel time reduction, and updated and Jechnologies • Provide much-needed economic benefits for Washington Slllte -for each $1 million spent an new constructwn, an additional 30 fr,hs are cteated IEXHIBITB I THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35t~ St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by 'lcet!fEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 001058 TraHm December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 3611i St., Suite 105 . Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: NORTHWEST T'RAF'F1C ExPERTS 11410NE 124th St. #590 Knland. WA98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156th Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be Installed on the site frontage on 156th Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page1 001059 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tra~ TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units In the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: · Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 6 17 23 25% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 20 11 31 63% 37% A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, induding resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution Is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDrrlONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1561h Ave. SE SE 142nd Pl. Page2 Minor Arterial Residential Access 001060 The Enclave at Bridle Ridae TraNuJs 156th Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156th Ave SE Is stra~ht and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142 Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156 111 Ave. SE/SE 142"d Pl. is an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156111 Ave SE or SE 142nd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156 111 Ave. SE and the 156th Ave SE/SE 142nd St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156th Ave SE/SE 142ndPI. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page3 001061 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TYPE OF A B C D E INTERSECTION < >10.0and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and Signalized 10. ,::20.0 ,::35.0 §5.0 ,::80.0 0 Stop Sign Control .::10 >10 and ~15 >15 and ,::25 >25 and .::35 >35 and ,::50 .0 FUTURE TRAFRC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor aocounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes al the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 1561h Ave. SE/SE 142"d Pl. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total hips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total hips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft. from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page4 F >80. 0 >50 001062 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH!ffJ:? approximately 250 ft north of the 156 1h Ave. SE/SE 142°d Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 1561h Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Pages Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 001063 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access / NA NA WB (B 12.6) 156th Ave. SE. South Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 156th Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29,8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142"d Pl. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) • Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page6 001064 ----.. "' N -~ "- -~ ·"'. "' i";"l . _.,.. "'-ltU 1· i SE 136th L.n ~ "' -~ t ... :::it: LOO YI m TraFF1~?CY- NDRTHW£ST $.·~fl TRAFFIC EXPERTS -SE2ridPI . SEl;JGtfiS! -SE.l . SEl37thSI tll . m SE 1371h st SE31d Pl SE142nd St SEl44th Pi SE 3rd Pl SE 139th Pl * Project Site SE143rd SI The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Vicinity Map SE 4th St SE 5th St SE 14Js!PI . St 142nd St" ~ SE.144th SI ., ~ 3l "' n". ~-SE l-t.;,, . · ~ "<IP! =- ~ m "' m ! . SEl, ~ ·sE.1451 ~ ~ ~ "" "' -s, Figure 1 001065 Trafb;;;;'f..,,. NDRTHWEST I£=._,~ TRAFFIC £XPE:RTS ~---__!!;§11i ,I~ SE "~----.------------------. ------.. -------.: -----.. ---:::=-_=-r .-------l : i..... I ; ~(Ci ; ' ' ' ; --.----r ' . ' 1-,. ,, ~O:i ; ' j____ l ;---------i ' /., I ··I ' i-: ~~ ' ' :----·----( ' ' i-... a __ , /""' ______ ) ' ' I ' . -----------11---;='. ·-==--==-=-~-"'-'=-'==-'="---1 ' ___ ., ----,_- ' i ' ' ' ... -------~ ' ' !~ ; ' ___ 1 . -- ~-------, ' ' ·--______ ...,_, ' ' ' ' i~ I !--------! ' , ; , __ I ' ' ' ' I ·--.J --, ' ' -----------------------------' ----... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --~-----, ' ' ' ' ' . ' !to l ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --· r-------, ' i~ ~ ·-- r -------, ' ' ' ' ' • ' I lilj ' ~ ' , _________ ' i~ I r-------1 ' I ' ' i~. I ' I ' ' ' -----' ,-------..., ' ' ' ' i· ' ;: I / ' / ~t ' I q/ . ---., .._ _____ .... _.., ~--. ____ ., •-----• -• L-------.. ____ . ___ J r The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Site. Plan ------- r I I ' ' ~ i' /1 ; I I ' i:Q ' I §? I ~ I- ·, ' ' ' ' I I I ·f--- /L 1-·-··--! ' ' L ' ~ I j I 1----~.----, . .... ~ !._ __ ~-------- i., • ; ' L------- N -+ Figure 2 001066 ~v t l!€!lfi£}:i" a~ ' ,_ t co TRAFFIC EXPERTS -"' ~ SE 13!l1h Pl "' =- ~ 0 = = ~ ~ Project <> "' Site n ;;; Q) SE 1,ns1 P[ A ~ > ';fl.M t < D gt "' CD m , SEH2nd S1 ~\· @ SE: 14:2nd St '1),,,. \, e: SE l~,2 ,•'l."o ;;; & . -?~Pl s"'-b..,.-~ ,. ~~;t SE l43rd S1 ~ ~ 0 ~N "' m ~ "' "' c-c,,. .... 1,..,.. • ..... ..... d)'d I / .. 2 " "' N Ao::.ess/ 1 $th ave N ,- I C 4 ®' j f' r 1 "' "' s Arxess/ 156th Ave "'~ PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume 4,'0 Q'°'"I I Legend Enter 0 N 20 15% Percentage of Project Traffic Exit 11 Total 31 1561hAve/ SE142 Pl ..... 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume The Enclave at Bridle Ridge· City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution 3 001067 . ';fl -.;;t-t TraF~'l;r a~ NDHTHWEST I.:.. ,._ J co ' TRAFF7C £XP,RTS ' -'"' ~· S[ 139th Pl ;;; :,- = (D " Q. ! "' . "' ProJect ,,, Site "' ;;; @ SE1_4lst?I a s-~ "' t > < 0 ~ g i "' (0 "' SE '42nd St ~9· @ SE 142nd SI ....-'l. \>I -SE .14'.1, ,o.'lnc. 0: 8 a:;. "aPI s"-. b._..... "' ~, ;r, > SE 143rd S1 < ~ ~ ' ~"0,l "' "' "' --<-e•••"'-"' .. Future Project Future Existing without Project Traffic with Project "' ,.. ... "' "' ,.. ,._ 0 ,.. 0 ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. I < 0 I < cb',4 I ' 4 (D ~ CD ,o CD, I r'" Q r , r r 2 t /" 2 I , 0 .., 0 '"' 0 ... M ,.. "' '.;: ,.. ,.. -- N Ao::ess/ 1ffilh ave N Ao::ess/ 1ffith a,e N Acr:ess/ 1 :xilh ave N A=ss/ 1ffilh ave M ,.. "' N "' "' ..... 0 ..... 0 N r-.......... I S 0 @',o I < 4 ' ' 4 ®' 0' ®' I /'"O I /.0 I fr 1 ' r'" 1 '"' 0 M c, M <'> "' M "" ';:: ,.. - S A=ss/ 156thAYB S Aa:ess/ 156111 Ave S Ar=ss/ 156th A'-" S Access/ 156th Ave "' "' ..... "' <O a, N "' "' "' "' "' ..... N -"' ..... 309 , ' 328J© 4 ... / j 332 , I . "® O'® '® 100 ..... "I t 106"1"'1 I ' ' 106', 1 NM <O ,.. 0 N <O "' a, "' "' "' 0, <O 156thA'-"' SE142 Pl 1561hA;,,/ SE142 Pl 156111Ave/ SE142 Pl 1561h Ave/ SE 142 Pl The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4 001068 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 001069 I i'n.'pare,!.&:r. Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. F'hanil: 1253) 926-6009 FAX: (253)922-n,i E-Mail; TlllllTl@TC!inc.a:im WBCIDBE nt•-=••= IS6dl A.,.; Sc.JI.. SE l42n4 M DUI of GoUllt TIICS ,~naou Location: Ri::a!GD.W~ Ch11i:;kad 81: .,. T= Fran Noltb on (iS8) ff'o11:11Si;,11t1 aa (NS) From E•t on lWS) f1:1;>1a WN10!1 (EB) ~·-'"""~ J%1AA-vr:.SE 156tbAVfl. SE 0 SE 1-r...lld Pl Tola! f:ndilll!.U T L s • T L s • T L s • T L s • -1:1, p ' 0 " 1:6 0 " ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 " "' 4:Jll p • 0 " t'i.:! I 14 ., 0 a 0 0 0 0 70 0 " , .. •N:SP l 0 " J~fj 0 " " 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 ,, 3-l~ ,:oo p 0 0 " ,.,. ' u " 0 0 0 0 0 a "' 0 " '" }:J:5 p 1 ' ,, "' I " 17 a a " u 0 0 70 0 ,, '06 5:lO P 1 a ,a '" 0 19 " ' 0 0 u 0 0 " 0 " ,,, S-:4.5 P 0 0 " "' a " " a a 0 ' 0 0 " 0 " n<J 6:00 p a 0 ,. "' l " " 0 0 0 0 • 1 " 0 17 '" 6:1} r 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 !!$Or 0 0 0 0 a " a 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <i:~5 p 0 D 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D ""'p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •=• Sur,,:,y " 0 ·~, r:m ' 179 117 0 0 0 0 0 I "' 0 ,., 2497 Pc:ikUour. .J:JiPM • 3:BJ'M Too,I , I o I " m ~ I n " 0 o I 0 • ' o I ,,. I D ( lOO I!S7 A-7'.J "' 0 ... 1io1 %HV ~ ... ,.. .. •• "" PHF D.93 I l56th Ave SE :n . J ~ '.--':'._; a ,G,kc . SE l•Pnd Pl ,~~ .. r·-;--1, .. ~ ""ru 11156,-B~LlJ '"' . '"' I r,;--kl!iPM • S:I~ PM ""' N s ' w r.aG::J " I " I 113:g,o I 1.o E'l-1.F ]'e:,l.; !WIii" \'alum,: M>"<W: ''"' --0 Bikt:! __ _? _ __! PHf %!JV ''"' D '" •• --- ''"' ------• Gu ~ °""' ''" "'' "'~ 0 ,~ 1287 ,. ~ 6~~ --·--··------ "'" -------0 I m I Out: '"" Sil l.2~~ -- ""' N0/11:0S ' 156th AvtSE TIDt. o.•.n \Jr:;i ..,. -- ~S0111:UC$ I 1---------.. --" • Bh:ro• rtom: M I s I E I w """ --' "'" -··---·-·-• ~· .... f--------' ''"' e-------·-• ,,. "'. -----' "'" ---• '" O<l"TI _; ___ ~ 0 ..... _, " ,, . .... u 0 "'"' --• g.JQ .. .. ,, " 0 "'"' -~}.() BtKLS ___ ------• 8-JO s-~INota ''"' ' ·1 -' ' .... -~ lm!liq ~ ln:Ddcd SB· It mozt dlrn: ''"' ··---! --_, " . -~ • , .. wac:s-1 yclric.b amclly.aop~ .... --: / --0 ls+flpi!i,:::i;t11HUI~ qt1e111:u Was I~~ "'" ------_____ ; --------• .,,, ----; -0 ''"' ' ol ol al 00 0 • 0 0 lRA13"184M 01p 001070 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations V Sign Cootrol Stop Volume (vph) 309 100 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 332 108 99 Pm.lii!;;tand--tc.-~ EB,';f,,,Jl§,f ; S81 Volume Total (vph) 440 167 m Volume Left (vph) 332 99 O Volume Right (vph) 108 0 704 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.51 Departure Headway (s) 6.2 6.6 5.2 Degree UMization, x 0.75 0.30 1.12 Capacity (veh/h) 572 526 679 Control Delay(s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 Approach Delay (s) 25.6 12.4 94.8 APproach LOS D B F t + 4' T+ Stop Stop 63 68 0.93 0.93 68 73 655 0.93 704 liilliisiiaicin Sumlliary. ·--·-----~~- Delay HCM level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Basefine 62.9 F 85.7% 15 -_ .. ·;;,_. ·,·. ICU Level of Service E 12126/2013 Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 001071 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 t + · _ ·.~.::¥r:fh~:s.t1s~;·. "'r:;;,_$.#t::Nst~~~.Nar~~.J;BJ!\.f,f$R~;<:~1<~:~-~'t~$~:.;~~j~~~~4:?~t#.e.:4 Lane Configurations V Sign Control Stop Volume (vph} 328 Peak Hour FacJor 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph} 353 Volume Total (vph} 467 \.loiume Left (vph) 353 Volume Right (vph} 114 Had] (s) 0.03 Departure Headway (s} 6.2 begree Utilization, x 0.80 Capacity (veh/h) 571 Control Delay (sr 29.8 Approach Delay (s) 29.8 Approach LOS D liilerssctiQn'SUinmary .. · Delay HCM Level of Service lnlersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline 106 0.93 114 177 105 0 0.12 6.7 0.33 518 12.9 12.9 B 98 0.93 105 825 0 747 -0.51 5.3 1.22 665 133.2 133.2 F 85.8 F 90.3% 15 ,t Slop 67 0.93 72 f,. Slop 72 0.93 77 695 0.93 747 ICU Level of Service E Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 001072 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations ¥ 4' i> Sign Control Stop Volume (vph) 332 106 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly ffow rale (vph) 357 114 105 Oi®tltlli.iBne-#-.,-•. ,-,-. ---. -EB=. -1,-, _N_B_t-·. -:.sB'f Volume Tolal (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Righi (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay Is) Approach LOS 471 180 828 357 105 0 114 a 749 0,03 0.12 --0.51 6.2 6.7 5.4 0.81 0.33 1.23 571 516 662 30.7 130 137.1 30.7 13.0 137.1 D 8 F Stop Slop 69 73 0.93 0.93 74 78 697 0.93 749 12/26/2013 I ---··------·~· .. ·-.,,,...---~----------------rrtersectionS.ummary: y ,._.;,_;;, ·c,.·. ·J Delay HCM Level al Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseine 88.1 F 90.8% 15 ICU level of Service E Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 001073 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE 12/26/2013 t _., ""~".¢$~;,,_; . ,.:;. ;.':: Naff;.'.f:t~,93t1~;,;,,\:,SBT;~::'.·,~--it~!~~'3:f-;%t.~i{"i~~~i'™-~!~ Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) Sign Control Slop Grade 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.93 Houriyflow rate (vph) 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent !llockage · Right lum flare (veh) f. 4 177 Free 0% 0.93 0.93 4 190 ,t 3 7 774 Free 0% 0.93 o.93 0.93 3 a 832 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1039 192 194 VC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol VCu, unblocked vol 1039 192 194 IC, single (s) 6.4 62 4.1 IC, 2 slage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 256 855 1392 Oijcjltjii;line.#.,;;. ,;\.:'. l'./B.f·:':::~&1,:.•:·SBt;-:-., --~=-~--,-~·-·--'°'-:>~: ._-,-. ~,."--.•-.--:,-::--, .. ~,.-.,-;cc:;,,~-,-i-C'-,:-:J-,:~},-,;;,~","' Volume Total 6 194 840 Volume Left 2 0 8 VolUT[le Right 4 3 0 cSH 481 1700 1392 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 O O Control Delay (s) 12.6 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS 8 A Approach Delay (s) 12.6 o.o 0.1 Approach LOS B ~~-\~_;:.<~-~·:.. ~ £ :. /~."-_ ._-. ·, ~.:~ ,.>~;;.:'.;~.:~>::,;:.t':::f,\:_:· .. ~"'-~-·.<1: Average Delay Jntersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Basefine 02 56.3% 15 ICU Level of Service B Synchro 7 · Report Page 2 001074 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Conligurations Volume (vehlh) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (It's) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vG2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) ¥ 1 Stop 0% 4 0.93 0.93 1033 1033 6.4 4 191 191 6.2 ~00 ~ " pO queue free % 100 99 . cM capacity (veh/h) 258 856 t NBT . l> 176 Free 0% 0.93 189 None Volume Total 5 192 834 Volume Left t O 8 Volume Right 4 3 o cSH 585 1700 1393 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 o O Control Delay (s) 1 L2 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 11.2 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS B :':'-..-ciio ... ".""'~!""-·· ~~ Y'Ji1 ....... ~ ,·_;..-;~-->,.::.·.1;·_\;''- Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline 0.2 56.1% 15 .. ,... NB!¥> 3 0.93 3 \. SBL-. 7 0.93 8 192 '192 4.1 2.2 99 1393 4' 769 Free 0% 0.93 827 None ;_,:,;._:: ICU Level of Service B 12126/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 3 001075 Heavenly bamboo: The red berries r-this non-native shrub are deadly for Joe•] birds Page 1 of2 (t OREGONLIVE Heavenly bamboo: The red berries on this non-native shrub are deadly for local birds nandina.jpg The nandina bush, also known as heavenly bamboo, has bright red berries in the winter which are toxic when consumed by many birds in the Pacific Northwest. (Jerry W. Davis) Special to the Hillsboro Argus By Special to the Hillsboro Argus Follow on Twitter on December 27, 2013 at 11;47 AM, updated January 28, 2014 at 3:19 PM This story has been updated with more information on Jan. 28, 2014. Jt can be fun to try new plants and shrubs in the yard. And every now and then, a particular plant becomes popular and is widely introduced into an area where it's not native. At times, the newcomer settles in well and simply adds to the landscape. Other times, however, a non-native plant can cause trouble. Often, because it has no natural 'enemies' in the environment it can be invasive or difficult to control. Occasionally, the introduced plant does far more harm by actually poisoning native wildlife. Such is the case with a plant recently brought to the attention of the Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) by Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University Extension wildlife specialist, who reports that a common landscaping shrub may threaten local bird populations due to its toxic berry. ·The shrub is commonly known as nandina, sacred bamboo, or heavenly bamboo. Nandina is found in the landscaping of yards, parks, hospital grounds, and other locations across the lower 48 states. Planted for its bright red berries and contrasting dark green foliage, the shrub adds color and texture in residential and commercial landscapes. Some homeowners planted nandina with the intention of providing food for cedar waxwing, American robin, northern mockingbird, and other birds that depend on winter fruits to survive. Nandina berries stay on the bush for months, attracting hungry birds when food is in short supply. And that can be a major problem for the birds. When dozens of cedar waxwings were found dead in Georgia three years ago, investigators at.the University of Georgia found the cause to be nandina berries. Bird autopsies revealed the berries lodged in the birds' crops, as well as hemorrhaging of several internal organs. The root of the birds' distress is the cyanide and other alkaloids contained in the berries that produce highly toxic hydrogen cyanide, which is extremely poisonous to all animals. Sudden death may be the only sign of cyanide poisoning and death usually comes within minutes to an hour of exposure. 001076 +:::1,,..///r::;./r' J\ DC'/T ....... AT r ....... rc-..... 1 .... ~ ..... 1IJ ....... ...:~.-.TI---lr.~--1 fTT------1-.n/..-..nt. ___ L __ n/'"1('\ L, .... __ Heavenly bamboo: The rec 1,erries on this non-native shrub are dear''-· for local birds Page 2 of2 Worse still, nandi na is a non-domestic, noxious, and highly invasive weed that displaces the non-toxic, native plants on which local birds normally thrive. Nandina has been imported from China and Japan, and has invaded many natural areas. Homeowners and commercial landscapers are still planting this toxic species, unaware of the risk. "Over 220 bird species nationwide are in serious decline, including our most common birds. Birds are being killed on all fronts." said Jerry W. Davis, a certified wildlife biologist from Arkansas. "By working together, we can eliminate this toxic and noxious invasive plant. If you are not doing your part, the job is not getting done." Consider these simple steps to help reduce and eventually remove the presence of nandina in the local landscape: 1. Avoid using nandina in landscaping projects and opt for beneficial native plants with a similar appearance, such as Pacific ninebark, red elderberry or red huckleberry. 2. If you have nandina already and aren't ready to part with it, take care to prune the bushes to remove the berries as winter approaches. Planting a variety of non-toxic food sources such as serviceberry, snowbush, or red twig dogwood will help fill the gap. 3. Currently, there are no control efforts underway in Washington County for nandina, but sharing this article with the landscaping company that handles your home or business may help. And report sightings to the Invasive Species hotline at oregoninvasiveshotline.org. For more information on identifying invasive plants, or learning about native plants for your landscape, see the SWCD website or contact the SWCD at 503-648-3174. --Jennifer Nelson, Tualatin SWCD © 2014 Oregonlive.com. All rights reserved. 001077 From: Carlos Bayne <cmbayne@gmail.com> To: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast Date: Thu, May 15, 2014 4:53 pm Hey Roger! I have an email to share with you .. Read below, please. Carlos "If you're trying to drive me crazy, I can walk from here ... • ---Forwarded message --- From: Nancy Thompson <Nthompson@rentonwa.gov> Date: Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast To: "cmbayne@gmail.com" <cmbayne@gmail.ccm> Cc: Chris Barnes <CBarnes@rentonwa.gov>, Ron Mar <Rmar@rentonwa.gov> May 14, 2014 Carlos Bayne cmbayne@gmail.com RE: Proposed Signal on Northeast 142nd Place at 156th Avenue Northeast Dear Mr. Bayne: Page 1 of2 Our Traffic Operations Section conducted a signal warrant analysis at this intersection. We have determined that a new signal here could help handle the increasing traffic volumes that pass through this intersection. Using the signal rating system developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation, we have placed this intersection on a priority list for the installation of a new signal. If you have any further questions about this or any other transportation operations matter, please call my assistant, Ronald Mar at 425--430-7297 or me at 425-430-7220. Sincerely, 001078 Chris M. Barnes, Sr. Transportation Operations Manager cc: Ronald Mar, Civil Engineer TOM Record #9645 File Page 2 of2 001079 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT April 18, 2014 MEMORANDUM Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Neil Watts, Development Services Director Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 32,743 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton 001080 Transportation Concurrency Test -, .. ..: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 2014 The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070.' The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result descnbing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page Xl-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 001081 Sandi Weir From: Sent To: Cc Subject Attachments: -S ,f N /lJ. o./6r ,1, Steve Lee Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:14 AM CityCler1< Records Jan Illian; Jill Ding; Neil R. Watts; Jennifer T. Henning; Rohini Nair RE: New Public Records Request -PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) TranspoConcPolicyl40415.pdf See attached files that are related documentation on the City process for co ency, stlndards and process relating to Renton Code Section 4-6-070. I believe this is the information Mr. Paulsen is seekin . . e information, as extracted from the approved City Comprehensive Plan, provides Mr. Paulsen how the City administers a multi modal test. Renton Code Section 4-6-070 notes that transportation concurrency can be a combination of improvements or strategies in place at the time of building permit issuance, or within a reasonable amount of time after buff ding issuance, per 4-6-070 A.1, or a financial commitment is. placed. A financial commitment can be the traffic mitigation fees paid for the new development and is generally used by the City for improvements throughout the City. Our Transportation Division is the technical review authority and is currently assessing any improvements are warranted (if any) (ord. 5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportation Division has currently provided some direction as to an initial response with the statement, "Within the City of Renton, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it in feasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing ) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road." Thanks. -Steve Lee, PE, MS, CESCL City of Renton Dev. Engineering Manager 425.430. 7299 slee@rentonwa.gov --------------------------------·----------·-------·-·----·--- From: CityClerk Realrds Sent Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:05 AM To: steve Lee subject: RE: New Public Records Request -PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) Thanks Steve From: Steve Lee Sent Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:21 AM To: OtyClerl( Records Cc: Olip Vincent; Neil R. Watts; Judith Subia; Jennifer T. Henning; Debra Mikofaizik; JIii Ding subject: New Public Records Request.-PRR-14-085 (Paulsen) Chris, Can you send me the original public records request? I was not cc'd on the original request (therefore no attachment) and wanted to respond appropriately to what was asked. 1 r·------001082 Amended 09/15l/ll and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the Crry's streets and neighborhood livabRity. Level of Service Policy Numerous jurisdictions define Level of Service (LOS) using the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1997). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segm at. The degree of comfort indudes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay · ersections, impedance caused by other vehides and safety. Six Levels of Service are defined u · etter designations -A. 6, C, D, E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and1:'0S F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At.LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow, butthere is little freedom to maneuver. Prior to 1995, the City of Renton policy was primarily focused toward improving roadway cap.a city for single occupancy vehlde (SOV) travel._ However; because of traffic congestion in the 1-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton n€ighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton 1s streets. In recngnition of the regional nature_ of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton revised its LOS policy in 1995 to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehides. The new LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service {LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV trav.ef. Renton 1 s LOS policy is based on travei time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non- motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The LOS po!icy is designed to achieve several objectives; • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally-linked, locally-oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Establish a LOS standard that meets requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted level-of-Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standard is used to evaluate Renton citywide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit elements of the LOS standard are based on· travel times and distance and are th.e primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and mM measures serve as credit toward meeting multi- modal goals of Renton and the region .. Renton's LOS standard sets a travel time standard for the total average trip rather than single intersections, and it provides a multi-modal LOS standard that ?Jnfonns with current regiOnat and Jocaf policies requiring encouragement of multi-modal trav~. The Renton LOS standard has been refined to provide a system for use in evaluating transportation plans. This process indudes the following; Xl-15 001083 ' '.·-'.·.·-~,--: Amended 09/19/11 • Determination of existing travel times within the. Oty of Renton; • Cafibration of the City of Renton-traffic model to reflect existing SOVand HOV travel times; • · Detenmination of future SOV and HOV travel times fo, the adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model; · • Development oftransJttravel times using indicators of transit ac:ce,~rflra-Renton travel time" to re_gional system, and regional tr.ave! time; Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (in / using the mast recent existing travel • time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of a twenty-year LOS standard using the mast recent travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and standard to gauge the performance of the local transportation system, lnduding Stat;owned facilities; and • Selecting a plan tllat maintains the ~blished LOS s'".andard. Other eJement:s of the LOS implementation process ind~de: • . ~onitoring the area to re-validate transportation plans; • Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environrnental/coordihation issues; and • Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time {if needed). Level Of Service Standard 1 A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the Oty of Renton. The following demonstrates how Renton's LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard. A 2002 LOS travel time index has been determined for the Qty by establishing the sum of the average 30-- minute travel distance for SOV, HOV, and Transit as follows: 2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30--minutes from the City in all directions sov HOV 2 times Transit LOS {indudes access time) Index 16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42* • Rounded As indicated in the above table: a single OCOJpant vehicle {SOV) could expect in 2002 to travel apprmdmately 17 miles in 30 minutes; a high occupallt vehicle (HOV -carpool, vanpoof) could expect to travel approximately 19 miles in 30 minutes; and a transit vehicle could expect to travel approximately 7 miles in 30 minutes. It should be noted that the transit index value takes into accountthe time to walk from the work site or residence to the bus stop and the time spent·waiting for the bus to arrive. The initial value (3.4 miles in 2002) is then weighted by doubling tt (to 6.8 miles) to recognize the advantage that the transit mode has over SOV and HOV modes in its passenger-carrying capacity. The 1990 LOS index of 49, -and the basis for the 2010 LOS standard, presented in Renton's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1995; was based on raw data collected prior to 1994. Subsequently in mid-1995, this raw data was upda$l using an enhanced Renton {1990,-2010) transportatiao model, which resulted in a 1990 LOS index of 46. After calibration of a 2002 transportation model that reflects 2002 (and 20n) land use data and examining the raw data, the 2002 LOS index was found to be42.. This reduction in LOS index could be attribute-' to: i} reduced Klng County Metro transit service in Renton, especially in the Renton Valley area, as a result of regional funding constraints (e.g. passage of Initiative 695); IT) limned implementation of Xi-16 001084 !· i l I f I Amended 09 /'J!'J/ll Sound Transit's planned express bus service and HOV direct access projects; and, iii) higher growth rate of vehicular traffic than anticipated for the period of 1990-2002. The 2002 LOS index is the basis for the 2lJ22 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is. forecast to decrease by 2022. SOV improvements alone wm not maintain the 2002 LOS standard in 2022. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the 2022 LOS standard. Wlth the 2002 LOS index as a base, the Clty-wide 2022 LOS standard has been determined as follows: 2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the Oty in all directions sov HOV 2~-Tiansit LOS (indudes ac= time) Standard 15* miles 17* mues 10* miles 42 "'-Rounded This standard will require that the travel time ofSOV (15) + HOV (17) + 2 T (10) or the sum of the.sethree modes (42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening yearS. The fmprovements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV, and Transit Sub-Elements that are de5lgnated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2022 demands for traffk growth/land use development. To test against.the LOS standard, the 2022 planned Arterial, HOV1 and Transit improvement5 identified later in. this TranspOrtation Etement are programmed into the 2022 Traffic Model. The Traffic Model then calOJlates the average travel speed for the SOV,.HOV, and Transit* mode.s along specified travel routes (which have been broken into segments. of known · distance) including those routes that have been identified for ;;,,provements by the year 2022. The Traffic Model then converts the travel speed along known distances into travel distances in 30 minutes for each mode of travel. The 2022 standard is met if the sum of the SOV, HOV, and Transit travel distance indices equal 42 *Other factors are considered for cafOJlating the transit LOS index including frequency of service and access time. Additional information describing the methodology for determining Renton's LOS standard is provided in the Oty of Renton Level of Service Documentation, September 1995. LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) {i.e.1-5, 1-405, SR 167) have been adopted In 1998 by the Washington State Department ofTransportation (WSD01]. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard is equivalent to the traditional LOS D. LOS standards for regionalty significant state highways (non- HSS) in the C,,ntral Puget Sound region (i.e. SR-900, SR-169, SR-515) were adopted by the Puget Sound· Regional Council [PSRC) on October 30,.2003. For urban areas the adopted LOS standard ranges from LOS · E/mitigated (pm peak hour LOS is below the traditional LOS E) to the traditional LOS D. (further information on LOS ,...andards for HSS and non-HSS facilities can be found on WSDOT and PSRC web sites, respectively.) Both Highways of Statewide Significance and regionally significant state highways are included in the inventory of all state-ow_!led facilities within Renton's city limits. These state-owned facilitie.s have been factored into Renton 1s modeling estimates of Rentoo 1s r>rojectedgrowth, and this local modeiing estimate identifies how Renton's Coniprehensive Plan land use and growth projectioos may impact state-owned facilities. The.se state-owned facifities are also induded In Renton's city-wide travel-time base'd LOS standard, which is influenced by stopped delay at intersections and on roadway segments by impedance due to queuing vehides. These same factors, as well as travel time, are elements of the traditional LOS concept (A through F). To maintain Renton's LOS standard Rentori'~Transportation Element has identified Xl-17 r-----001085 ., I Arnende<I 09/19/11 SOV~ HOV, and trans.it-oriented improvements to state-owned ~dirties within Renton~ as weU aS the local roadway system. Arterial Plan This Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton from 2002 to 2022. These arterial improvements are intended to enhance multi-mod~! corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, arid/or to provide new arterial a~d freeway connections as necessary to support the multi-modal concepL Also, the improvements comprised y the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process -provernents that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, Improve business access, a re economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-6. The improvements i uded in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.1 and their location shown in Figure 1-7. · / The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-6) includes segments of several King County and Oty ofNewcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the f<St in Table 1.1 due to their influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent, and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transpormtion Needs Report.) The improvements listed on Table 1.1 are the arterial/freeway mitigation m.easures for the Land Use Element of the Oty of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvementsialong with the Transi! Plan and HOV improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meetthe 2022 Level of-Service.standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned. by 2022. Xl-18 001086 ! i r ' I. Amended 09/l!l/11 Additional inform~tion on the determinatian of the mitigation trip rate fee is contained in the Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document. A development. may qualify for reduction of the $75 per vehide trip mitigation fee through certain credits for development incentives, construction of needed transportation improvements (artErial, HOV, transit), through public/private partnerships, and transportation demind management programs. Specific credits · and the amount of reduction in the mitigation trlp rate fee that could result from such credits will-be determined on a ase by case basis durirrg the development permitting process. ~e Mitigation Payment System provides flexibility to modify the basic trip rate fee as needed to ~fief ta the effect that credits may have on developer mitigation as a funding source. // · Concurrency Management System / The Growth Management Act (GMA) describes concurrenc(as the situation where adequate public facilitjes are available when the impacts of development occur> or within a specified time ther-eafter. This · description includes the concept of available public facilities. The GMA defines "available public facilities" as facilities or services [n place, or a financial commitment in place, to provide the facilities wrthin a specified time. For transportation, the specified time is six years from time of development Oty of Renton policies that support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land Use Element and in this Element. To address concurrency under the GMA and Crty of Renton policies, a concurrenOf management system has been developed for the City of Renton that is based on-the following process: • The Oty of Renton will adopt a multi-modal Transportation Plan that will ~ consi~ent with regional plans :and those of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the T~rlsportation Plan wm be defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • The Oty of Rentcn Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy, although it differs from the . traditional LOS for arterials, is consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies and will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. • The Transportation Plan will Tndude a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy. One of the fund sources will be mitig;:1tion fees collected from developers as a condition of land use development within the City of Renton. The approval of the development will be conditioned upon the payri,ent of this Transportation· Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent facility impacts. • The Oty of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the Tmprovement elements of the citywide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurr~ncy between transportation LOS and iand use development is met. • The City of Renton will establish concurrency by testing the citywide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six~Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure confonnance with the Level of Service standard. The Oty of Renton will adjust the transportation improvement plan as necessary to meet the LOS standard. • Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels induded in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment o(a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met Oty of Renton concurrency requirem~ts~ Transportation Concurrency Regulations (Ordinance No. 4708, adopted 3-2-1998) and Guideunes and Procedures for Monitoring Transportation Concurrency (adopted 4-6-1998) somprise the procedures, standards and oiteria that aTiow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate pubfic facuities are available to serve new land use development Xl-{;5 001087 i I I ·-·--c-:-_.:· .. --- Amended 09/19/11 As specified in the Regulations and Guidelines and Procedures, a concurrency test is conducted by the City of Renton for each non-exempt development activity. The concurrency test determines consistency with the adopted citywide Level of Service standard and the Concurrency Management System, using rules and procedures established by the City of Renton. The concurrency test includes technical review of a development activity by the City of Renton to determine if the transportation system has adequate or unused or uncommitted capacity, or will have adequate capacity, to accommodate vehicle trips generat~d by the proposed development, without causing the level of service standard u,decline below adopted standards, at the time of development or within six years. A written fin~f concurrency is provided by the City prior to the approval of the development pennit. If the deve/6pment activity fails the concurrency test, the City allows the development applicant to sulf.;,it alternative data, provide a traffic mitigation plan, or reduce the size of the development projectln order to achieve conCtJrrency. . / . Monitoring, and evaluation of the City of Renton 1s Concurrency Management System and Transportation . Concurrency Regulations will be reviewe-d as part of ongoing transportation work. Sunset Area Community Roadway Improvements The City of Renton studied potential infrastructure·improvement needs to support growth anticipated in the Sunset Area Community Planned Action EIS in completed April 2011. The planned action neighborhood study area is generally bounded by NE 21st Street on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE. Capital.improvements identified in the EIS would be needed within the 2011-2030 time frame. The improvements identified in the EIS are estimated to cost $37.2 million. The·project costs and funding sources for these projects are identified in the Sunset Area Community Capital Facilities Plan found within the City's Capital Facilities Element. J0-66 ,~. ''' .---·-·······- 001088 -------------------------------------------· --.. Intersection Safety & Mobillty Program Commun~v Plannlna Area: NIA . DESCRIPTION: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION -~ ' -TRANSPORT A , I ION IMPHOVl::Ml::N r PHOliHAM Functlonal CJasslflcation: NIA Proj. Length: NIA TIP No. STATUS: Fund: Pro/: 25 --··-· 317 122601 a, co 0 .... ... I;; Thfs program will Install new traffic sfgnals or make Improvements to existing signals identified by the The priorWes and .schedules for new traffic signals wfll be sel by the Transportation Transportation Systems' Trame Slgnal Priority Usl. Systems' Trafffc Signal Priority Ust. The list is determined by cilizen concerns, ntarsection safety, mobilily nBads, and intersections that meal MUTCD traffic signal arrants. . i,JUSTJFICATION: C Hislorically, on·the average, one traffic signal is designed and constructed every two years to meet safety Traffic stgnals high on lhe warrant pr/orJtyllsr include SW 41 st St & Oakasdafe Ave SW, and mobillty needs. This program budgets for projects needed to meet lncreasfng demand, and the need SE Carr Road & 103rd Ave SE. and SW 34th SI & Lind Ave SW. for signaJlzad traffic control. Elements used to prioritize project intersections may Include vehlou!ar approach volumes, accident anafysls, signal-warrant analysis, and pedestrian volume. IFund&d: 11 600.000 IUnmnded: I · Prolect Totals Proarammed Pre~2014 Six~ Vear Proa ram ITEM Proorammed Sa:>enl In 2.012 2013 Total 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EXPENSES: Planning Preliminary En.9!!!~r!nn 282,00Q 30.000 -252 000 32.000 44 000 44 000 44000 44000 44,QQQ R-0-W !Includes Admlnl Construction 1 150,000 120 000 1 03Q.Q.OO 130.000 100.000 180000 180000 180 000 180 000 Construction Se.rvlces -168.000 18 000 150 000 20.000 26.000 26 000 26.000 26 000 26000 Post GonstrUctlon Services TOTAL EXPENSES 1,600,000 168,000 1,432 000 182,000 250.000 250,000 250.000 250.000 250.000 !SOURCE OF FUNDS: Rio Fuel Tax ness License Fee 1 600 000 168 000 1,432 000 182 000 250,000 250.000 250 000 250,000 250 000 ._!.QQOsed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand J11. §fants In-Han~ Mitigation In-Hand Other In-Hand , -OJhet In-Hand Grants Pronnsed Other Prooosed Undetermined TOTAL SOURCES 1,600 000 168000 1432 000 182 000 250.000 250 000 250 000 250.000 250 000 .... _ -.n?IIOIJ 1:11AM 6 -25 FINAL · ... ···.c7y :,,~. -.. - I I j, - • ,•, .. ~I ~- '··II" t: '• ' ~; • rf; '1 •.!"' :,u,. ' ' J' _.,.... '~~' ~' j .'¥.,·. • I ' i ',' . ,· .. .1··, ,";, .,.::;-;·,:!t~ '~. -.'::',· ">;.:J ___ ;i \-.~:,."' ~~-. ·:!:·-\.;~_. . ' ~', ., . <,001095··· •. j,-" -,,,,,:,~'. -~:>-·'· O'(' ·-;-\·: -~/: ; I • • St < l ~~\' l),J~<Ytj::;. i.11nb · ~ H2r,s ~ ... c :ot I! iJ' B --;j-:f . -~ I :: F '• ~~ "·1·-M~! - ~· i/, ~ OS •J • -. ~ z 3S-W°,'>"1'-l'69T -~ .~ !! tB , -"" . - :E:.~ ~ '3 'h "' C, < .:::1, ~ ~ ~ ~ :;:~'S ~;·-; iir2 ~t f ~ :1-:. ll1Sti < ~ 35 ~'"1 '.IJS':ll -~ ~~~i.ilr·'.iT { ~ 4 ~- L~J ~ .. ""~·~ "' ,, "' 0 0 001097 001098 - CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT· PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 17 day of June, 2014, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Hearing Examiner Agenda, Report and Exhibit documents. This information was sent to: ;,:,'} -:::-:;-:.?.:/!JtN~~'.:·i~:!lf~:1~-1~5.~{J~~t-~tit~ ,~j:;;·1\{I," ~-""''; ·. ·. ~~ ~ret~·~tl~g · ; < . ', ., , .. ,, ' ·. :, ' ; -~·,;. ·\-~}~' ~;. '}'~+Y. .'t ~"-;'. .. ~ .· :· Phil Obrechts See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) 55 ) ,-..... "v· /JY'1,~ ~ ~ Hearing Examiner Parties of Record ... AAV / ,,,\\\\\\1111 ,, V Po,,, ' ~ 1s,i'1, ' ~ ~ -,, = ~ . . ~\~~ . I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante ~ ;,«-.,._, ~t signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the u~~ig~oses ,,. mentioned in the instrument. Dated: .g I' Df i) I Notary (Print): ___ ......_.tt:r'-'-')...,\..,.· __ -.-:;,+\ ~C~M~,~<~·~-.,~-------------- My appointment expires: 't 4 ' .-,CJ -> -1 \.j_, "'j ,. , f ,x I ut t., I template -affidavit of service by mailing 001099 MA Kuniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Renton. WA 98059 Justin lagers PNW Koldings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island. WA 98040 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell. WA 98012 Eloise Stachowiak 6614 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 . .:,.-~·,· ··--·,_,-•,-y,•_·-:,:--c,;·c<-··· ! .OSLS e.AHBAW ~ ,.dn-dOd p.ioqa, aJ JOJ~A\U ap uue am,pe11 ei , zauda11 .f.UdWdLl..l~'-1.J ap sua,5 ,, ~AVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE 5TK Pl RENTON, WA 98059 Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th Pl Renton. WA 98059 Sallv Nioert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 ·---·------· T 111•6p3d~-1 ouuu 6u0f8 PWII _,adedPH,J -.., ®og Ls CIV'll3/\ v ,i,eqe6 •1 zasm,n ,a,ad ~ 5aJpeJ 5a1,J.anb91 ------·--·------------- ""(,ade Willoughby 6512 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High CARE PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Mazama, WA 98333 DEPARTMENT OF COMl •. i...-ffY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DATE: Project Name: Owners: Applicant/Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project location: Site Area: June 24, 2014 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Sally Lou Nipert, 14004 1561 h Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC, 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, 98040 LUA14-000241,ECF,PP Jill Ding, Senior Planner Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with one single family residences and a detached garage proposed to be removed. No critical areas are present on the project site. 14038 156th Avenue SE 328,129 SF (8.8 ac) Project location Map HEX ffij~ ¥rJf24l City of Renton Department of Corrnii,nity & Economic Development ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL. IY PLAT )o ~ -Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA14-DD0241, ECF, PP .... --------------Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 I B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Staff Report, dated June 24, 2014 Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Plat Map Exhibit 4: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing (2 sheets) Exhibit 5: Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 6: Landscape Plan (5 sheets) Exhibit 7: Topography Map Exhibit 8: Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Exhibit 9: Utilities Plan, Generalized Exhibit 10: Road Profile and Cross Section Details (3 sheets) Exhibit 11: Preliminary Traffic Control Plan Page 2 of 13 Exhibit 12: Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Northwest Traffic Experts, dated December 27, 2013 Exhibit 13: Technical Information Report, prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Exhibit 31: Exhibit 32: Exhibit 33: HEX Report 14-000241 February 19, 2014 Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated February 5, 2014 Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc., dated February 18, 2014 Wetland Report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated February 3, 2014 SEPA Determination ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Affidavit of Mailing Comment letter dated March 21, 2014 from David Michalski Comment letter dated March 22, 2014 from Roger Paulsen Staff response to David Michalski dated April 9, 2014 Staff response to Roger Paulsen dated April 14, 2014 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation, dated February 4, 2013 Safe route to schools exhibit Transportation Concurrency Test Comment letter from Eloise Stachowiak Staff response to Eloise Stachowiak dated May 22, 2014 Request for Reconsideration of the ERC Determination dated April 16, 2014 filed by Roger Paulsen ERC Response to Request for Reconsideration dated May 19, 2014 Affidavit of Mailing of ERC Response to Request for Reconsideration Letter to Roger Paulsen from CED dated May 22, 2014 Email from City Arborist dated April 30, 2014 001102 City of Renton Department of Comnwnity & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE£ ._,.:·q:.:y~p.:£A:..;_;_T _________ _ >wt( LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 I C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Sally Lou Nipert 14004 156'h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 G. Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Road Bothell, WA 98012 Residential -4 du/ac (R-4) Residential Low Density (RLD) Page 3 of 13 4. Existing Site Use: Contains one single family residence and a detached garage. S. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Single Family Residential {R-4 zone) b. East: Single Family Residential {R-4 zone) c. South: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) d. West: Single Family Residential {King County R-4) 6. Site Area: 328,129 SF (8.8 ac) ' D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Pre-zoning -East Renton Plateau Annexation ' E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 5099 5254 5398 a. Water: Water service will be provided by Water District #90. 11/01/04 01/17/07 08/11/08 b. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in 1551• Avenue SE. c. Surface/Storm Water: There is a 12 inch storm pipe in 1551• Avenue SE to the north of the project site. 2. Streets: There are no street frontage improvements along 1561h Avenue SE. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department HEX Report 14-000241 001103 City of Renton Department of Comm,,oity & Economic Development ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL ...__.q_Y_P_LA_T __________ - Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and RegulaUons b. Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 3. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions Report to the Hearing Examiner '-end' LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 4 of 13 b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan -General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets-General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks-General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots-General Requirements and Minimum Standards S. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element I H. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat in order to subdivide an 8.8 acre site into 31 single family lots, one stormwater tract (Tract A), and one open space tract (Tract B). The proposal would result in a density of 4.45 du/ac. 2. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on February 27, 2014 and determined it complete on March 10, 2014. The project complies with the 120- day review period. 3. The proposed plat would be located on the east side of 156'" Avenue SE between SE 139'" Place and SE 143'd Street at 14038 156'h Avenue SE. 4. The property is in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Residential-4 (R-4) zoning classification. Lands in the RLD designation are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4 du/net acre, to its inventory. 5. The project site is comprised of a total of three parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and 1423059057. A Lot Line Adjustment (City of Renton File No. LUA14-000250) was submitted concurrently with the preliminary plat application. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat. HEX Report 14-000241 001104 City of Renton Department of Commuoity & Economic Development ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE! ,,_~Rc;,;Y:.;P;.,;IA=T----------- Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Report to the Hearing Examiner '-ec' WA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 5 of 13 6. The proposed subdivision would result in 31 lots ranging in lot size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet, one 32,174 square foot stormwater tract (Tract A) and one 490 square foot open space tract (Tract B). 7. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, a detached garage, and associated gravel driveways. 8. The existing residence and the detached garage are proposed to be demolished as a part of the proposed subdivision. 9. The current site contains 303 significant trees of which 57 are determined to be dead and/or dangerous by the applicants Arborist, 46 would be located in the proposed roadway and 35 are proposed to be retained. 10. The site is rectangular in shape. 11. The following table identifies the proposed approximate dimensions for Lots 1-31: As Proppsed Lot Size Width Depth Lotl 8,190SF 70feet 117feet Lot2 8,190SF 70feet 117 feet Lot3 8,986 SF 76feet 117 feet Lot4 12,S66SF 70 feet 123feet Lot5 8,346SF 70feet 101 feet Lot6 8,050SF 70feet 115 feet Lot 7 8,052 SF 70 feet 115 feet LotB 8,052 SF 70feet 115 feet Lot9 8,052 SF 70feet 115 feet LotlO 8,052 SF 70feet 115feet Lot 11 8,051 SF 70feet 115 feet Lot 12 10,479SF 101feet 105 feet Lot 13 11,170SF 94 feet 115feet Lot14 9,266 SF 82feet 114 feet LotlS 8,398SF 73feet 115feet Lot16 8,625 SF 75feet 115 feet Lot17 8,050SF 70feet 115feet Lot18 8,050SF 70feet 115feet Lot19 9,251 SF BO feet 115feet Lot20 9,264SF 82feet 115 feet Lotll 8,050SF 70feet 115feet Lot22 8,050SF 70feet 115feet Lot23 8,050SF 70feet 115 feet Lot24 8,683 SF 75 feet 115feet Lot25 9,533 SF 82feet 115feet Lot26 9,168 SF 82feet 115 feet Lot27 8,683 SF 7Sfeet 115feet Lot28 8,050 SF 70feet 115feet Lot29 8,050SF 70feet 115feet Lot30 8,050SF 70feet 115 feet Lot31 9,539SF 82feet 115feet Storm Drainage 32,174SF . -Tract A HEX Report 14-000241 uu .,, 5 City of Renton Department of Comm,.oity & Economic Development ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRE/ ~y PLAT Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Open Space Trad TractB 490 Report to the Hearing Examiner .,,., LUA14--000Z41, ECF, PP Page 6 of 13 12. Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A and Road BJ off of 1561' Avevnue SE. A dead end access is also provided, terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the south property line. It is anticipated the dead end access would extend onto the adjacent property to the south at a later date, under a future application for development. 13. The site generally slopes to the southwest with an elevation change of 20 feet. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted containing information on the surface conditions, subsurface conditions and groundwater. 14. A wetland report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (Exhibit 16) (dated February 3, 2014) was submitted with the project application. There are no critical areas on site. 15. The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6) submitted with the application includes the installation of street trees within a proposed 8-foot planter along all street frontages. A 10-foot wide onsite landscape strip is proposed along the frontage of all lots and a 10-foot wide landscape strip is also proposed around the storm drainage tract A. Vegetation proposed includes: Red Maple, Flowering Pear, Katsura, Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, Vine Maple, Himalayan Birch, Maple, Ash, Rockrose, Euonymus, Orange Sedge, Dwarf Ft. Grass, Evergreen Huckleberry, Lavender, Heavenly Bamboo, Oregon Grape, Pacific wax myrtle, Evergreen Azalea, Blue Oat Grass, Maiden Grass, Emerald Green Arborvitae, Heather, Kinnikinnik, and lawn. 16. A drainage plan (Exhibit 5) and drainage report (Exhibit 13) have been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop an on-site storm detention/water quality pond located in proposed Tract A. 17. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 14) infiltration on the site or individual lots is not feasible. 18. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on March 31, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 17). The DNS-M included one mitigation measure. A 14-day appeal period commenced on April 4, 2014 and ended on April 18, 2014. 19. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measure with the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: 1) Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 20. A Request for Reconsideration was filed of the ERC Determination on April 16, 2014 (Exhibit 29). 21. The Environmental Review Committee revised the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS- M) on May 19, 2014 to add an additional mitigation measure (Exhibit 30). A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 23, 2014 and ended on June 6, 2Dl4. An appeal of the DNS-M was filed on June S, 2014. 22. Based on a review of the Request for Reconsideration, the ERC issued the following mitigation measures with the revised Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: HEX Report 14-000241 001106 City of Renton Department of Corn'l'll'";ty & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL 'Y PLAT ,,_., LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 7 of 13 1) Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February S, 2014). 2) Due to the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of Fat the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142°• Place and the proposal to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 1S6'" Avenue SE/SE 142°• Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $SOO,OOO = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 23. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report. 24. Staff received two citizen comments during the 14 day public comment period (Exhibits 20 and 21) and a third after the comment period had ended (Exhibit 27). On April 9, 2014, April 14, 2014, and May 22, 2014 staff responded to the citizen comments (Exhibits 22, 23, and 28). [ 1. CONCLUSIONS: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies if all conditions of approval are complied with: Policy LU-147 .. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for ,I' residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or oreos identified os urban separators. Policy LU-1S7. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 ,I' units per net acre to encourage forger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Policy CD-12. Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along streets in established ,I' neighborhoods, where sidewalks have not been previously constructed. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic and, where practical, match existing sidewalks. Pa/icy CD-15. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding ,I' ta mare urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement af structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale af existing areas. ,I' Policy CD-17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION: The subject site is classified Residential-4 du/ac (R-4} on the City of Renton Zoning Map. RMC 4-2-llOA provides development standards for development within the R-4 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are complied with: Density: The maximum density permitted in the R-4 zone is 4.0 dwelling units per net acre. ,I' All fractions which result from net density calculations shall be truncated at two (2) numbers past the decimal (e.g., 4.5678 becomes 4.56). Calculations for minimum or maximum density which result in a fraction that is 0.50 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole HEX Report 14-000241 uu11ur I City of Renton Department of Comn11'0 ;ty & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL. lloo,,,,..:.'Y_,P_,LA=T--------------'>="'-~----L:.;U:;;,A;:l.::;4-.::;D;:;DD:.;Z;.;4;::l,.::;E.::;Cl'c:.!,.::;P.:....P Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 8 of 13 Partial Compliance number. Those density calculations resulting in a fraction that is less than 0.50 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number. Staff Comment: After subtracting approximately 79,419 square feet of road for proposed right-of-way dedications; the net square footage of the site is 303,707 square feet (6.97 net acres). The 31 lot proposal would arrive at a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (31 lots/ 6.97 acres = 4.45 du/ac), which foils within the permitted density range for the R-4 zone. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-4 zoning designation is 8,000 square feet. A minimum lot width of 70 feet is required for interior lots and 80 feet for corner lots. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 80 feet. Staff Comment: As demonstrated in the table above under finding of fact 11, all lats meet the requirements far minimum lat size, width and depth. Setbacks: Setbacks in the R-4 zone are the following: front yard is 30 feet; a side yard along the street is 20 feet; interior side yard is 5 feet; the rear yard is 25 feet. Staff Comment: An existing single family residence and detached garage are located an the project site and are proposed far removal. The setback requirements for the new residences would be verified at the time of building permit review. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a demolition permit be obtained and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 SF in size in the R-4 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 SF, whichever is greater. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 55 percent. Staff Comment: The building standards for the proposed lats would be verified at the time of building permit review. Landscaping: Ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4-070. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Street trees and, at a minimum, groundcover are to be located in this area when present. Where there is insufficient right-of-way space or no public frontage, street trees are required in the front yard. A minimum of two (2) trees are to be located in the front yard prior to final inspection. In addition, per an Administrative Interpretation (effective date February 4, 2013) (Exhibit 24) a minimum 15-foot wide landscaping strip around the outside of the fenced stormwater detention tract (Tract A) is required unless otherwise determined through the subdivision review process. Staff Comment: As proposed the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6} does comply with the 10-foat wide on-site landscape requirement along street frontages. A 10-foat wide landscape strip is proposed around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A}, which is fess than the 15-foot wide requirement. However, if the proposed subdivision were required to include the 15-foot wide landscape strip, this would result in a Joss of at least one lat. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to install a 10-foat wide landscaped visual barrier around the outside perimeter of the starmwater detention tract in lieu of the required 15-foot wide landscaping strip. The applicant has proposed to install Red Maple trees in the planting strip along the 156th Avenue SE frontage, Flowering Pear trees in the planting strip along the east/west frontages HEX Report 14-000241 001108 City of Renton Deportment of Com,,,,,.;ty & Economic Development ENCIA VE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRfL. • 1 Y PIA T Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Report to the Hearing Examiner 'W'. LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 9 of 13 r··-----~----------------------------------~ of Roods A ond B, ond Katsuro trees along the north/south internal access road located on the east side of the project site. As such, all lots would have trees along the frontage; therefore staff recommends approval of eliminating the requirement for trees in the on-site landscape strips along all frontages. However, the requirement for a mixture of shrubs and ground cover would still be required and is shown on the conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 6). Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted ta and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped visual barrier around the outside perimeter of the storm drainage troct {Tract A}. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Staff Comment: Sufficient area exists, on each Jot, ta accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. 3. COMMUNITY ASSETS: The proposal is consistent with the following community asset requirements if all conditions of approval are complied with: Tree Retention: RMC 4-4-130H requires thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch {2") caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be twelve {12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. Staff Comment: The site is currently occupied by a single family residence, detached garage and associated gravel driveways. The site is currently vegetated with a total of 303 significant trees, lawn, and landscaping associated with the existing single family residence. Of the existing 303 significant trees 57 have been determined to be dead, diseased and/or dangerous per the applicant's Arborist Report (Exhibit 15}, and 46 wauld be located in the proposed roadway resulting in a total of 200 trees that have been identified as protected trees. Of the 200 protected trees 30 percent or 60 trees are required to be retained and/ar replaced an the project site. The applicant proposes to retain 35 trees and insta/1150 2-inch caliper replacement trees, which complies with the City of Renton's Tree Retention requirements. The trees identified for retention are located along the eastern boundary of the project site. In order to retain these trees, the applicant has proposed to curve the roadway which terminates at the southern boundary of the project site (see further discussion below under Access). The City's Arborist has conducted a site visit and concurs with the applicant's arborist regarding the trees that are available for retention (Exhibit 33}. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application that verifies preservation of the all trees identified in Exhibit 4. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final tree retention plan be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for the subdivisions. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with: Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement per the requirements of the street standards. Partial The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall not exceed nine feet (9') and Compliance double loaded garage driveways shall not exceed sixteen feet (16'). Staff Comment: Access to all lots would be provided along a new looped public road (Road A ond B). The driveway width standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of HEX Report 14-000241 001109 City of Renton Department of Com"'''"'ty & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL, 'Y PLAT ..,... LUA14-000l41, ECF, PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 10 of 13 ~------,--·--------------------------------~ building and construction permit review. Partial Compliance There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to City of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line. Once the homes are sold as individual lots, each home owner has the ability to remove up to 3 trees a year without permits. These trees would not provide the vegetative screen intended if they are remove immediately following home construction as such they should be retained in o tree protection easement. Of the approximately 44 trees located along the east property line, the applicant is proposing to retain 21 trees. The 23 trees proposed for removal (identified as trees 5406, 5408-5415, 6181-6185, 6234, and 6229-6231} hove been identified as diseased and/or dangerous per the submitted Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 15}. The City's orbarist has review the submitted Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Pion (Exhibit 4)) and Tree Inspection Report (Exhibit 15) and concurs with the with the applicant's arborist regarding the trees located along the east property boundary that are available for retention. Staff recommends as o condition of preliminary plot approval that on easement for tree protection be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist). The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. Staff Comment: There is one block proposed and it contains two tiers of lots, therefore the proposed preliminary plat complies with this requirement. Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Stoff Comment: The following street improvements are required: • • • • The current transportation impact fee is currently assessed at orate of $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. A looped roadway with stub ending is o temporary cul-de-soc is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be o 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, on 81oot planter strip and o 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along on arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156th Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 feet wide curb, on 8-foot planter strip and o 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. Street lighting is required for this plat on the frontage and on the internal access road. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. HEX Report 14--000141 001110 City of Renton Department of CofT'"'""ity & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRH -,.;·;.;.R;;_Y;_P:;;LA_T ____________ >,t' LUA14-000Z41, ECF, pp Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 11 of 13 ~-----~------··------------------------------~ • Tract B appears ta be a 'spite' strip to prohibit any new lats created as a result of the future subdivision of parcel 1423059057, located to the northwest of the project site from gaining access to proposed Road A. This is not permitted, Tract B shall be required to be dedicated as right-of-way. The applicant provided Road Profile and Cross Section Details with the application (Exhibit 10} which shows the required frontage improvements. A street lighting plan was not included with the preliminary plat submittal, staff recommends as a condition of preliminary plat approval that a street lighting plan be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. Staff also recommends as a condition of approval that the plat map be revised ta show Tract Bas dedicated right-af- way. The revised plat map shall be submitted ta the Current Planning Project Manager prior ta recording of the final plat. Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. Staff Comment: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated R-4 an the City's zoning maps and King County maps. The proposal is similar ta existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Cade, which encourages large lat development. 5. AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES: Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Schools: It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located approximately .06 mile from the project site at 1561 h Avenue SE & SE 5th Place. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along the 1561 h Avenue SE frontage, including sidewalks. Students would walk a short distance along 1561h Avenue SE north of the project site along the road shoulder to the bus stop. However, there appears to be adequate area along the road shoulder to provide for safe walking conditions (Exhibit 25). In addition, the City is requiring right-of-way dedicated along the frontage of parcel 1423059057 (which is being removed from the project site via lot line adjustment) to allow for the future installation of frontage improvements which would be required upon the receipt of a future subdivision application. The bus is traveling south students would be required to cross 1561h Avenue SE at SE s"' Place via the existing crosswalk. The driver stops traffic to allow the students to cross 1561 " Avenue SE and board the bus. A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $6,392.00 per single family residence. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: A drainage plan (Exhibit 5} and drainage report (Exhibit 13} dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County HEX Report 14-000241 001111 City of Renton Department of Corwn,,0 ity & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREL '-""'-W __ Pc.;LA;;.;cT ____________ .c,,.._., ____ _:L,:::UA:::1;:;4-000:..::::;::;:24:;:1::.., E:-.;C~F:,:, p~p- Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 12 of 13 -·~ Surface Water Manual and City af Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8. 7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the lower Cedar River Basin and has a discharge to areas maintained by King County. King County has been provided a copy of these plans and reports that the project could impact King County's Orting Hills Creek and service area. Based on the City's flaw contra/ map, this site falls within the Flow Contra! Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and level 2 flow control, which could be elevated to level 3 depending on downstream conditions. A level 2 flow control facility is typically sized to match the pre- developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest corner of the site. Access and maintenance to the proposed combined water quality and retention facility will be required per the 2009 King County SWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. A level 3 downstream analysis will be required for the project. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. A geotechnica/ report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, llC (Exhibit 14). A SEPA mitigation measure (Exhibit 17) was imposed by the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) requiring that the project construction comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted geotechnical report {Exhibit 14). The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, the geotech recommends a contingency in the project budget be included to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowners association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for a// shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document{s) shall be submitted ta Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. Water and Sanitary Sewer: Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate was submitted to the City. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and extending the sewer main into the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156th Ave SE will require overlay .,, pavement restoration for at least half street. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10 foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. System development charge (SDC) fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. The current fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid. HEX Report 14-000241 001112 City of Renton Department of COl"""""oity & Economic Development Report to the Hearing Examiner _E;;;N_C;_IA;c.· ccV.;;;E..cA.;.;T..;B;.;;R_ID_L_E_R_I_D_G_E_P_R_E_, -~-R_Y..;..,P;;cLA_T ______ ~-----.. ,_.., LUAl4-000l41, ECF, PP Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Page 13 of 13 I J, RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, LUA14-000241, ECF, PP subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated May 19, 2014. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence and detached garage prior to Final Plat recording. 3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance, including a 10-foot landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of the storm drainage tract (Tract A}. 4. The landscaped visual barrier around the perimeter of Tract A shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Street frontage landscaping shall be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the new single family residences. 5. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist}. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection, however staff recommends that the easement width be permitted to vary based on the width of the stand of trees proposed to be retained. Such easement shall be identified on the face of the Final Plat. 6. A final tree retention plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application identifying all the trees to be retained, as determined by the City Arborist. 7. A street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 8. The plat map shall be revised to show Tract Bas dedicated right-of-way. The revised plat map shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 9. Secondary review may be required for the pond with both structural engineer and geotech engineer, and lining may also be required. 10. Site grading shall be limited to the summer months. If the grading is to take place during the wetter winter or spring month, a contingency shall be provided in the project budget to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill. 11. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner's association of maintenance agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. HEX Report 14-000241 001113 ) ) l ' I I I N I- """' co loo! :c rj u ~ ~ rHE E!Jcu.vl'Xf !JR1orl kfoGl: 1-----J;,i--------j i-,n-'rr-+--L_,--.._j i-------__, i------~---1 ! ' I I i 'y:\_J_J I I I m,_ il---'------J r-----H llR.SYROMJ =-----·":;:;;.,:.:,-I NO. -.,,._ Jl'IMJtjN't'II M- '..:,a' ~ ill'> Cl TY OF ~ RENTON ~~-w...o.,c. .. .... .... .... 0 0 .... __ ..,tiif""'---··---- @ NORTH --'=4t..T T ,..,...,.,.,., l'HE ENCLAVE Al BRICL£ RICGE: PREUMINARY PLAT NEGIOlltXIDOETNLIMP DRS PROJECT /IIO. 1l117 !I I z p ~ " I ,J I . a' m . m lie . ~;ii z> . >-, ~~ffl . :;:;!16 £>r -em i~lg@ ' ! -I , I r• ·II R h1 . . ~ ii ,, ,l ti THE ENctA i,, EXHIBIT 3 r-'-+-----,-, I l I .I ,· .,,,,,. i I , , I~/: I' 1=f" I .I I 1,. " , L 1 . . . . r • 1, OQ@• • .18 • ~ ~jl!IIP'!il11 1,11,.1 11 .111 Ill·[ Ii I • . . . • I 'II:!" I:; ca """ :c ~ ) ) i I I t: :!a! ;j ~ w "' I I f--- 1 f-- 11 ~'4,''> .. f;:1. 1. /-~.:~•=.:~flit,, I /,.., i 1'1· .lf r~ I· ll!Jff':1' I If-I 11J. ----~--········· j, i ·---·'":;l :1*-----:r-,-··· r---30---. ' --·-1 'T· i·I i ---_j __ ·:::::., ll"CCIIC ,i..:,,, .. t _ '"1·~: ..... ~711£ -... ••''""'"~ --,~~-· 'rt'; ., ,,•' ·-·= r,-........... j ............... ····"" 21 ·--..... ___ _ ' " -~}-, ' 1;",;:,.-.H '!:fs '" " ·~:'c!'.'~}:: "-~no i:;:;~• '>' /!}~z. \ / /iJ>' ~/,/~~\ ~ M;ll!ll;R:$:D '=~~ -~~---= , ..... --]NII. THE ENCLA'VEASHf BRIDLE RIDGE ·,. :::,:::.,...., 11ttr ~ffNJION a.ti.CUI.A~ B~. -:' ::=:=n~c --· ,. == :u=: .==.. r" U-1' • • -----___ ac_•_,. __ --- ITTC ~=- • ®·-"'·- ,-1,- \ Cl \01 ---·-_./ _:.i O O ""=.ur-- RECEIVED 'I"' 'I"' 'I"' 0 0 Ht~':1,-,, ' ---. . ...... 13 t "' ·-!JI' foi,111- ·-i" I ,}J:. I U,,,, CITY OF ~ RENTON --- FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Or RC:NTON PLANf,fNG DIVISION @ NORTH --· Lt...3' • lHE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREUM!NAA'I' PLAT TREECUfTNl ANO L»I) ClVJIN1 PUJf ·-·•n. l'j 0 .. ':I~ ~ Q~ .. ~ ~ m~; r~~ d ~zm ~ !¢'i I ~a u~ ffi~ ~ w j!; • I xxxx-xxx ::OOI~ 3101MB l V 3WlON3 3Kl -·-_ _.:._00414 7 ) ) ' • i I I j I Lt) I:; ca """ :c ~ ~ i:i w i!: ...a-11.,1 ~~=:.4~1 --• .._J\ "...,.JI / . .,.-i ~ I ·:,,,~----f,,_ ---r ---.,,r-··· m· .:!!: -~-~1 El Mitras»~~ ..u• --:r--:..~::.- 29 ........... ...... __ .... 22 ··-~ ·- ~. -If:,;_;_ I 'P' 'P' 'P' 0 0 QCUNflON suw .. ,r IR:fffT ··,1i . ' ,t,,,;i:~_,,.,. ~ CITY OF RENTON ® ~11-lttpt. @ NORTH --LJ' .. ' --lf0<•4<T. lHE El<JCl.\lfE AT BRIOlE RIOGE PREUMIN-'R"I' PLAT """""' """""' .... ORS PRO.fC'l' NO. 13117 -EXHIBIT 6 1 / _, ___ J •• ~ 6 ,, PNW HCU?INCi5 llC 1Hf: f:NC~A\/1:: at l7Rlv'L.f: RIDGE: ! MAfCHLINf -5ff 51-tff ~-~ ~ "':"T1'J i-__ _...._,":'...__~ ,-~-.~-~-~ --:'... \ -.-----u----"P""--: I l j I : : f : l I I I I I -: .... 20 : : 21 I i : !l,264..SF ..•.••• , -r·· . F. ) \ 22 +io·v.vrtt,~~ml.rr~ 1 ~-~so .. ~.. \ 1 aoso s.r. /N:,r11.UV~:ff\t:Cf·fQ.t! I "•• .••• -,.. J l~~: ________ :, t ________________ -1 ·r~--~--_____ ·-~< _J_ . ---·--------.: ' ' ' ' ' ' ··;., 17 1 ' . ' l 8,,~0 :'SF. : " ' I• I t "t \ . ' ,, ' I~---------• . ...._\. ___ ) / •· •.. : I ',, \ i J '•I. I , I r----.... :, -r-\ ... 1 ',,23 : : 24 \: B, 050'-Jif-) : 8, 68J S~'f". l I I I I I 1 • ! I I I ,H(Y'M1T,!t.lW7.A'f~-lt·~' : \ \ tjllMI.WMB.e:!1"1fM!-I \ I I (.1'.""'1'1~(r,:;j,I ' ---\.--..J r ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '• -t-.- j -1 ·---·-, I ' ' '' '' .·· }3'f2 ''s.F. J I '' '' ~--H- ~·-" ',.}-- '' -----' I l U:o '<i '· l ..... ~ -r-.1.:· SD 0.S£A: ! I ·· .... ____ l I: --. I h----, 15 ',,, , I •,, ', I l ~ e. J~~-s.r. ·-.) , 1 ••• r. '' ' a ' , 1 ·~---, I 1 I '--. ',, I ·:-,L,~~=-':_"__:o.,~.~-~':; '' ' ' ' ' ' :t : -1': ls 9,§J~ s.r. ' ', ' -,-.-,w,:----::-.. J . \.r.r,e,,r.~~ \ 'l't':',!(.'~.mJ : , 14 1 1 0'-9,256 s_r_ ' ·-·« 'h '', \ \ I ·-~-----------1 \1_...,-----7 11 I ) I! • · / I :I / I :I I / , \ I ! ' J \ fRACr"A'" _________ :::::· • STOl?U DRAINAGE'-"-·--·----.,,, / ,JI} 13i ~ Por 5ec110N' '10 s.p; \ J.2, I 74 s.~· --. / /Lf~:.·-~-:~satE~! \ --/-----------=--==~;=--~~.~. UW'"-(NN!i~l't)l'!(.Wt/ CU.-ol!.,-..C.lPMt,/',f/1.!ltl~ 711Mf:,r'..,OV(~ ~EB ' ~ ~ ~r'~:70'-()I! • :I ~ s:>L 23 ~ ' \ " fflf51Zt 11~ ----' D~ ~~~ ,!:Os ii:l ~ '~~~ ~<:__, ,.,_ d z "--' ~-2 %ef2of, "!~--_[_ '"-'Q~ -i-,- ";,------·,· 1 Ir) "1/-,~ \···t· r, : L _ __ ..L..... ------ . i ). I .· ·-... " 0 ,_ " "' ,a I ------I \--------------, ,-----------~'~ I I I I I '• , \ ------------:, I ---------------t -~-----~,,, \.+ ---1/-31 i \ 30 : : 29-.... \ : 9,539 s.F. : 1 8,050 s.F. t : o.~o s.r.",, I : _L l : i ',i ---L~=-----~~~:~~~J T~-~-~--~: ··----· _----y--r-------·-··-. __ -~ __ _l ,--------------1 :-----··---------, ;----------·..----- ' : i I i . ·-... ] I I 1 ' ~ ,-·-I 20 I I I l • ! •..... 1 1 I I I 9·26 ' -' 21 ' ' ' I ' "-..~~;.••"••·"·'!"" ·r-••-clR...., I I 22 : 1'Ylll1H~.JKN'f1:tfl'.lllt l I . ,...'B,-6'5Q S.F' I I 1 w,A.t.Wnfllf!:J'tnc · / ··--.: I I B.050 s.r. 1 'I"""""' : ·-··-•· ·"·-: . ______________ : :::-~-~-;.;;;;_) i._::·:::_ ... ,__J ---1 / .>.- .,.::_•_._._£_I' ' --- ··--... ,r. ~--------', ·-----. : ······-t ~-~--'f'<;---~~-1 -, ~-'•• I ' •.--, : --.......... -~ --.. 1 i ·f-... 2'',, I "-, I 8:~-?0 S.F. ',,J 8,,96J-...S,f. : ···, •••• _j_l I .. ~ \ ' ' ' ' I ____ -.:._:::~ .... ..:__ . ' ----.:..---' --.. •. { -.... _______ ' ---------.~} L 1+1 1··-2a·, i ) 8;<Q.5o s F. •••• • : I ', 1 J •-1 ' ' I ', ·-.,, I I "", • I ' , ..... , . ·<. ', ', ', i-------·-':'------->-~ ' .. ' ~-----.. i I .27 ··-.. .:_ : S:1;sil_~.F. : . ! --\, / I•< '•, I c~~~~~---.. _____ ·:-J., ',, ,------·---::""-..-::_~--1 :--':.-:...~---------\---, 1 '• .• I I ' ', 1 I '•l ( ', I t J ( I '- 1 I t•.,. I 't, \ I :······"3 11·\ 2\, \: 1 ·4 ,, I / \ '+, ·J 1 8,05<) ~F. 1 1 ' 868J SF ), I ··... I t • \ l' I I I ', '-1[•1 : '·,.: ) \ \ : Mww-----MAfC\t-[Ne -5ef: 5rleff ~ -2 ,----..::•.,:-----:. . .-.:..,. t--,, \ :: !"' l , '•,I I \ · 'I .. : \ 26·· .. 1·· ... 'I \ ' I ' , ~.158 s.r. '·. 1 :\ \ 'h I \ ~ I ', I \ , I ' !--;~ .. -~~;_~~· fC'~ tmlU-W~!'M'I.'-' h'"M!C.::~tr.N '•,, -..... ... ', \ \\~---·· \.-----'-..,. I : \ ',~ : ' 1··, \'~ I ' • I J ~:., 5 \ ' "' ' r ~ 9,5Jf SF. 1 l ', l I I •,, 1 I ~ '\ I --..... -.... - ,, I d. I ~ ~1"~226-t :ltl;Dm7 _ __,_ ~; ' / 7'-----, ' ' ' f l /l 1 r.... : I l 'U / I ' . ' l / : J I / I •' I _..,,.... ____ ~ I .--·/··· PNW HOl..171Nu5 U.C / .-------· ~6 cl ~i ~ I • ~ "' ~-~ " ~ ~~ i<. ~ ~* ~; ~ ~ "' I " ,\l " =' ~ ~ ?.i: l\ I' ', ' ' ' ' ' -~ .i. , , , / ----i ----, / /'k , 0 / ~co / ~ t __ J -----...-·'' --- " / , ' ' - . _____ ,,,._ __ --.......... ' • ! . i I .1 ! I f ._, THE ENCi EXHIBIT 7 _____ ..... -~-~ ' I I THE ENq EXHIBITS 00112 -·-··--·-----..... THE E EXHIBIT9 ., !!'!!\I , ... " 'I ! ~;.. "' ..::__--A\ E .~,,,. '· l1 ·---~----·-·---~----·-·-· ~-::;'.!:ii,u........,...l;t;-·-·-·--·. ,1i Y •• • \ )/. ~\ ,, 00112 ..._ .. ___ ........ I ' - THE EN( ·EXHIBIT 10 1 tJ-=-+--+---+-_j. -·--t, -ti-+-+--+---+~ I ! I I I ! I I I i ' I t I I ! I i i I I \ i \ ! I I ' ' ! --l--lf------4----L ---t-t-+------f----l-J I i j i ! i I J__. I ! I I i t ' i ' ' I I ' i r I i I I ' I ' I ' I I ' ! I I I I ! i _,, __ ; I I ., I -~ I , I\ ! j ' I I ' 00112 -·- II···, . . ' . . . ,; 111 Ii 11 I ' l I • .L I I I -· I - I --a,r,. - I "' ~ • " : >, I Ir--.. --. AT BRIDLE RIDGE THE ENCLAVE xxx-xxxx 1· I ! i I I I I ! ; ' i I ' T I ' I ' I I 1 I I I C I ; ! ' I/ j/ I I ( _J ' ! I ' J ' 00112 -·-. -----·--- II.,· . ' ' i- 1iil. ij Ir mT. • ' 1,r B I' ' ! I ' ' I I I 1 I ' I I I ' ! i ---,--t- i ! \ ' i I i I i ! I ' I I I I ' , , I f i i ! • i l \ ~ I i 7- I . l I ! ' -....l.. -· I I I ·-' - l i' I ' i - i \ ! I~ -· . ' ----t-+--,i~-J: I -· ------,h!Wi I -+-\ I H,,.,I .. "!:' I-ti-~-! I ... , I <:, ' u ! I I ·, -: 1 1 !\ _r 1 1 ! z - I I ' ·-. i I , 1 • I\ -~· i '. l _l_ __ ---~ \ -. -hi_ I ' \ I ' I ' I I -- -I I I' i rei--t-+-: --1--..i.. I 1 ---j ll •I-a-I ' ; ~r:S! ' , I j i "'' i I ·-1· ~1 flil , I BIIIII i ' ! ! I ·-•!" ._, IJ I -, 00112 -______ ..... THE ENO.A EXHIBIT 11 • l 00113 -EXHIBIT 12 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by ·l!i![fEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RtNJi P/J\NN:,~c Div;s,o~N 001131 I I I l I t ' l I EXHIBIT 13 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038156111 Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 35th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by Um D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 ih Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 C~;; OF RENTON . NNING DIVISION 001132 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 Earth Solutions NW, LLC EXHIBIT 14 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON P[ANNrNG DIVISION 1805 -136111 Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 001133 - · Greenforest lncorporatE Consulting Arborist 2/18/2014 Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC . 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 EXHIBIT 15 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIV!S!ON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from D R Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct froin its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBHJ, estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary {Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approxima_tely a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-06$6 001134 February 3, 2014 Justin 1..agf}rs - PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton swc Job#l3-187 1.0 INTRODUCTION - Sewa EXHIBIT 16 27641 a:, RECEIVED FEB 2 7 20!4 CliY Of-RENTON PLANNING 0/ViSION This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE, in the · City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity J..{ap 001135 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 17 ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,S66 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 14230S9057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 14038 156" Ave SE City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: frn Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department April 4, 2014 March 31, 2014 Date Date Marli Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services C.E. "Chip" Vincent, dministrator Department of Comm nity & Economic Development Date Date 001136. r l I I ! I ! I -- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 18 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: · APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 [Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and BJ and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet_ to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would .be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14--000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being _removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single_ family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 14038 1561h Ave SE The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these _notes ore provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning:_ 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise-approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 001137 i. ' 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. ·The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit: This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm: Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code Including 5- inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and ·45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feetlong. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from Water District #90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided oy the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156"' Ave SE near the Intersection with SE 144"' Street and ext6ending the sewer main fnto the plat_ The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156"' Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156"' Ave SE up to the north property line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on Y.-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid.· 5. Alt plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2%slope. Surface water: ER.C Mitigation Measures and Advlso ry Notes Page 2 of4 001138 f I ; 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six specia I requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar Rrver Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to _basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest comer of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to. help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number oftest pits. Due to the high moisture content, the·geotech recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ls required for this site. Transportation: 1 .. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will -be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The inte(secti_on currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation Impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street stanilards, the new internal roadway shali be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, ·gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed ;ilong both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156"' Ave SE shall include 22 feet of j)ilving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.5 foot wide curb, an 8-foot ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page3of 4 001139 I I 1. planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6--060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown on the plans. s. Paving and trench. restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be. included with the civil plan . submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection ancl storm connection will be reqlJired. 2_ All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. Ali utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licenseo engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and trt!e retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be Included· with the civil plan submittal. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advtsory Notes Page4of4 001140 OF ENVJR.ONMENlAL bETERMINATfON ISSUANCE Of A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFJCANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTU>TO NOTIF'f IHTERESTf:Ol'OSOHS OF~ ENV\f\ONMEITTA.LACTION PltOJEQ"NAMEl: l:Qmw • t.ridle llkl&e Prellmli-y Ha! l'RQIEO" N:JMlfA. 1UA14--0PC2<!1, ECf, l'1' lOO',TIDN: 14IISI Hli"' Ave SE DESOllnlON; l'n>pvMd ..,bdlvlsim qf 1n U •-projed 1'itb lo~ wld,lr, tt.. R-4 {~4~ 1t111t1 pwK1'11) Jlllllnf dm:lpadoA. TIN, prapm1l .-.Id rnult In the indlcl11 ofJl 1"'5 ar,d 2 trKb (TncCI A w,d IJ 1nd • n•l'I' ,wlk ll'tRft. T1M p!'O'pOMd lotli W01Jld n111t11" ~ fra111 C.OSDsq1.1art. fut to ~6.squar. f-. Acce:11:to '1M ,_ kl!ll wOll» 111:p,TridedYla I.-pUblk~t'Cltfof Ul?ft ....... n.,1 st, A lgt l'IM ""l'ustment (t.UA14-000UCI) k prvpc,Md bciwun w;,,: ~ 1"2305ffi7 and 14230591ll which .,.. rtWlt In 311,..1.n J~llllfl! tea rJf fNln:cl t423Cl590S7 klnc rerna,,N frwn tne. ~ :ruhdlwblan. n. stt. Js cu.,..ntfy de'l'lloptd w1D two llnsfl, homily rald1nce:, and I drta,:h,uf pn,c,i, AA nlsttnr ~dma b; PfVll'lKd tu r--..in 11>1'1 parul t.4llC1591li7. All othar 11tmctura u1 prop1>1ed 'ID IN -,,.,...t tl·u·o•q:h tha wt,dlvuil.., p-.. H<o critlc::1d anas ,,. p!"Ul!nt on tM '"'jed:Jltie. • TllE CTY OF REliJON E.NVIRONMDITAl. REVIEW COMMfTTI:1. jEIIQ }\AS DUERMINEO l"HAT THE PROPOSED ACT JON DOES NOT HA.VE A.Sl(oNlfll;,&,NT ADVf.RS('. IMPACT ON TIU" EtfVIRON~OO. AppH\J c,f tf'l1 ,mvlro~t d.tennlt1,1tion murt b1 filed hi wrltlnc Dl'I or befOO! 5:00 p-rn. on April U, ZDU, ~!It wltti U,e r,rq..tr-ed f111111 with:. Hurfn& Ellllrnln°"', Oty of Aentoo1, 105S SGuth Gr1dy ~J. RenUw1,. WA dOS7, Appall to the £Ql!VI~ •~ p,,1unl':d by 0tr Gf RMC 44-UO ind lnfo~an f"1prdl111: ttJi! app1:.J. proCBS ~¥ b1: abtnied from the Rent<>n City Cl,r\"s offlca, !425l 430o6S10. A f't.lBUC HEAJUNG Will Bf HEiD BY THE RENTON HEMING EXAMINER AT tUS flEGIJI.AR MEETIN$i IN TH[ COUNCIL OiAMBEU ON 'TH( 7TH FLOOR. OF crrY HAU. 1055 50llTH GRAO'I' WAY, R£N'l'ON, WASHINGTON, ON Al'Rlt 22, 2014 AT 10:00 AM TO CONS!t)EJI lHE •coNcmorilAt USE PERMIT, SHO'IT PlAT, ETC..~. IF Tii! ENVlRONMENTAl OEl'"UMINATION IS APPEAL.EC, TH£ APP£Al. Will SE HfA!\O AS P'AAT OF THIS PUB!.JC """""'· fOR FURTllER lNFORMATION..i: PLEASE CONTACTlrlE CrrYOf RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & t:CONOM\COEVElOPMENT AT (425] 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOT1CE WITHOlJT PROPER AUTHORJZATION r PLEAS~ INCtUOETHE PROHO: NUMBERWHEN'CAlONG FOR-PROPE_Rf:1':-flDENTIFICATlON. 1 .............. ~ .. EXHIBIT 19 I, /f~(ta l.J, 'cfc5ffl1#tereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were p sted in S-conspicuous places or nearby the ~??property on ' . Date: 1-Z'?-(Y Signed: ~?0 ~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON l l ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that , h~-ec;l, W{[!-. 'D irtJ-,r\ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. d ~G~,,, ', Date : l'.Y) o<cc&,~~:~ 1111 ____ .i:'.]l.a:!.~,..:....~ru..a.:'a,~'.__---------~ ff6~o~~~'\ ~u • • ·<-z Notary (Print): tf o/1., Tu,.ieo= \. ,>(/8\.~ '\ <' p ----'-'J.L.,Lu'-'4---j-'-''-"'CU7"-------- 8. ~.iip~o i ntm ent expires : __ _,4,."-1· "'t]-W--'1..,<,(qj-__ _,;;2,,,_,_~_.;;;=-'-'o~oo~-'11-'11><1:41-'1-1 On the 3rd day of April, 2014, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA determination documents. This information was sent to: ~}~Ji~f3e3_t~{~:f{~j-;i[~r~i:.f:~~i~i~~t, i~~:r~rz~[l~t~::r;~~~~~~~ }:~t;.:::-~~t4t11§,~ff~~~ Agencies· See attached {Signature of Sender]: ~~~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) 55 COUNTY OF KING ) Dated: Ape, r 3, 4ot'f ) See Attached Owner, Applicant, Contact, Party of Record Notary {Print): ______ A..\\-o:....= _ .... U,,,""'f- 11 --1_?'"'~"'-<'.l ... 1,_, 11 ... :e ,.,""C~a 0 ,__ 1 _ :>.-------- My appointment expires: 1 'u ~-r °' T .,_ _1 ,.Th,'""~@""''""'' LUA14-000241 template -affidavit of service by maiRng 001142 .._,, ....,, AGENCY {DOE) LITTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS} Dept. of Ecology o WDFW-larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Environmental Review Section lT!S !2th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -17lrd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * ouwamish Tribal Office* Muck!eshaot Cultural Resources Program* Attn; Ramin Pazoolci 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE PO Box330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers* KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Office of Archaeology & Hlstoric Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * • * . Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, A!CP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City ofTukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PD Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Tukwila, WA98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Rea I Estate Services· Attn: SEPA coordinator 700 Frrth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box34018 Seattle, WA 981244018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology Is emaHed a copy of the Environmental Chec:kllst, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following emall address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov · u•oepartment of Natural Resources ls emailed a copy of the Environmental Check.list, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the fol!owtng email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing 001143 iii'e Enclave at Bridle Ridg';' LUA 14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD fflf.iiM/fiiiii\lWi\l!IWL~ PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com ~i~'I Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-1589 Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38th Pl, 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 ~----M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-6594 Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Mazama, WA 98333 Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 , DAVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE 5TH Pl RENTON, WA 98059 (425} 271-7837 001144 P•l!" 1of1 March 21, 2014 Jill Ding. Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, \Na 98057' , __ _ David M EXHIBIT 20 6525 se _ .,_. Renton,\Na 98059 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SES th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is reg.irding the traffic going North and South on 156"' Ave Se. Since the b1Jilding of the bridge across Cedar River th<! ··-~-"---- traffic on ·is6"' ave se is unbearable. Coming out of any of the side streets off 156111 a~e·~ -i;;;;;;;i;:;;es impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down , there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the West side of 156"'. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised the.re isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, _ /\_ :D ~ h'\•uh.l:1 ~ David Michalski Email: dcrnichal@msn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 001145 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay @Jding@rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, EXHIBIT 21 Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA 14-00024 l, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22nd. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 511 Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156"' Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142nd intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142od that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress tum from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 13911 PL) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142"'1, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access. to 156th even more difficult. 001146 The addition of ANY new trips to SE 1561h between SE 5tll Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has. been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public · health. safety and welfare for the existing residents who access l 56tll from SE 5tll Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also vei concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / 142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand tum (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 1561h during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156"'! 142nd · intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any fmal SEPA determination or plat approval. · Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be . conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156"'! 14200 intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further. the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project 001147 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-1 J-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA . . The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Detennination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that !1Q comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22nd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 001148 If you have any questions regarding 1he comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerA.Pau!sen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF ofNotice of Application 001149 Jill Ding from: Sent: To: Cc: Subject · Dear Mr. Michalski, Jill Ding Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:38 AM 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' Rohini Nair EXHIBIT 22 RE: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/lua14-000241/ECF/PP Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review. The City is aware of the delay at the 156th Avenue SE and SE 142"" Place intersection. Unfortunately, the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project. According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 2.3 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development. to the City of Renton street system. - A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22, which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. If you have further comments or concerns, I encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again for your comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner -··---------· From: DAVID C MICHALS.KI[mailto:dcmichal@lmsn.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding Subject concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP 1 ·---~---·-·-·--·---····--- 001150 -EXHIBIT 23 Angelea Wickstrom from: Jill Ding Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:46 AM 'Roger Paulsen· To: Subject RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Mr. Paulsen, Thank you for your comments. They have been included in the file for official consideration by the decision maker. Below I have attempted to respond to the concerns raised in your letter. 1. In your letter you cite the proposed development's impacts on transportation. Per the submitted traffic study the current delay at the southbound approach to SE 142"d Pl and 1561 h Ave SE is 94.8 seconds. The future delay without the project is anticipated to be 133.2 seconds and the future delay with the project is anticipated at 137.1 seconds. Therefore, it is anticipated that the traffic generated by the proposed project would result in an additional delay of 2.3 seconds. I also understand that you have concerns regarding the traffic heading northbound through the SE 142"d Pl and 1561h Ave SE intersection as it makes a right turn from SE 5th Pl difficult. According to the submitted traffic study the northbound traffic at the SE 142"d Pl and 156th Ave SE intersection is currently operating at a Level of Service (LOS) Band is anticipated to continue operating at a LOS B with the construction of the proposed project. The City's transportation department has reviewed the proposal and has concluded that the payment of a traffic mitigation fee by the project proponent would sufficiently mitigate the additional trips generated by the proposed project on the City's street system. · 2. You also indicated in your letter that _youwould like the opportunity to connect to the sewer being constructed with the proposed project. It is my understanding that the City cannot require the applicant to provide sewer to abutting properties. In order to gain access ta the sewer being constructed, you would need to contact the developer (Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings Inc. 253-405-5587). The City would then review any plans for additional connections. 3. You also noted that additional wildlife, not identified on the SEPA checklist is present on the project site. Thank you for this information. 4. You expressed concern that adequate public comment has not been provided for the project and that the City's notice of application is misleading. The posted notice of application is in compliance with RMC 4-8-090B. The notice advertised the 14 day public comment period on the project and also advertised the date of the public hearing. Any comments on the project not made during the public comment period can be made at the hearing, currently scheduled for April 22"d at 10:00 am. If you have any additional comments or concerns, I would encourage you to attend the public hearing on April 22 at 10:00 am in the Council Chambers as an opportunity for public comment will be provided at the hearing. Thank you again for your comments. Jill Ding Senior Planner From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:46 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair; jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 1 001151 Ji 11, Please find attached an electronic copy of my comment letter for the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I'm sending this via e-mail while traveling in order to meet the March 24"' comment period deadline. I'll be entering an area of the country (southern Utah) where Internet access is unreliable. I'm copying my son, Jason Paulsen, on this is so he can address any questions or issues you may have if I'm unable to respond. Jason can be reached at jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication via e-mail to both Jason and me. Thanks!! Roger Paulsen -Original Message--- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Lisa Marie McElrea <LMcElrea@Rentonwa.gov>; Rohini Nair <RNair@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 6:38 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Thank you for your email. Could you send us your mailing address so that we can add you as a Party of Record? The plan reviewer assigned to review the Enclave at Bridle Ridge for utility compliance is Rohini Nair. I have copied her on this email. I do not have her direct line, but she can be reached by contacting the front desk at 425-430-7200. I primarily work remotely. I do go into the office once a week on Thursdays from 10am-2pm. I will also be happy to answer any questions you have on this project via email. I will let Vanessa respond to your request for public records, as I am not sure if we grant them electronically. Thank you, Jill from: Roger Paulsen [rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16,201410:41 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Fwd: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Jill, I'm forwarding an e-mail I had copied you on --but had your address incorrect. Hopefully this one works!! Roger Paulsen --Original Message--- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> To: VDolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <jding@renton.wa.gov>; jasonmpaulsen <jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com> 2 001152 Sent: Sun. Mar 16, 2014 10:37 pm "'-" Subject Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, This is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence regarding the project named "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", file number: LUA 14-000241, ECF, PP (see below). Now that the project has officially been posted, I request to become a party of record. Attached is an electronic copy of the required form, with my contact information. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, I am traveling out of the area, and won't return until after the end of the comment period on March 24th. I am an adjacent property owner (parcel 9425200080), and this project is of vital interest. I had arranged for my son (Jason Paulsen) to watch for official notice of the proposed development, and have been copied on Jason's correspondence with Jill Ding, of your department. Apparently Ms. Doing is out of the office on vacation until . March 20th, and was unable to assist Jason in obtaining an electronic copy of information on the project. I'm writing you in the hope that you can help. If possible, I'd like to receive an electronic copy of application materials and supporting studies pertinent to the SEPA decision so that I can comment prior to March 24th closing date. I am especially interested in reviewing the traffic study. I am quite willing to pay the reasonable cost of providing this information. Let me know the best way to provide payment. Now that the project application has been officially accepted by the City, I'd like to pursue my question regarding sewer service. Can you tell me who I can/should contact to determine whether this project will provide an opportunity for adjacent properties to connect to the Renton Sewer system?? Thanks for any help you can provide!!! Roger Paulsen --Original Message-- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:28 am Subject RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Yes you are correct, as long as you are the property owner. The City uses the King Co. assessors data to mail out to the 300 ft. surrounding neighbors, so whatever address the assessor have for tax purposes is where the City will mail the notice. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 From: Roger Paulsen Jmailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:33 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, 3 001153 Thanks for the update!! My wife and I will be away from home for the next 6 weeks, so I won't be able to watch for the pink notice posters. Based on my conversation with Chris on Monday, I understand that we'll also receive a letter in the mail .bec1;1use we are within 300 feet of the development Is that correct?? Our property actually abuts the development. We're having our mail forwarded, so I should receive the notice in time to become a party of record, and submit comments on the project. I'm assuming my question about access to the Renton Sewer system will need to wait until the City has actually accepted the application. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Thanks!!I Roger -Original Message-- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Feb 12, 201412:25 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, The name of the project based on your photos is '1561h Ave. SE Assemblage" This project did go through the City's pre-application process but has not been submitted to the City as an official application. The developer is required to install these public notices signs prior to application to the City. At this point in time we do not have an official application to add you to as a party of record. Please keep an eye on the big white sign, once you see a bright pink "notice" poster stapled to the front of the sign, the application has been submitted to the City for review. At this time please contact the identified person at the City that is noted on the pink "notice" sign requesting to be added to the party of records list. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com) Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 B:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject; Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for getting back to me!!! Attached is a z:ip file with photos takeri of the "Proposed Land Use" sign recently posted on the property. · The address is 14038156th Ave. SE. I believe the project number is 13117. 4 001154 Does that help?? Roger --Original Message-- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent Tue, Feb 11, 20145:23pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, I have searched the City's permit system for a project with the title ''Enclave at Bridle Ridge' or a variation of this title. We do not have any records of a project with this name in our system. Can you please provide me a site address or tax parcel number so I can identify what project you are inquiring about. If you would like to become a party of record for any project, the City has to have an application to assign "you' to. In order to do this I need to identify what application you would like to become a party of record for. Thank you for the additional information. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com) Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:09 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, By way of introduction, my wife and I live on the East Renton Plateau, adjacent to the NE corner of proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I had some questions about the development, and met yesterday with Chris in your department. He suggested that I forward one of my questions to you. Our property has a 50-year old septic system. It's currently functioning correctly, but I anticipate it's life is limited. wonder if the new development will provide us an opportunity to connect to the Renton sewer system?? If you're not the right person to address this question to, please direct me to someone who can. Although we haven't yet been formally notified of the development, I would like to become a party of record. Can I do that via this e-mail?? If so, the following is my contact information: Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th PL Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 RogerAPaulsen@cs.com . 5 001155 Thanks!!! Roger 6 001156 MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: REFERENCE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: J USTlFICA TION: -EXHIBIT 24 RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards N/A Landscaping, fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. The current drainage code (RMC 4-6-030) references the current King County Surface Water Design Manual {KCSWDM) for compliance with stormwater standards. Requirements for landscaping in stormwater facility tracts are included in Settion 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Section 5.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM restricts planting in berms that impound water or within 10 feet of any structure. Requirements for pond geometry and side slopes are listed in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. Adopted standards allow for the side slopes of an open detention or water quality treatment facilities (pond, wetpond, stormwater wetland, etc) to be steeper than 3:1 if a fence is provided along the wall and/or around th.e emergency overflow water surface elevation. This standard is resulting in facilities that are difficult to maintain, expensive in labor and materials for maintenance, and create a safety hazard to the maintenance crews. Fencing requirements are also standardized in section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. A fence is required to discourage access to the stormwater pond, prevent litter, allow efficient maintenance, and in consideration of worker and public safety. Recognizing that requirements for landscaping and tree planting contribute to the aesthetics and value of new surface water installations while needing to ensure proper functionality and maintenance of facilities, both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community and Economic Development desire to clarify standards H:\CED\Planning\11tle IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code lnterpretation\0-38\Code Interpretation.doc 001157 EXHIBIT 24 . Department of Community and Economic Development Development Services Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: REFERENCE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: JUSTIFICATION: RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards N/A Landscaping, fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. The current drainage code (RMC 4-6-030) references the current King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for compliance with stormwater standards. Requkements for landscaping in stormwater facility tracts are included in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Section 5.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM restricts planting in berms that impound water or within 10 feet of any structure. Requirements for pond geometry and side slopes are listed in Section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. Adopted standards allow for the side slopes of an open detention or water quality treatment facilities (pond, wetpond, stormwater wetland, etc) to be steeper than 3:1 if a fence is provided along the wall and/or around the emergency overflow water surface elevation. This standard is resulting in facilities that are difficult to maintain, expensive in labor and materials for maintenance, and create a safety hazard to the maintenance crews. Fencing requirements are also standardized in section 5.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWOM, as amended by the City of Renton. A fence is required to discourage access to the stormwater pond, prevent litter, allow efficient maintenance, and in consideration of worker and public safety. Recognizing that requirements for landscaping and tree planting contribute to the aesthetics and value of new surface water installations while needing to ensure proper functionality and maintenance ~f facilities, both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community and Economic Development desire to clarify standards H·:\CED\Planning\ Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code lnterpretation\Cl-38\Code lnterpre~tion.doc 001158 DECISION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR APPROVAL UTILITY SYSTEMS DIRECTOR APPROVAL DATE: APPEAL PROCESS: Cl-38 pertaining to the landscaping requirements applicable to stormwater facilities. Concerns for public safety have also raised questions regarding the necessity of more extensive fencing requirements for drainage facilities as well as lesser side slopes for flow control and/or water quality treatment ponds. This interpretation is intended to provide guidance and consistency for projects currently under review. Briefly, this determination clarifies: Fencing Requirements: All flow control and/or water quality treatment ponds shall be fenced. Fence material shall be six foot black or green coated chain link. Cedar or other materials may be installed only if owned and maintained by a private property owner or Home Owner's Association (HOA). Landscaping Requirements: Landscaping is required in those areas of the tract/easement that will not impact the functionality or maintenance of the facility. The fence shall be placed at the top of the berm with the maintenance access road in the inside of the fence; or 5 feet min from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road to allow access for proper maintenance of the facility. No landscaping shall be planted inside the fence line. Pond Geometry and Side Slope Requirements: Side slopes (interior and exterior) shall not exceed three (3) feet horizontal one foot (1) vertical. The full text of all clarified rules regarding fencing, side slopes, and landscaping in storm drainage facilities is attached as Attachment A. Neil Watts lys Hornsby February 4, 2013 To appeal this determination, a written appeal-accompanied by the required filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the Page 2 of3 001159 CODE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT - basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. DETERMINATIONS: RMC 4-3-060, Drainage Standards; RMC 4-4-040 Fences and Hedges; 4-7- 070, Description of Required Landscaping Types; Pages 5-1 and 5-2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Design Manual Cl-38 Page 3 of 3 001160 Attachment A 4-6-030 DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS; A. PURPOSE; 1. The purpose of this Section~ sRall tie ta prnFRete aRl'l ee,,,el013 f39lisie5 with re5pest te the City'5 waterEela!r5e5 ilfl4 to preserve #!em-the City's watercourses by minimizing water quality degradation from tiy pre·,i01;5 siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water, and to protect f!F9f3erty 9WRer5 triti1a1tary ts ee,,,elspee aRe HRae·;elspee land from increased runoff rates and to ensure the safety of roads and rights-of-way. 2. ft shall also be the purpose of this Section to reduce flooding, erosion, and sedimentation; prevent and mitigate habitat loss; enhance groundwater recharge; and prevent water quality degradation through permit review, construction inspection, enforcement, and maintenance iR sreer ts preFRete the etteeti,,,eAess ef the reeii;ireFReRts. 3. ft shall also be the a purpose of this Section to regulate the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) regarding the contribution of pollutants, consisting of any material other than stormwater, including but not limited to illicit discharges, illicit connections and/or dumping into any storm drain system, including surface and/or groundwater throughout the City that would adversely impact surface and groundwater quality of the City and the State of Washington, in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase If Municipal Stormwater Permit. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) 4. It shall also be the purpose of this Section to provide landscaping and fencing standards for surface water facilities that create attractive, functional facilities that improve public safety. B. ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING AUTHORITY: The Administrator of the Public Works Department is responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Section. Alf provisions of this Section shall be enforced by the Administrator or his or her designated representatives. (Ord. 5526, 2-1- 2010) 1 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 001161 C. ADOPTION OF SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL: The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual {KCSWDM}, as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton, and hereby referred to as the Surface Water Design Manual, is hereby adopted by reference,., with Hie e1EEeF3tien of CRar,ters 1 ans 2 0fH1e King Co1c1nty S1c1rfaee Water Design Man1c1al wRiER are net aEl0F3tea. Chapters 1 am:l 2 sf t"1e S1cJrface Water Design Man1c1al, as arnenaeEI ey the City sf Renton te sr,eeify leeal re'j1c1irernents ane woceel1c1res, are "1~retiy aelof)teel tiy referenee. References 1, 2, a, 4.A., 41l, 41), 7B, 7(, &~, &G, 9 anel Hl of t"1e King C01c1nty S1c1rfaee \!,later Design Man1c1al are not aeoF3tea. One copy of the Surface Water Design Manual and the City of Renton's Amended Surface Water Design Manual shall be filed with the City Clerk inel1c1aing any aA'!enElrnents therete. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010} D. WHEN REQUIRED: All persons applying for any of the following permits and/or approvals shall submit for approval a drainage plan with their application and/or request: 1. Mining, excavation or grading permit or license; 2. Shoreline permit; 3. Flood control zone permit; 4. Subdivision; 5. Short plat; 6. Special permit; 7. Temporary permit when involving land disturbance; 8. Building Permit; 9. Planned urban development; 10: Site plan approval; 11. Construction Permit; 12. Stormwater Permit; 13. Binding Site Plan; c: stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 2 001162 14. Any other development or permit application which wi/1 affect the drainage in any way. The plan submitted during one permit approval process may be subsequently submitted with further required applications. The plan shall be supplemented with additional information at the request of the Public Works Department. (Ord. 5526, 2-1- 2010) E. DRAINAGE REVIEW: 1. When Required: A drainage review is required when any proposed project is subject to a City of Renton permit or approval as determined under subsection D of this Section and: a. Would result in two thousand (2,000) square feet or more of new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface or new plus replaced impervious surface; or b. Would involve seven thousand (7,000) square feet of land disturbing activity; or c. Would construct or modify a drainage pipe or ditch that is twelve inches (12") or more in size or depth or receives surface or stormwater runoff from a drainage pipe or ditch that is twelve inches (12") or more in size or depth; or d. Contains or is adjacent to a critical area designation, defined and regulated in RMC 4-3-050; or e. Is a single family residential development that would result in new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface or new plus replaced impervious surface. 2. Scope of Review: The drainage review for any proposed project shall be scaled to the scope of the project's size, type of development and potential for impacts to the regional surface water system to facilitate preparation and review of project applications. If drainage review for a proposed project is required under subsection El of this Section, the Renton Development Services Division shall determine which of the following drainage reviews apply as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual: a. Small project drainage review (also known as residential building permit drainage review); b. Targeted drainage review; c. Full drainage review; d. Large project drainage review. c: stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 3 001163 3. Core Requirements: A proposed project required to have drainage review by subsection El of this Section must meet each of the following core requirements which are described in detail in the Surface Water Design Manual. Projects subject only to small project drainage review (also known as residential building permit drainage review) that meet the small project drainage requirements specified in the Surface Water Design Manual, including flow control best management practices, erosion and sediment control measures, and drainage plan submittal requirements are deemed to comply with the following core requirements: {For brevity, core requirements 1 through 8 not printed here, but will remain in the code.[ 4. Special Requirements: A proposed project required by subsection E of this Section to have drainage review shall meet any of the following special requirements which apply to the site and which are described in detail in the Surface Water Design Manual. The City of Renton Development Services Division shall verify if a proposed project is subject to and must meet any of the following special requirements: a. Special Requirement 1-Other Area Specific Requirements: The Surface Water Utility may apply a more restrictive requirement for controlling drainage on an area-specific basis. Other adopted area-specific regulations may include requirements that have a direct bearing on the drainage design of a proposed project. b. Special Requirement 2-Flood Hazard Delineation: If a proposed project contains or is adjacent to a stream, lake, wetland or closed depression, or if other City regulations require study of flood hazards relating to the proposed project, the one hundred (100) year floodplain boundaries and floodway shall be determined and delineated on the site improvement plans and profiles and any final maps prepared for the proposed project. The flood hazard study shall be prepared for as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. c. Special Requirement 3 -Flood Protection Facilities: If a proposed project contains or is adjacent to a stream that has an existing flood protection facility, such as a levee, revetment or berm, or proposes to either construct a new or modify an existing flood protection facility, then the flood protection facilities shall be analyzed and designed as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual to conform with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations as found in 44 C.F.R. d. Special Requirement 4-Source Control: All commercial, industrial and multifamily projects (irrespective of size) undergoing drainage review are required 4 c.; stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 001164 to implement applicable source control in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and the Surface Water Design Manual. e. Special Requirement 5 -Oil Control: If a proposed project is a high-use site, then oil control shall be applied to all runoff from the high-use portion of the site as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. f. Special Requirement 6-Aquifer Protection Area (APA): If a proposed project is located within the APA as identified in RMC 4-3-050, then the project must comply with drainage requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual and RMC 4-3- -050. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12-12-2011) F. CREATION OF TRACTS AND/OR EASEMENTS: 1. Method of Creation for City-Maintained Facility for New Residential Subdivisions with Drainage Facilities that Collect Public Runoff: New residential subdivisions must place stormwater flow control and water quality treatment ponds, vaults and other similar drainage facilities, along with the required perimeter landscaping in a separate stormwater tract granted and conveyed with all maintenance obligations (excluding maintenance of the drainage facilities contained therein) to the homeowners association. An underlying easement under and upon said tract shall be dedicated to the City for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein. The stormwater tract, including the landscaped area, must be owned by the homeowners' association. Each lot owner within the subdivision shall have an equal and undivided interest in the maintenance of the stormwater tract and landscaping features. Per RMC Section 4-6-030G, the homeowner's association is responsible for al/ landscape maintenance. This requirement is graphically depicted on the following page: 5 c: stonnwater draft code.doc 12/27 001165 - C 9'MfERSH!f' Of STORM't"'.\TEII TrV.CT OH RfSIQENDN, oeyaop1,11ENTS: """1111lrr4-f'll>IIJlnaddlliD<l<(i,,,••)1 .. w,n.,.k><alodln~ndl..l'l"......,_do;owj lnld ... bolha...._......l¥"'lllep,..,..ny-..wt!lll'ilho-....;on. ~--....... H--{H(M.)wlbe.-palllllil:ioilco"lhamUlonanc,,clo..lclnDIWIW«IDrnd~~ d,M\.~_,..,-k..,,Anolelhtlaruignooadiprop,,r!y_. .. ~~- 1>IMl!rid-diol,prwt.,.., ... ~ ...... -.1Ulncl....aebooplo,cadir>ll'lofnjp1111."" .........,"'11 .. _nl .... ...d..,..,., .. id11n1l>all"'nc1-11bo.,....,,.,,...10hClfl,cl_kw .... p...,,.,_ol_t.,,g.noinllllnnjl.lrnprl>ot,;.~Wld'-l,i"lllr,p,d~lhl,-- ~llln""""'"lnodlh .... ( <>:J l.ANO!C;A.f'rHG IU.l.CWEU PER SECTION U.1 OF THE KCS\i'IOM. J..·~_.,_:_ SOOOR SEEDW!nlAPPROPRl.l,TESEcDMD('11)RE t_,j,!~1 ONl V CIUSUHOJOR SW.LL SHRUBS W, Y le AUC)I,',£[). c: stormwater draft code.doc 12'27 PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPING., TREES, POND Gl!OMl!TRY AND Fl!NCINO STANDARDS ,1.w.....,.._ll()E~-~~ Ftic::ERB:Ul!EDON TOP OF l'#,U. §ElrEIW, NQIES; Tl-.. dlllllll ... -....r.c ,.,__i.....-......,._ -.I ......... ,..-, dapendhu an lpOmlm -~-~ .... -o...---.1ob,o~b,111<tCt,,a lan,:am.llbof"-ll"'"IDpo/lM i-,,,..., ... m..-.-occau:l,i,a,clil!M,Nl,k,<(1"'"~0RS INIIN'llmun,!l'Oftl1oporbant.,..lono~- ..,,.,,..,_~p,,;,,,.r~<>Ctofhi.cMJ. Ne i.,.....,pnv 1,; """'"ad ...u ... r._ ~~•l'loll>opl.......:lln ___ ..., ............... lo~!ldin Mdbill.3.1 .,, ... l(C$V'l!)M wbii;f,~~ ... ....,--...,.,...i _or......,IDr-at..,~. ~_.,..,, .. pc,l'ldba4t<w,iatJd...-dde olupcs .W i,. -od.dod or o-6ed "llh ., ~ -........ Al AIIMWllng ...... "' ..... t.:I: rm.sf Ila -plam,,,lwllh11 ... -.. •PPJ'Ol'Nlll'lderll,I KCSWDlilts~ . .... ___ pbOClnvJlllall.....,..,,IL> .. l(CSV,0.Wf~--~ b:::r!lon .,.,.,,...1i11a,1rucu1 such .......... -· ,vw.-.-. r.,.,..s11d1N<&IIOflnM111hLFor-1JK~ &ee: WSO-OT Slanlilllll !"Ian L-Z Type 1 orTw,e3 dlaifl lllkt.,,c,c, nir1w,c-1oi,....--b)'ltolCil)',i.,,o,,-. ~ l>e lpug&~lllzl<illNIJ•bri<.wte.bafldeol .... rl -11n11 ...... , sto.i lllbdc: tlanca !be "*"'*'Iii ~ VlnJI....U,,Jlhlllbo---..lOltlll .....-ndlng -IMtll lt.Q. gm,, In,,_ - .. c ... -blade.In .... tw.tnll> wood.n -.). .. pa&ll-.-~ . ..-.O:,-..ohdl>ll~<r .,..._,, ................. ....,..cl>N'lliN:lo,,ot. F..-.:e P<J&1 ....:t 111b ...... COlllnrm 11> WSOOT s111.-.iP1anl·~l)-1.1 . ...-~ d'ioiln.,......._ W>o<I'----lnldldtvi&lc>nr.w,t,ar,,l1"- wll ~1111i'llliinl,dt')'~ ................ adj1,C011tlcl.......,...,npdv,r,1oC>OflW!l-"11..-MIJAill -wh-.b! rei,oewilbepd-n,1...,!'l'IDJlanl!:l n- -..:tr....:..WDbropl1""4o,, p,,,..la~ .. Woodla,t,tt"""""-.,. O)'IIWIO.,:oltal ...... _ ..... _poirl[IJfllO<ldt:onlKl,ai.d)- u,t n 24-l'ldl '*"P curx;,ele 1oor1ngs or llacl-..,d 1o '°"'""''brgo,lywi:r:cd~Rdland- boa•-ti.o.<lar«p<tt...,.,-trr.odlo""11 -Thask>po....,1..-,dng~ln ... _ .__t.. 11,,o ~ -lo ... CkJadc,plod S<nlci, Wll'M 0~ M........._ STD. PLAN -234;.30 APRil. 2012 6 001166 -- b. Text Required: The following language is required to be noted on the face of the plat. i. Tract is for stormwater / landscape purposes and is hereby conveyed /to the subdivision home owners association {HOA} upon the recording of this plat. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract . An overlying easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the facilities contained therein. The homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance of said tract excluding said drainage facilities. ii. A stormwater easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton over, under and across tract for the purpose of conveying. storing, managing and facilitating storm and surface water. The City of Renton is hereby granted the right to enter said stormwater easement for the purpose of inspecting. operating. maintaining, improving, and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein. Only the chain link fence (if required by subsection G of this section), flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance facilities will be considered for formal acceptance and maintenance by the City. Maintenance of all other improvements and landscaping in said stormwater tract shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided interest in the maintenance of all other improvements constructed within Tract 2. Method of Creation for Privately Maintained Facility: As determined by the City, other types of new development shall create stormwater facilities either within an easement or within a tract not dedicated to City. In the case of a tract, the developer and successors shall own the tract and associated development site with an equal and undivided interest. 3. Method of Creation for Other Developments: As determined by the City, the City may take over maintenance of the drainage facilities located within either an easement to the City or within a tract owned by the developer and his successors in ownership together with an easement to the City. 7 c: storrnwater draft code.doc 12/27 001167 - G. ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCING AND LANDSCAPING: 1. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be consistent with the provisions of section 5.3 of the KCSWDM, except that within the City of Renton. landscaping of drainage facilities is not optional; it is required. Additionally, landscaping shall comply with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070F8, Storm Drainage Facilities. 2. Fencing Around New or Expanded Storm Drainage Ponds and Signage Required: All flow control and water quality treatment ponds and similar facilities. as determined by City Development Services, shall be fenced with a 6-foot tall chain link fence and access gate. Fencing is required immediately outside each new storm water flow control and/or water quality treatment pond and other similar facilities. as determined by City Development Services. For stormwater ponds, the fence shall be placed at the top of the berm with the maintenance access road on the inside of the fence· or 5 feet minimum from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road to allow access for proper maintenance of the facility. The chain link fence shall be coated with black or green bonded vinyl and installed as determined by the City between the facility and the required landscaping. Unless otherwise determined by the City. the fence gate must be posted with a 12 inch by 18 inch "No Trespassing" sign. Cedar or other fencing materials may be installed only if owned and maintained by a private property owner or homeowner's association (HOA). 3. Maintenance of Existing Facilities Required: Owners of existing drainage facilities not maintained by the City are required to continue to maintain existing landscaping and fencing. Replacement of deteriorated fencing and failed plantings is required . .!:!f. REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINAGE REVIEW: All persons applying for drainage review as specified in subsection El of this Section shall submit to the Development Services Division all engineering plans for review in accordance with the Surface Water Design Manual. The drainage plan and supportive calculation report(s) shall be stamped by a professional civil engineer registered and licensed in the State of Washington. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) !G. ADOPTION OF STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MANUAL (SPPM): The 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual (SPPM), as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton, and hereby referred to as the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, is hereby adopted by reference. One 8 c: stormwatcr draft code.doc 12/27 001168 -- copy of the manual shall be filed with the City Clerk including any amendments thereto. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) JH. DISCHARGE PROHIBITION: 1. Prohibition of Illicit Discharge: Materials, whether or not solids or liquids; other than surface water and stormwater shall not be spilled, leaked, emitted, discharged, disposed or allowed to escape into the storm sewer and/or drain system, surface water, groundwater, or watercourses. {For brevity. subsection o through e not printed here, but will remain in the code. I 2. Prohibition of Illicit Connections: The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of any connection identified by the Administrator or designee, that may convey any pollution or contaminants or anything not composed entirely of surface water and storm water, directly into the MS4, is prohibited, including without limitation, existing illicit connections regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection. 3. Remedy: a. The person and/or property owner responsible for an illicit connection and/or illicit discharge shall initiate and complete all actions necessary to remedy the effects of such connection or discharge at no cost to the City. b. If the person responsible for an illicit connection or illicit discharge and/or the owner of the property on which the illicit connection or illicit discharge has occurred fails to address the illicit connection or illicit discharge in a timely manner, the Administrator or designee shall have the authority to implement removal or remedial actions following lawful entry upon the property. Such actions may include, but not be limited to: installation of monitoring wells; collection and laboratory testing of water, soil, and waste samples; cleanup and disposal of the illicit discharge, and remediation of soil and/or groundwater. The property owner and/or other person responsible for the release of an illicit discharge shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the Public Works Department or its authorized agents in the conduct of such remedial actions and shall be responsible for City expenses incurred due to the illicit connection or illicit discharge, including but not limited to removal and/or remedial actions in accordance with RMC 1-3-3. c. Compliance with this subsection 14 shall be achieved through the implementation and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. The Administrator or c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 9 001169 designee shall initially rely on education and informational assistance to gain compliance with this subsection#, unless the Administrator or designee determines a violation poses a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare, endangers any property and/or other property owned or maintained by the City, and therefore should be addressed through immediate penalties. The Administrator or designee may demand immediate cessation of illicit discharges and assess penalties for violations that are an imminent or substantial danger to the health or welfare of persons or danger to the environment. 4. Elimination of Illicit Connection and/or Illicit Discharge: a. Notice of Violation: Whenever the Administrator or designee finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this Section, he or she may order compliance by written notice of violation to the property owner and/or responsible person, by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested. Such notice may require without limitation: . i. The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting by the violator; ii. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; iii. That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall immediately cease and desist; iv. The abatement or remediation of stormwater pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; and v. The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs. Any person responsible for a property or premises which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and nonstructural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system and/or waters of the State. These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NP DES permit. b. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Connection: The Administrator or designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested, to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit connection, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit connection to the MS4 that the connection must be terminated by a specified date. 10 c: storm.water draft code.doc 12/27 001170 c. Requirement to Eliminate Illicit Discharges: The Administrator or designee shall send a written notice, sent by first class and certified mail with return receipt requested to the property owner and/or the person responsible for the illicit discharge, informing the property owner or person responsible for an illicit discharge to the MS4, whether it be surface water and/or groundwater, that the discharge must be terminated by a specified date. d. Sample and Analysis: When the Administrator or designee has reason to believe that an illicit connection is resulting in an illicit discharge, the Administrator or designee may sample and analyze the discharge and recover the cost of such sampling and analysis from the property own~r or person responsible for such illicit connection or discharge pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, as now or as hereafter may be amended, and require the person permitting or maintaining the illicit connection and/or discharge to conduct ongoing monitoring at that person's expense. e. Right of Appeal from Administrative Decision: Any person aggrieved by an administrative decision of the Administrator or designee may appeal such decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110. f. Any illicit connection and/or illicit discharge as set forth in this Section or the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual is hereby declared to be a nuisance pursuant to RMC 1-3-3, and as defined in RMC 1-3-4Allc (23). 5. Reporting Requirements: a. In the event of an illicit discharge or spill of hazardous material into the stormwater drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the emergency dispatch services (911). b. In the event of an illicit discharge of nonhazardous material into the stormwater drainage system or waters of the City, State of Washington or United States, said person with knowledge thereof shall immediately notify the Public Works Department by phone at 425-430-7400, or in person. 6. Inspections, Investigation and Sampling: The Administrator or designee may lawfully enter property to inspect the facilities of any person to determine compliance with the requirements of these regulations. a. Access: 11 c: storm.\\'31er draft code.doc 12/27 001171 - i. The Administrator or designee shall be permitted to lawfully enter and inspect sites subject to regulation under this Chapter and Section as often as may be necessary to determine compliance herewith, at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspections, sampling or records examination. ii. The Administrator or designee shall have the right to set up on the property necessary devices to conduct sampling, inspection, compliance monitoring, and/or metering actions. b. Compliance with Inspection Report: Within thirty (30} days of receiving an inspection report from the Public Works Department, the property owner or operator shall file with the Department a plan and time schedule to implement any required modifications to the site or to the monitoring plan needed to achieve compliance with the intent of this Chapter or Section or the NPDES permit conditions. This plan and time schedule shall also implement all of the recommendations of the Department. 7. Record Retention Required: All persons subject to the provisions of this Section shall retain and preserve for no less than five (5) three (3) years any records, books, documents, memoranda, reports, correspondence, and any and all summaries thereof, relating to operation, maintenance, monitoring, sampling, remedial actions and chemical analysis made by or on behalf of a person in connection with any illicit connection or illicit discharge. All records which pertain to matters which are the subject of administrative or any other enforcement or litigation activities brought by the City pursuant to this Code shall be retained and preserved by the person until all enforcement activities have concluded and all periods of limitation with respect to any and all appeals have expired. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010} Kt REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 1. Process: All storm drainage plans and supportive calculations shall be prepared in connection with any of the permits and/or approvals listed in subsection D of this Section shall be submitted for review and approval to the Development Services Division. 2. Fees: Fees shall be as listed in RMC 4 1 1898 the City of Renton Fee Schedule Brochure on file with the City Clerk's Office. 3. Additional Information: The permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or designee. 12 c: stormwater draft code.doc 1'1J27 001172 4. Tests: Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with any of the provisions of this Section or Code, or evidence that any material or construction does not conform to the requirements of this Section or Code, the Administrator or designee may require tests as proof of compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction. Test methods shall be as specified by this Section or Code or by other recognized test standards. If there are no recognized and accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, the Administrator or designee shall determine test procedures. Suitable performance of the method or material may be evidence of compliance meeting the testing requirement. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) lJ. BONDS AND LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED: The Development Services Division shall require all persons constructing drainage facilities pursuant to RMC 4-6-030, except for single family residential lots, to post with the City of Renton a surety, cash bonds, assignment of funds or certified check in the amount equal to the estimated ·cost of construction calculated using the Bond Quantity Worksheet as described in the Surface Water Design Manual. 1. Construction Bond: Prior to commencing construction, the person constructing the drainage facility shall post a construction bond in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of conforming said construction with the approved drainage plans. In lieu of a bond, the applicant may elect to establish a cash escrow account with his bank in an amount deemed by the City of Renton to be sufficient to reimburse the City if it should become necessary for the City to enter the property for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating hazardous conditions relating to soil stability and/or erosion. The instructions to the escrowee shall specifically provide that after prior written notice unto the owner and his failure to correct and/or eliminate existing or potential hazardous conditions and his failure to timely remedy same, the escrowee shall be authorized without any further notice to the owner or his consent to disburse the necessary funds to the City of Renton for the purpose of correcting and/or eliminating such conditions complained of. After determination by the Department that all facilities are constructed in compliance with the approved plans, the construction bond shall be released. 2. Maintenance and Defect Bond (required only for those facilities to be maintained and operated by the City of Renton): After satisfactory completion of the facilities and prior to the release of the construction bond by the City, the person constructing the facility shall commence a two (2) year period of satisfactory maintenance of the facility. A cash bond, surety bond or bona fide contract for maintenance and defect with a third party for the duration of this two (2) year period, to be approved by the City of Renton and to be used at the discretion of the City of Renton to correct deficiencies in said maintenance affecting public health, safety and welfare, must be posted and 13 c: stonnwater draft code.doc 12/27 001173 - maintained throughout the two (2) year maintenance and defect period. The amount of the cash bond or surety bond shall be in the amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the estimated cost of construction for a two (2) year period calculated using the Bond Quantity worksheet as described in the Surface Water Design Manual. The owner of the property shall throughout the maintenance and defect period notify the City in writing if any defect or malfunction of the drainage system has come to his or her notice. Failure to notify the City shall give the City cause to reject assumption of the maintenance of the facility at the expiration of the two (2) year maintenance and defect period, or within one year of the discovery of the defect or malfunction of the drainage system, whichever period is the latest in time. 3. Liability Policy: Before a permit shall be issued for any construction, insurance will be required as follows: a. Duration and Limits: The applicant shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of the permit commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence/two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) aggregate. b. Additional Insured: Copies of such insurance policy or policies shal.1 be furnished unto the City with a special endorsement in favor of the City with the City named as a primary and noncontributory additional insured on the insurance policy and an endorsement stating such shall be provided to the City. c. Cancelation Notice Required: The policy shall provide that it will not be canceled or reduced without thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City. d. Waiver: Upon showing of a hardship and at the discretion of the Administrator or designee, the insurance requirements may be reduced or waived for single family or two-family residential applications. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12- 12-2011) MK MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES: 1. Drainage Facilities Accepted by the City of Renton for Maintenance: a. Responsibility for Maintenance of Accepted Facilities: The City of Renton is responsible for maintenance, including performance and operation of drainage facilities iAsiae tl'le f!mce that have formally been accepted by the Administrator. The City will also maintain any chain link fence surrounding accepted drainage facilities if the fencing is required per subsection G of this section. All landscaped areas, wooden fencing, or fencing constructed for a purpose other 14 c: storm.water draft code.doc 121.27 001174 - than safety within the tract, must be maintained by the property owners/homeowners' association. The following language is required to be noted on the face of the plat. i. Tract is for stormwater / landscape purposes and is hereby conveyed /to the subdivision home owners association (HOA) upon the recording of this plat. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract . An overlying easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton for the purpose of operating, maintaining, improving and repairing the facilities contained therein. The homeowners association is responsible for the maintenance of said tract excluding said drainage facilities. ii. A stormwater easement is hereby dedicated to the City of Renton over, under and across Tract for the purpose of conveying. storing. managing and facilitating storm and surface water. The City of Renton is hereby granted the right to enter said stormwater easement for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, improving, and repairing the drainage facilities contained therein. Only the chain link fence (if required by subsection G of this section). flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance facilities will be considered for formal acceptance and maintenance by the City. Maintenance of all other improvements and landscaping in said stormwater tract shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Each lot owner within the plat shall have equal and undivided interest in the maintenance of all other improvements constructed within Tract b. City Assumption of Maintenance Responsibility for Existing Facilities: The City of Renton may assume maintenance of privately maintained drainage facilities, including the perimeter fencing, after the expiration of the two (2) year maintenance period in connection with the subdivision of land if the following conditions have been met: i. All of the requirements of subsection E of this Section have been fully complied with; ii. The facilities have been inspected and any defects or repairs have been corrected and approved by the Department prior to the end of the two (2) year maintenance period; c: s:torrnwater draft code.doc 12/27 15 001175 - iii. All necessary easements entitling the City to properly maintain the facility have been conveyed to the City; iv. The facility is constructed on a plat with public streets and located on tracts or easements dedicated to the City; and v. It is recommended by the Administrator and concurred in by the City Council that said assumption of maintenance would be in the best interests of the City. c. Facilities not Eligible for Transfer of Maintenance Responsibility: A drainage facility which does not meet the criteria of this subsection shall remain the responsibility of the applicant required to construct the facility and persons holding title to the property for which the facility was required. 2. Drainage Facilities Not Accepted by the City for Maintenance: a. The person or persons holding title to the property and the applicant required to construct a drainage facility shall remain responsible for the facility's continual performance, operation and maintenance, including the perimeter fencing, in accordance with the standards and requirements per subsection C of this Section and remain responsible for any liability as a result of these duties. This responsibility includes maintenance of a drainage facility which is: i. Under a two (2) year maintenance bond period; ii. Serving a private road; iii. Located within and serving only one single family residential lot; iv. Located within and serving a multi-family, commercial site, industrial or mixed use property site; v. Not otherwise accepted by the City for maintenance. b. A declaration of covenant as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual shall be recorded. The restrictions set forth in such covenant shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for notice to the persons holding title to the property of a City determination that maintenance and/or repairs are necessary to the facility and a reasonable time limit in which such work is to be completed. 16 c: stormwater draft code.doc Ili27 001176 i. In the event that the titleholders do not effect such maintenance and/or repairs, the City may perform such work upon due notice. The titleholders are required to reimburse the City for any such work. The restrictions set forth in such covenant shall be included in any instrument of conveyance of the subject property and shall be recorded with the King County Records Division. ii. The City may enforce the restrictions set forth in the declaration of covenant provided in the Surface Water Design Manual. 3. Separate Conveyance System Required for Off Site Drainage: Cem•eyaREe systeFRs te l:le FRaiRtaiReEI ans ei,erates IJy Hie City FR~st Ile le,ates iR a ElraiAage easeFRent, traEt, er rigicit af way graRtes te Cit•f. Offsite areas that naturally drain onto the project site must be intercepted at the natural drainage course within the project site and conveyed in a separate conveyance system and must bypass onsite stormwater facilities. Separate conveyance systems that intercept offsite runoff and are located on private property must be located in a drainage easement that may be dedicated to the City if the City deems it appropriate depending on the upstream tributary area. 4. Other Cases: Where not specifically defined in this subsection, the responsibility for performance, operation and maintenance of drainage facilities and conveyance systems shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010; Ord. 5645, 12-12- 2011) Nt. RETROACTIVITY RELATING TO CITY MAINTENANCE OF SUBDIVISION FACILITIES:- If any person constructing drainage facilities pursuant to this Section and/or receiving approval of drainage plans prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section reassesses the facilities and/or plans so constructed and/or approved and demonstrates, to the Administrator's satisfaction, total compliance with the requirements of this Section, the City may, after inspection, approval and acknowledgment of the proper posting of the required bonds as specified in subsection M of this Section, assume maintenance of the facilities. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) OM. ADJUSTMENT: 1. An adjustment to the requirements contained in this Section or other requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual may be proposed. The resulting development shall be subject to all of the remaining terms and conditions of this section and the adjustment shall: a. Produce a compensating or comparable result in the public interest; and 17 c: storrnwater draft code.doc 12/27 001177 - b. Meet the objectives contained in this Section of safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability based upon sound engineering judgment. 2. Requests for adjustments that may conflict with the requirements of any other City departments shall require review and concurrence with that department. 3. A request for an adjustment shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant may appeal an adjustment decision by following the appeal procedures as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual per RMC 4-8-110. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) fl\l. VARIANCE: 1. If complying with subsection E2 of this Section will deny all reasonable use of a property, a variance to the requirements in the Surface Water Design Manual may be requested from the Community and Economic Development Administrator or designee in accordance with the variance process defined in the Surface Water Design Manual and RMC 4-9-250. 2. A request for a variance shall be processed in accordance with RMC 4-9-250. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) QO. SEVERABILITY: If any provision, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Section or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remaining portions of this Section and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) ]ii>. VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION AND PENALTIES: A violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall be a civil infraction upon the first offense pursuant to RMC 1-3-2. See also RMC 4-6-110. Amend RMC section 4-4-040, FENCES AND HEDGES, to read as follows: A.PURPOSE: These regulations are intended to regulate the material and height of fences and hedges, particularly in front yards and in yards abutting public rights-of-way, in order to promote traffic and 18 c: stonnwater draft code.doc 12./'17 001178 -- public safety and to maintain aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods. The following regulations are intended to provide and maintain adequate sight distance along public rights-of-way at intersections and to encourage safe ingress and egress from individual properties. These regulations also encourage the feeling of spaciousness along neighborhood streets and minimize the closed city atmosphere which tall fences along public rights-of-way can create. B. APPLICABILITY: The provisions and cond~ions of this Section regulating height are not applicable to fences or barriers required by State Q[__Q!Y__law or by t1'le zoninQ pro•,isions of 11'lis Cose to surround and enclose public safety installations, school grounds, public playgrounds, storm drainage facilities, private or public swimming pools and similar installations and improvements. Fences and hedges within the urban separator overlay are also subject to requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay regulations (see RMC 4-3-110). (Ord. 5132, 44-2005) Amend existing code section RMC 4-4-070B1b, landscaping, Applicability to read as follows: b. All new buildings, and new surfacewater facilities; Insert a new code section ahead of existing section RMC 4-4-070F8 and renumber existing section F8 to F9 and add a heading for this relocated section as follows: RMC 4-4-070F: 8. Storm Drainage Facilities: The perimeter of all new flow control and/or water quality treatment stormwater facilities shall be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of this Section, the 2009 KCSWDM, and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM (on file with the Renton City Clerk's Office) unless otherwise determined through the site plan review or subdivision review process. 2&. Urban Separator Properties: Properties within urban separators are subject to landscaping requirements of RMC 4-3-llOE in addition to the requirements of this section. Amend RMC Section 4-4-070H, Landscaping, Description of required landscaping types, by adding a new section 6 to read as follows: 6. Storm Drainage Facility Landscaping: a) Trees are Prohibited on Berms: Trees are prohibited on any berm serving a drainage-related function, however, groundcover is required and subject to City review/approval. c: storm.water draft code.doc 12/27 19 001179 - bl Additional locations where Trees and Shrubs are Prohibited: 1) within the inside of the fenced area; and 2) within 10 feet of any manmade drainage structure (i.e. catch basins, ditches, pipes, vaults, etc). cl Perimeter landscaping Required: Minimum 15-foot wide landscaping strip on the outside of the fence unless otherwise determined through the site plan review or subdivision review process. d) Type of Plantings Required: Plantings shall be consistent with the KCSWDM and this section. Additionally, trees must be spaced as determined by the Department of Community and Economic Development. el Conflicts: In the event of a conflict between this section and the KCSWDM, the landscaping provisions of this Section shall prevail. See also pages 5-1 and 5-2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Amend pages S-1 and 5-2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual to add the following text relating to fencing and side slopes: 5.3.1.1 Design Criteria, Side Slopes: Replace paragraphs 1-4 with the fallowing: 1. Side slopes (interior and exterior) shall not be steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. 2. Pond walls may be vertical retaining walls, provided: (a) they are constructed of reinforced concrete per Section 5.3.3 (p. 5-35); (b) a fence is provided along the top of the wall; (c) at least 25% of the pond perimeter will be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 3H: 1V; and (d) the design plan is stamped by a licensed structural civil engineer. 5.3.1.1 Design Criteria, Fencing: Replace paragraphs 1 and 2 with the following: All ponds and other similar facilities, as determined by the City Development Services Division, shall be fenced. On stormwater facilities to be maintained by the City, a fence shall be placed at the top the berm with the maintenance access road in the inside of the fence; or S feet minimum from top of berm if there is no maintenance access road allowing proper maintenance of the facility. 20 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12127 001180 -- Fence material shall be six foot high black or green bonded vinyl chain link. Cedar or other fencing materials may be installed only if owned and maintained by a private property owner or Home Owner's Association (HOA). Language assigning maintenance responsibility of the fence will be placed in the final plat. 5.3.1.1 Landscaping: Replace introductory paragraph with the following: Landscaping is not optional: it is required on all stormwater/landscaping tracts. Landscaping is required in those areas of the tract that will not impact the functionality or maintenance of the drainage facilities. For stormwater ponds to be maintained by the City, no landscaping shall be planted inside the fence. Landscaping inside the fence is allowed for storm water facilities to be privately maintained provided that the landscaping complies with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070F8, Storm Drainage Facilities. 5.3.1.1 Landscaping: Add to bullet #2 the following: If Stormwater pond is City maintained, then landscaping is prohibited in the inside slope of the pond and trees are prohibited on any drainage-related berms. No landscaping is allowed inside the facility fencing. 5.3.1.1 Signage: Add the following text to this section: The fence gate must be posted with a 12 inch by 18 inch "No Trespassing" sign, unless otherwise approved by the City. Amend the "Reference» section at the end of the "City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual" to replace Form Number I, "Maintenance and Defect Agreement" with the following updated form: 21 c: stoanwater draft code.doc 12127 001181 City of Renton Page 1 of 4 - MAINTENANCE AND DEFECT AGREEMENT (Two Years) For public roads, drainage facilities and other public improvements Agreement Number Guarantee Amount Applicant's Name and Address Project Number and Name Site Location/Section Reference Number(s} of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page Grantor(s): Grantee(s}: 1. 1. 2. This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 20~ between the City of Renton, hereinafter called the CITY, and the above named APPLICANT, hereinafter called APPLICANT. Basis for AGREEMENT: WHEREAS the undersigned APPLICANT has constructed public roads and/or drainage facilities and other public improvements to be deeded to the City in connection with the above-referenced project; and WHEREAS the APPLICANT has agreed to secure the successful maintenance and operation of said improvements for the referenced projects pursuant to RMC 4-6-030 and RMC 9-10--5. NOW THEREFORE, the APPLICANT hereby agrees and binds itself and its legal representatives, successors, and assigns as follows: Terms of the AGREEMENT: 1. The improvements constructed by the APPLICANT or his representative shall successfully operate and shall remain free of defects in design, workmanship, materials, and design for a period of two years from the date of satisfactory completion of the improvements or final plat approval, whichever is later. As used in 22 c: st6rmwater draft code.doc 12127 001182 this AGREEMENT, the term "defects" includes but is not limited to, damage resulting from construction activities and/or use .during the two year period. 2. The APPLICANT is responsible for maintenance of the public road, drainage facilities and other public improvements, including the roadway surface for the two year period from the date of satisfactory construction approval or final plat approval, whichever is later. City of Renton Page 2of 4 Agreement Number Project Number and Name 3. In the event of any failure of the improvements to satisfactorily operate or in the event of a defect in design, workmanship or materials, the APPLICANT shall promptly and adequately repair and/or correct the failure or defect. 4. The CITY will perform maintenance inspections during the two year period. 5. During the two year period upon notification by the CITY, the APPLICANT shall correct and/or make repairs to the right-of-way improvements within the time period specified by the CITY when defects in the design, workmanship, or materials occur. 6. In the event the CITY determines that repairs must be performed immediately to prevent risk to person(s) and property, the CITY may make necessary repairs and the costs of those repairs shall be paid by the APPLICANT upon demand. 7. The APPLICANT shall pay all required fees in accordance with Renton Municipal Code. 8. At the end of the two year period, the APPLICANT shall clean the drainage facilities prior to the CITY's final inspection. 9. If, at the conclusion of the two year period, the City of Renton, at its sole discretion, determines that the improvements are not adequately maintained, the APPLICANT shall perform prompt maintenance to the CITY's satisfaction. In the event this maintenance is not performed within the time period specified by the CITY, the CITY will invoke the enforcement processes found in RMC Chapter 1-3. 10. Any failure by the APPLICANT to comply with the terms of this AGREEMENT in a timely manner shall constitute default. Any action or inaction by the City of Renton following any default in any term or condition of this AGREEMENT shall not be deemed to waive any rights of the City of Renton pursuant to this AGREEMENT. 11. The APPLICANT shall indemnify and hold the CITY and its agents, employees and/or officers harmless from and shall afla-defend at its own expense all claims, damages, suits at law or equity, actions, penalties, losses, or costs of whatsoever kind or nature, brought against the CITY for negligence arising out of, in connection with, or incident to the execution of this AGREEMENT and/or the APPLICANrs performance or failure 23 c: stormwatccdraftcode.doc 12/27 001183 - to perform any aspect of the AGREEMENT. Provided, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from concurrent negligence of the APPLICANT and the CITY, its agents, employees and/or officers, this provision shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the APPLICANT, and provided further, that nothing herein shall require the APPLICANT to hold harmless or defend the CITY from any claim arising from the sole negligence of the CJTY's agents, employees and/or officers. 12. In the event that any party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this AGREEMENT, the parties hereto agree that any such action or proceeding shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in King County, Washington. 13. The Applicant is granted the right to access City right-of-way, tracts and easements dedicated to the City for the purpose of performing work required by this Maintenance and Defect Agreement until the agreement is released. City of Renton 3 of 4 Agreement Number Page Project Number and Name Release Requirements: This AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be releas("d until all terms of this AGREEMENT have been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Renton. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT as of the day and year first above written. APPLICANT By Title Date Received for City of Renton By Date IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantor has caused this instrument to be executed this_ day of __ ,20_. 24 c: stormwaterdraftcodc.doc 12/27 001184 - Notary Seal must be within box City of Renton 3of4 Agreement Number Notary Seal must be c: storm-water draft code.doc 12/27 INDIVIDUAL FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT · STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 55 COUN1Y OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) ________________ _ My appointment expires:. _____________ _ Dated: Page Project Number and Name REPRESENTA T/VE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT 25 001185 - within box Notary Seal must be within box 9/4/2012 c: stormwater draft code.doc 12/27 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ss I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the and ---------- of to be free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print} ________________ _ My appointment expires: -------------- Dated: CORPORA TE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING On this ___ dayof _____ _,20~ before me personally appeared to me known to be of --------------the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and each on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print} _________________ _ My appointment expires: ------------- Dated: 26 001186 Enclave at Bridle Ridge Safe 0 32 64 t WGS_ 19B4_Web_Mercator_Auxil1ary_Sphere Feel lnfonnation Technology -GJS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 04/11/2014 l oute Ito School Th!slfiiap Is a uaer9e~erated static output from an lnteml'tt mapping site mj,d le rat ref!irence only, ~a\a layers that 11ppear on this map may or may not ' ao:;1.1rate, current. or olherwise relie THIS MAP !SNOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATlQN Lel!iand Ctty and C<junty Boundary (J Ollm Cl Clty cf Rtfltoo Addresses Parcels ( ( ~ :c t-4 D:I ~ I\J V'I -COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M April 18, 2014 Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Neil Watts, Development Services Director Traffic Concurrency Test for The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat EXHIBIT 26 The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single family lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: 001188 Transportation Concurrency Test -jaye at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 2014 - D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the .. concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision.maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page Xl-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 001189 -EXHIBIT 27 LJlA \ W -OODoi{.l QJv\ oW (l1 d,1 001190 -___ May 22, 2014 'Boise Stachowiak 66i4 SE 5th Pl Renton, \NA 98059 w --Community & Economic Development Department -C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT:· Enclave at Bridle Ridge; LUA14-000241, PP, ECf- -Oear_M_s. Stachowiak:_ Thank you for your comme~t lettei. Your letter tias been included in the official me for con_sideration by the decision maker. You have been ~dde<J as a party of record for this • project. A hearing has been scheduled for June 24th ·at 8:00 am, you may wish'tci attend and tesitfy. The hearing wHI be held on the 7'h floor of City Hall in the r::ouncil Chambers. --. . . . -. . . . ' -. ' Pleas.e contact me at (425) 430-659S or jding@rentonwa.gov if you have ariy questions: • Sincerely, - -~--:,':) - ----__ ---_-Jil1Dmg~ · -_ Seniot Plann·er · 1\ Renton City Hall ; 105S South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 .renionwa.gov 001191 . . . . . . ' . April 16, 2014 City of Renton Attn: City Oerl< Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 - EXHIBIT 29 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON CODE SECTION 4.8.llO(E)(Z) To All Whom It May Concern, Pursuant to City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.110(E)(2), please accept this letter as a formal Request for Reconsideration of the Environmental (SEPA) Threshold Determination issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee for project# LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. As a party of record for this project, this Request for Reconsideration is filed with the intent of utilizing all av:ailable administrative remedies to see that the adverse environmental impacts of this project are adequately understood, documented, and mitigated by the City and/ or applicant --all in the spirit of the City of Ren ton's adopted codes, policies and procedures. As an ordinary citizen, I have found the City ofRenton's code section 4.8.110 on appeals to offer very little practical guidance or direction with respect to how the Request for Reconsideration process works, or even who considers the request. While I encourage you to dedicate time to improving this information for the benefit of future citizens, the time provided for me to become educated, and file this request in a timely manner, leaves me with no option other than to simply offer the best I _can. To that end, I beg your patience and understanding if the format of this Request is not in-line with what you may typically receive. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request, and for your thoughtful attention to the issues I believe warrant additional study and mitigation in order to adequately protect the public safely, health and interests of the citizens of our community. As a long-standing member of this community, I both accept and embrace growth and change in the City of Renton. Unfortunately, my engagement in this process reveals what I believe to be serious missteps by the City in processing this application. In the spirit of ensuring that the public process we hold so dear in this countty is respected, I submit this Request for Reconsideration. Standing As an adjacent landowner, and as a party of record who properly submitted written comments regarding the concerns identified in this Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit A), and as a City of Renton resident who has only one point of access to the City's transportation network via the SE 5"' Place/ 156" A VE SE intersection, my public health, safety and welfare are at-risk should the City not carefully consider this Request for Reconsideration and adopt the necessary actions I am 1 001192 --~----- requesting. To allow additional unmitigated traffic from this project, absent a full understanding of the project's impacts as reqrured under SEPA, has the potential to adversely impact both my persom..l safety interests, as well as my private property interests as they relate to the value of my property at the time of future re-sale. For these and other reasons, I believe that I have the reqrured standing to bring this Request for Reconsideration Identification of Concerns for Which Reconsideration is Requested The issues for which I request your reconsideration relate to the transportation impacts of the proposed project, and to the public comment notice and process associated with the Threshold Deteonin.ation. Concern #1. Transportation After review of the Environmental Review Committee Report for this project dated March 31, 2014, (Exhibit D) it is clear that the City's Environmental Review Committee made an error in basing their Deterroinstion upon the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Traffex (Exhibit B, dated December 27, 2013). The Traffic Impact Am..lysis relied upon for this Determination fails to comply with the City's own policy for such analyses. Specifically, this analysis fails to study the AM Peak traffic condition in addition to the PM Peak traffic condition associated with the project. In the TIA submitted by the applicant, and relied upon by the ERC, the author states as follows: 'The scope of this ana!Jsis fr based upon the preliminary plat si.te plan and the City of Renton Poliq Guidelines far Traffic Impact Ana!Jsis far New Develupment". By relying upon this report, the City failed to adequately infoon itself with the full range of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the transportation demands of this project, as the report is clearly not in compliance with the City's Policy Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, attached as Exhibit C to this request. Specifically, the City's policy states clearly that for a project such as this, where A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour Trip contributions are >20, a complete Traffic Impact Analysis shall be completed, and said analysis shall present aod consider both the A.M. and P .M. Peak Hour conditions, among other analysis. See excerpt below: Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates nsed (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. 2 001193 i I ! . .·. -:···:<:.:c.·::.·.··-- Itis a matter of fact that the Traffic Impact Analysis relied upon by the City of Renton ERC did not provide the rninirnutn information and analysis required by the City of Renton', own policy, and therefore the ERC has erred in issuing their Determination absent this information, and their Det=-ination should be found to be arbitrary and capricious, in addition to in error. Concern #2. Transportation My second con= also relates to transportation, and the ERC's apparent misunderstanding of the scope of the Traffic Impact Analysis that was received by the City. On page #7 of their March 31, 2014 Environmental Review Committee Report (Exhibit D), the Committee states: 'The Tr4fic ImpactA.ru,.fysis (Exhibit 10) a/.ro indudes a l...,vel ef S,rvia (LOS) rrview efthe =unding intersut£ons in the immediate vialli'q ... " This report goes on to conclude that " ... the sJtTTOunding interrections would amtinue to operate at an acceptabk l...,vel ef Service (LOS) with the exception ef the southbound approach({} the 156'' Avenue SE/ SE 14:r' Plact int<rsection." Both of these statements appear to assume that the analysis completed by the applicant actually looked at existing intetsections other than the 156"' / 142"d Place intetsection. They did not In fact, the 156"' Ave SE/ 142°" intersection is the ONLY existing intersection that was analyzed by the applicant Despite public comment informing city staff and the ERC of concerns at the closest adjacent existing intersection to the proposed project (SES"' Place), the ERC did not require additional information frorn the applicant to inform an understanding of the impacts at this intersection. Additionally, by only analyzing the P.M. Peak Hour Gust 2 hrs. 45 min on December 17"'), the analysis completdy failed to understand or analyze the impacts of A.M. Peak Hour traffic conditions on 156"' at SE S"' Place or other impacted intersections to the north. The ERC's Threshold Determination is not supported by fact, as it clearly did not include an analysis of additional existing intersections, despite the ERC concluding·that it did. Because of this, the ERC erred when they based their Threshold Determination upon the TIA. Concern #3 Transportation Ironically, in light of Concerns #1 and #2 above, when one digs deeper into the March 31, 2014 Environm=tal Review Committee Report, we find that City of Renton staff are not only aware of potential adverse impacts of the proposed project as they relate to access from the project to 156"', but they go so far as to inform the applicant that they may " ... impose ltft turn restrictions at that interrection. "(See Exhibit D, Page 10 of 11, Transportation Item #3). This already contemplated "remedy'' identified by City of Renton staff not only acknowledges that there is a serious Levd of Service issue that is likdy to be ==bated by this project given the lack of available capacity at the 156"' / 142"d intersection, but also suggests that the City's "remedy'' will 3 001194 'I ,, I ! -.------------~------------ force this traffic to the right, or north, onto 156"', further degrading the Level of Service at the 156"'/ SE 5"' PL intersection, and other intersections to the north along 156"' Ave. SE. Again, since no analysis was completed to inform an understanding of potential adverse traffic impacts north of the proposed project on 156"', the ERC's Threshold Determination could only have been based upon incomplete information. This is an error on the part of the ERC, and should be corrected a.s part of this Request for Reconsideration. Concern #4 Transportation 'Ibis concern relates specifically to how the ERC proposes to mitigate the impacts that wen identified by the study. In their Tbreshold Determination, the ERC mitigates the identified transportation impacts. by adopting, by reference, the recommendations identified by the applicant's consultant in the Traffic Impact Analysis. When one looks closer, we find that, other than otherwise required street frontage improvements; the only mitigation recommended is the payment of an otherwise required Traffic Mitigation Fee that is based upon the number of lots_ in the proposed project. In the ERC's March 31, 2014 Report (Page 7 of 11) they conclude as follows: "It is not anticipated that th, propoud project significant!:; adverse!:; impact (sic) the City o/Rtnton ~ street system subject lo the payment of code rrquirrd impact fm and the conJ/ntction of cod, r,qumd frontage improvements. " Unfortunately, nowhere is a nexus established between the impacts identified in the TIA and the proposed mitigation. A review of the City's 6 Year Transportation Improvement Program reveals that the deficiencies of the 156"' / 142"" intersection are not addressed in any form. For this reason, the ERC has erred in simply applying the mitigations recommended by the applicant, as they fail to satisfy the requirements under State Law (R.CW 58.17 & the Growth :Management Act) that capacity for additional traffic be available at the titne of project approval In order for this to be true, there must be an established nexus between the fees that will be paid and the deficient traffic conditions at the 156"' / 142"" or other intersections where a proper analysis may indicate a Level of Service deficiency. Concem #5 Transportation Also related to the above concerns (ie:, the transportation impacts of the proposed project) I have received new information in response to a Public Records Request which I filed to better understand the City's internal review process as it relates to transportation concurrency, a requirement under State law and City of Renton ordinances. As you can see in the e-mail below, dated April 15, 2014 from Steve Lee, Dev. Engineering Manager, it is noted that the City's Transportation Division is ''cllmnt!y assessing any improvements arr warranted (if any) ... ''. This confirms that work is on-going at this titne (April 15"') to both evaluate and mitigate the proposed project. 4 001195 - This e-mail serves to document yet again that the ERC was not fully informed with respect to the likely or probable adverse environmental impacts and possible mitigations associated with this project. This constitutes an ettor on the part of the ERC, as well as the City's development review process, and further validates the merits of this Request for Reconsideration. Sandi Weir -Sent: To: Cc: Subjed:: Attllcliment,:: Stevei..ee' Tuesday,Apdl 15, 201411:14 AM Clty(te,k ReaITT!s Jan Hlian; Jill Ding; Neil R. Watts: Jennifer T. Henna,g; Rohinl Nair RE: New PUb6c Records Requost -PR!t-14--085 ("""lYml Tran<poCond'ollcy1404lS.pdf ' See attached files !mt on, related do=neotatlon on rhe City pr~ncy, ,tan4ards •nd pn)Ces. relating t<> ~n Code SectJon 4-6--070. I believe this i, the lnformatii>n M<. l'alllsen is se<>lting:" The lnfom,ati<)o, as extracted from the approved CityComprehenslve Plan,~ Mr. Paulsen t,owthe City administers a mUlti modal test Reoton Code ~cwn 4-5-070 notes thstlton;PQttation coOOJrT""'Y can boa combin;,tion of ~men ts or strategies ln place at the time of bullding permit is,;.uana,, or within a reasonable amount of time after buiding iswanc:e, per 4-6-Cl'IO A.l, or a financial tomm~ is pla(:ed. A financial commitment can be the tr.ftk mitigation~ paid for the new developnrellt and i,; generally ~d by the C'tty for lmprovem<!ot. tl1mugf,out the City. Our Transpo,talion Division is the te<hnlcal revi<!w •utl1otitV and is curren.'ly assessing any impmven,ents an! wamtlted (ihny) (ol'd. 5675, 12-3-2012). The Transportaii<>n Division has rorrently providedsom• dlreciion as lo an Initial response with the 5'alement, "Within the City af Renton, the <teep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the uppe< plat1"1U [and on to ~tery Roildl m,,b!,; it ill feasi!>le to provide ~ddit!onal = Widenir,g l-40S {whi<:h the Stau, is pur,uing J to provide more traffic a,p;,city could attract some t,affr now using 156 th SE to acce>s Cemete,y Road.• Thanks. -Steve I.Jle. Pie. MS, USO. City of Renton ~-Engineering Manager 425.430.7299 stee@rentonwa.gpy Concern. #6 Public Process and Notice As raised in my initial comment letter (Exhibit A), I remain concerned that the City's notice with respect to the opportunity for public comment on issues of concern., such as the transportation concerns I ha-ve raised herein, misrepresented the actual opportunities for public en,giigetnent in the environmental (SEPA) review of this prqjcct. In short, the notice implies that a citizen having concern, who is not able to provide written comment prior to the March 24, 2014 deadline, will have the opportunity to provide comment at the Public Hearing on April 22"". Nowhere in the notice to the public is it explained that by waiting 5 001196 ---------------- -- until April 22°", the opportunity to provide input to inform the SEPA review and determination, will have passed-(see Exhibit E "Notice of Application ... ") As a result, the record now shows that only two public co=ent letters were received prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. I believe that you will find that many more people will attend the Public Hearing on April 22nd, and they will do so raising issues that should have been considered as part of the SEP A determination for this project. I fully understand the efficiency that the City is attempting to achieve by combining their notice and comment periods, but I urge you to review these notices carefully to understand the concern I am attempting, once again, to raise here. Requested Outcomes Based upon each and all of the above concerns, and as part of tbis Request for Reconsideration, I ask that the body hearing this Request take the following actions: • Withdraw the Threshold Determination for this project and require that the applicant work with city staff to prepare a proper Traffic Irnpact Analysis for this project. This analysis should be sufficient to adequately inform the City and public's understanding of the likely impacts of this project during both the A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour, including at the immediately adjacent intersection of SE S"' Place and 156"' Ave. SE, and other intersections likely to be impacted further north on 156"' • Further, given the misrepresentation of the public comment opportunity as it relates to informing the City's SEPA review process, I request that, once an adequate and proper Traffic Impact Analysis conforming to the City's requirements is completed, the Notice of Application and SEPA comment periods be re-started to allow the City of Renton's public an opportunity to participate in the development review process for this project. 1bank you again for providing this opportunity to request reconsideration of the Environmental Review Committee's Threshold Determination for this project. Should the body charged with reviewing this request decline reconsideration, it is my intent to also pursue the formal appeal remedies established by City Code to ensure that the record shows I have pursued all of my lawful administtative remedies. Respectfully Submitted, '5::fl~ 6617 SE s"' Place Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 6 001197 - List of Exhibits: Exhibit A -SEP A Det=iruttion Co=ent Letter Exhibit B -Traffic Impact Analysis - Exhibit C -Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development Exhibit D -Environmental Review Committee Report .1·{" Exhibit E -Notice of Application and Proposed Detettnioation of Non-Sigoificance-Mitigated 7 001198 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 -EXHIBIT A SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay@Jding@rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22°d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142°d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th PL) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 am. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142°d, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity'' created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 1 001199 .::.-~ ------------~----------------EXHIBIT A The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156'" between SE 5'" Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly artributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this proiect to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156'" from SE 5'" Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also very concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156'"/ 14200 intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142"d intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point ofaccess and conventional intersection alignment at the 156th/ l 42"d intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots 1 through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 2 001200 -EXIDBITA Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required_ (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. k; the largest of all proposed lots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot #4_ Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. Toe notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22nd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22"d, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 3 001201 --------------~---EXHIBIT A If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Ekctronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 4 001202 .. :··-:_:,;,-·-· - IEXIIlBIT B I THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by TraLFJ.re.,. NGRT/-IWE:sr I-~ TRAFFIC E:XPE'RTS 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522:4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 001203 -------- TraH/ff;x December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW HoldinJJs, LLC. 9675 SE 36 St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 -~----~-- NDRTHWEBT TllAFFIC EXPERTS 11410NE 124111 SL #590 Kirlmd WA.98034 Pllone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton · T raffle Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for T raffle Impact Analysis for New Development Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report PROJECT DESCR/PllON Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. · Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to1561h Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 1561h Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 001204 -- The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRJBUTION The 31 single-family units In the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expecled to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 6 17 23 25% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 20 11 31 63% 37% A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation. for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. · Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDmONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1561h Ave. SE SE 142nd Pl. Page2 Minor Arterial Residential Access 001205 i I --------·--~----- The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH@x 156th Ave. SE has a speed 6mit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156111 Ave SE is stra~ht and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142 Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 156111 Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. ls an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156th Ave SE or SE 14znd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDffiONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 156th Ave. SE and the 1~ Ave SE/SE 142n<f St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Poficy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 156111 Ave SE/SE 142ndPI. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) Is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom lo maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. Al intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page3 001206 -- The Enclava at Bridle Ridge Tra6- TYPE OF A B C D E INTERSECTION < >10.0and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0and Signalized 10. ~20.0 _::35.0 §5.0 ~0.0 0 Stop Sign Control ~10 >10 and~15 >15 and~5 >25and95. >35 and ~50 .0 FUTURE TRAFRC CONDmONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%} from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFRC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions exceptforthe southbound approach to the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142nd Pl. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly Impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for PubHc Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ~ from an Intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page4 F >80. 0 >50 001207 I j, I ------------ The Enclave at Bridle Ridge approximately 250 fi north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 14.z"ci Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFICMtnGA TfON REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attrjbuted to new development One existing single family residence on site will be.removed with this development resulµng ha netincrease of 30 sfngle family h.omes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 !Jips (30 units x 9.51 daily trips pet unit). The estimated Transl)Ortation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (.287 daily l!ips X $75 per daily trip), · SUMMARY; CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TfONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be cocnstructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter arid .sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 156th Ave. SE. • Contribute theappro_ximately $21,525Transportation Mitigation fee to !he City of Renton. No other traffic: mi\:iga\iort should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also cont13ct \JS via ·e-mail at virice@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.coni. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal Trafftx page 5 Larry b. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 001208 - TABLE1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Sile Access I 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access/ 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (8 11.2) 156th Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd Pl. NB {B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB {F 137.1) • Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach PagoB 001209 I I ' -·-~~ - The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Vicinity Map ----- Figure 1 001210 -:.::::;.;:·. -- '. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Site Plan N -+ Figure 2 001211 I I I ----~-- PM Peak HourTraffic Volume Enter 20 Exit i1 Total 31 ------ 1561h Ave/ SE 142 Pl The Enciave at Bridle Ridge· City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trlp. Generation and Distribution Legend 15% Percentage of Prcjeci Traffic +--3 PMPeakHourTrafficVolume Figure l 001212 - Existing N A<»>ss/ 1!l51h ave S Aa:;essl 156Ui Ave 156thA,ef SE142PI Future without Project N AcresS/ 1$~ ave ,._ f!: 0 1 . .._\., D @r t r 0 80 S Aa;ess/ 156th Ave 1561hAve/ SE142PI Project Traffic ........ cb"~4 t· r~ 2 V <'> S Ac;c;essl 156th Ave "' -4...i, ,J ~ 0'92 0 "' 156thA""' -SE142 Pl The Enclave at Bridle Rfdge -City of Renton PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future with Project N Ao:,,ut 1,,m, ave S Aa;ass/ 156th Aw 156thAw, SE:142• Figure 4 001213 I I I I i ! -------------------~-------------··-· -- TECHNICAL APPENDIX 001214 - Traffex Traffic Count Con sultan ts, Inc. l'llol,c.(253t~ FAX:. (253) 1122-7211 HAlllt:-Tlll!On@TC2lne.o::wn """"'"' lltls".-:du: l~A~SJ:&:SE.UMPI ... ..:...ion: 1.-.. ... ~ T .... 1m111ou "" T"imc ffa1111NorttlonQiBl FtomS11u:lt0b(NlJ AumE..ton.(WB} fro1DWtctoa(BII at«vllll !~ 1S61t1A,-c-S1: 1.SiihAvt·SE' 0 s:ElciidPl T11tal .,.__....~.-, T L S k T L S R T L $ 'l T L S ll ~:1..ff! :-,:fr -.;~j :/ifr, .m· ·~·-;_ ;r.32 _ -~·, }l ::. -:r):~.~-~if ~~·fir:'.~ ;6. t:::t ~i'~ ::..:w.:: :S-: •to·~ -'f!i-.:::.. : ·lu;"'~-' 4:301' o lJ m I J,t. 1l o fl o o 7t o 17 JOI .£;}hf"; "-r :::-~: .. /.il·,~;r!i H,'T <~i':=, !45:;:~:, ffo··~ ?-o."-,-t.)f'.:!' ~_._ia.:~ ~-iliii ~;;~, fif'--,"\"'::--:.if.. \i~,~5\,· 5:00f a -o u ttt n 1, a o o o 1(1 o 20 J:zs ;4~}:'1·.r,}!·fiQ\~'~i~: ~: n;1 :Si"-: ~;(:f'.;:c :i::O"-!:~ ·/0: :~~,'fr,; ;,,'(<'f/.·r5c ?. ... f',o'.'. J~-~~·it·-..:~·:,: 5:lOP I :iD 141 II 1') 10 D 72: 2' 297 ~~r;:~~ n! -~l:-~:2i:· ~JSJ: ~H: i:,; ;Fi9~.:-Wo'.~ :&i\.:: r-:<~ ;·_ .::--.';o_:~ -J:~l; ,~-', ·:.~f'. ~.,.,, .;;, --S :n{·· · 6"()0p O ~ 144 IS l4 0 0 0 0 ·1-4 II 17 291 ~if:" ·'fai ~\ '~:11.::; .,.t,-~ ~·{ i~ ~)~':/'. ti"?· _fiii 1i~,= o~~, F·-ikt f'.'O\ t-o:l ;_-~·::. ?o;._' :;~ ;'-!1.,:t.·t,;:~, · 6:30l' e 6 o o o o· o o a o i~:r..:-::-.~--f .. '°_._.. Tf -·~-io: ~-o,:: · ,-=· •--~-: ~.:;_:o?:' ;·--If-rti\!:. ·\-··o·.:·; ·--:ii-~ • • • • • ' ' • ' ToOI I . 51,n.,,... 12 o. m n2~ , 1_79 111 o o o o o 1 ,1,. o 1112 ::!497 T«al 9lolal6S1 ,4l,;2I o • o I ti I .o m %HV '"" "" ·• ""' ~-N s ' w .,.., • ... ~ • ..... ' "'"' • '"''" ,· .,.. NQ,ws· • ''"' l ' • "' ' ' • ' I I ' "'' I ' "'" ' ,.,. • .. "' . 15.....:..,Nolcl Rl;,Uilc~SD-.i."""'lb:~ ~ s-g vdmts ~slo#4, ls+51r;Dificindlini;qeucm: 61 a&:l i:e,cdd u:c. .. ~-:c: I"; .: : "' JS6UIA~SE ~l:i:,:a,a: II 8 II: ,W · wra, O '"'":1--t--+---+---r. :!--+--+---+----<' ----~ ru .,.., "'"' ., .. .... .. ., .. "'"' '"'' "'" ... Q '· ·-·+--+-----;--: I ' I --+-+--;., ---: ol ol ~ " o-I 311'!1 i o 1Dli "" ... 1281 .. "'" o.9J I naol UI PHI' Pt:,.i;.Uw \bllmw: nu• '>..uv .. '~'1---1--"'----1 Cllcd:· WB .. lie 12£7 "" l.l"~ Out 121!7 sal---1-.!="---1 )si,~-o,,,,.,--·-1 ... Is+ ,,. '" r.10 •10 0-10 ,_; ' • n-. .. IJl"A ' TRA13184M 01r 001215 __ ,..........-- Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE t 1m&'20tS Syrn;hru 7 • Rep~rt Pagel ----- 001216 -- Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE 12'26/2013 .} t ' ' ' --: • --:~·. 1i-: • ;'\1:·"-.. -,·-s-c.: --~_"i;~·i.:::.,_.-, -:.--; '. ' . -·------. -------~--.. ------~-·------~-· -...__ .-.:; -- .. ~·'-· .. ~ .. Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 001217 ------------------------ Future With Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE ------- 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 • Report Page 1 001218 -- Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE Sase!ine 12/2612il13 ._ ... :;_::_-.:-:_·.:_:i:--:..: '.':,,•:_:;::: -,..,_ -.~ .. _. ,·.,.;::; ,. --... ·-~ !-~~--'. Synchro 7 -Report Page2 001219 L I ------- Future With .Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE Basefl!18 ---------·- _. _____ _ 12/2W013 Syljcilro 7 -Report Page3 001220 .. ·-.~------.-.----.. _ --EXHIBITC POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMP ACT ANALYSIS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 -9:00) or PM (3 :00 -6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and &anomic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed develqpment listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used (to include total daily traffic, AJvf peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site-generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format . The ):,asis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assignment: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site-generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM-PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area 1 001221 -----------__,_ -EXHIBITC Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the PrQJJOSed Development: Toe report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi-phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site-generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in ligbt of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the previous analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary, the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage, these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. · Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/12/2008 H:\Divisiori.s\De:vclop.ser\Plan.rcv\TlA GUIDELD'ffiS\GUIDEL!NES fOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc 2 001222 .";;!,: _ . ..:·~-:. ----- DEPARTMENTO.F COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COfy'IMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owners; Applicant/Contact: Project location: Project Summary: Exist Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 31, 2014 The Enclave. at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Jill Ding. Senior Planner Sally lou Nipert, 14004156th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 . G. Richard Ouimet, 2923 Maltby Road, Bothell, WA 98012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC, 967$ SE 3611, Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA98040 14038 156th Avenue SE, Renton; WA 98059 Proposed 511bdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 [Residential4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would. result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts.(Tracts A and BJ <1nd a new public street The proposed lots would range ih size from 8,0SO square feet to 12,566 square feet.Access to the .new lots would be provided via a new public street off of1.56th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14°000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175. square· feet.of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site.is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057: All other structures are proposed to be r~moved through the subdivisio.n process. No critical areas are present on the project site. 1,700 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 329,1295F Total Building Area GSF; N/A N/A .:-~.· .NlA Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Co mittee issue a Determination of Non-Significance• Mitigated (DNS-M). ERC Report f4-00DZ4l.docx 001223 i i -----·· _ __,_ __ ------ City of Rentm Department of Community II Eamomic Development mEENC1AVEATBRJDU RIDGE Report of March 31. 2014 -------·- Environmental Review Committee Rl!port LUA14--0Cl/JUl, ECF, PP Page 2 of 11 I PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND I The proposal is to subdivide an 8.80 acre site composed of parcels 1423059122, 1423059023, and the east portion of 1423059057 into 31 single family residential lots for the future construction of new single family residences. The project site is located within the R-4 (residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation as well as the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The surrounding properties to the north, south, and east of the project site are also zoned R-4. The properties to the west of the project site are located outside the Crty limits in King County. A Lot Line Adjustment (LUA14-000250) was submitted coni;u"rrently with the application for subdivision. The proposed lot line adjustment would remove the western 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 from the proposed preliminary plat..An existing 1,700 square foot residence is proposed to remain on this parcel. The applicant has indicated that the parcel would be subdivided under a future, separate subdivision application. The proposal to subdivide the 8.Sci acre project site into 31 lots, results in a net density of 4.45 dwelling units per acre (after the deduction of 79,419 square feet of right-of-way proposed for dedication). The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. In addition to the proposed lots, the subdivision would also create two tracts (Tracts A and B). Tract A would be located at the southwest corner of the project site for storrnwater detention. Tract B would be located at the northwest comer of the project site and is a 2-foot wide open space strip separating proposed Road A from parcel 1423059057. Access to the proposed lots is proposed via a new •1ooped" public street (Roads A and B) with two access points off of 156th Avenue SE. addition half street improvements are proposed along the project site's 156th Ave SE street frontage. Proposed frontage improvements include paving, curb and gutter, 5-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot planting strip. A significant tree inventory was submitted with the application materials, which identified 303 existing significant trees. Of the 303 existing significant trees, the applicant is proposing to retain 35 trees. There are 15 additional trees that could have been retained; however the applicant's arborist determined that the trees were either diseased or dangerous and not suitable for retention. Additional trees will be planted to ensure compliance with the City's tree retention requirements. I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In_ compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPAi review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. · A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable Impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. £RC Report 14--000241.docx 001224 -··· -- Oty of Renton Department of wmmunity & Economic Deve/Dpment THE ENQAVE AT BRIDLE RJDGE Enviro(Jmental Review Committee Report. WA14-0IIDZ41, ECF, PP Report of Error! Referem:e source not found. Page3 of 11 B. Mitigation Measures C. 1. Project construction shall be requ_ired to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). 2. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis prepared byTraffEx. dat_ed December 27, ~013. 3. An easement for tree protection shall be recorded along the east property line to protect the trees available for retention (as determined by the City of Renton Arborist) in perpetuity. The easement should be of sufficient width to adequately protect the trees identified for protection; however the easement width shall be permitted to vary and shall . be based on the width of the stand of trees to be retained. The easement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall be recorded on the face of the final plat. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12. Exhibit 13· Neighborhood Detail Map Preliminary Plat Plan Conceptual Road and Grading Plan Drainage Control Plan Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Tree Inspection Report prepared by Greenforest tncorporated (dated February 18, 2014) Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC {dated February s, 2014) Wetland Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) Technical Information Report prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers (dated February 19, 2014) Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) Comment letter from David Michalski (dated March 21, 2014) Comment letter from Roger Paulsen (dated March 22, 2.014) Construction Mitigation Description D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated ond reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions tci determine whether the applicant hos adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to hove the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant indicates that approximately 4,495 cubic yards of cut and 36,888 cubic yards of fill would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. Temporary erosion control measures wouid be implemented during construction ERC Report 14-()()()241.docx 001225 ------------ City of Renton Depaitmfflt of Cormiunffy & Economic Development THE ENClA VF AT BRIDLE RIDGE Environmental Review Ccmmi~,: Report WAf.4-IX/0241, ECF, PP Report of Morch 31, 2014 Page4 of 11 including hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, and a stabilized construction entranc.e in accordance with Crty of Renton requirements. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study, the existing site topography slopes from north to south with an elevation change of approximately 20 feet. Vegetation consists primarily of field grass, trees, and blackberries. The Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) map identifies Alderwood series soils across the entire project site. Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff. They are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam. A total of 6 test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) were excavated across the project site. Topsoil was encountered in the first 6 to 10 inches below grade at all test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grade. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with the SCS mapped soils. Perched groundwater was observed in three of the 6 test pits (TP-1, TP-3, and TP-6) at depths ranging from 2-3 feet. According to the submitted geotechnical study (Exhibit 7) groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered ma.terial; therefore seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring, and early summer months. The study states that fieldwork was conducted during an atypically dry winter and therefore _groundwater volumes should be expected to normally be higher than what was · exhibited. The submitted geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, wet season grading, foundations, seismic design, slab-on-grade floors, retaining walls, drainage, excavation and slopes, utility support and trench backfill, and pavement sections. Due to the high moisture content, the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) recommends site grading to be limited to the summer months. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation me<15ure that project . construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Mitigation Measures: Project constructio·n shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014) (Exhibit 7). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes · Impacts: A wetland report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 3, 2014) (Exhibit 8) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, the site shows evidence of hydrophytic vegetation (buttercup and red-osier dogwood); however no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were present. The report concludes that there are no wetlands on the project site as two of the 3 required parameters required for wetland classification (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology} were not present. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required ERC Report 14-000241.docx 001226 ----·- - City of Renton Department of Community & Eamomic Development THE ENQAVE AT BRIO/.£ RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Environmental Revi~ CDmmlttee R~ ~41,ECF,PP Page 7of 11 improvements induding paving, curb and gutter, S-foot sidewalks, and an 8-foot landscape strip are proposed along the project's 156th Avenue SE frontage and the frontage of new Roads A and B. There is a roadway stub located just south of the subdivision site. Pursuant to Crty of Renton code, the roadway is to be extended north in a straight line. However, the applicant indicated that by curving the road alignment a ·significant amount of trees could be retained along the east property line (see previous discussion above under Vegetation). · A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared byTraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) (Exhibit 10) was submitted with the application materials. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehide trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. The Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 10) also includes a level of Service (LOS) review of the surrounding intersections in the immediate vicinity. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The Traffic Impact Analysis {Exhibit 10) concludes that with the proposed development the surrounding intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of Service (LOS} with the exception of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142 ... Place intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The southbound approach to the intersection currently operates at LOS F with an approach delay of94.8 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10) anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156"' Avenue SE/SE 142"" · Place intersection without the proposed development would result in an approach delay of J33.2 seconds. The report (Exhibit 10} anticipates that the future condition of the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place Intersection with the proposed development would result in an approach delay of 137.1 seconds, which results in an additional delay of 3.9 seconds attributable to the proposed development. The report condudes (Exhibit 10) that this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with or without the new development. The project generated traffic at this intersection would increase by 9 trips to the 1,37S total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Final determination will be made by the Oty's transportation department at a later date. Staff has received two comment letters (Exhibits 11 and 12)-dting concerns with regards to the additional traffic that the proposed project will generate. Based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed project would result in the 9 new trips and a 3.9 second delay at the southbound approach to the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection. The impacts of the additional trips would be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees. It is not anticipated that the proposed project significantly adversely impact the Crty of Renton's street system subject to the payment of code required impact fees and the construction of code required frontage improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required Nexus; N/A 7. Fire & Police ERC Report 14--00024Ldooc 001227 ------~~~---- aty of Renton Departmer1t of CDmmunfty & Economic Development 7HE" ENCIAVE AT BR/DI£ RIDGE Report of Mardi 31, 2014 ·v·------ Environmental R~ew Committee Report LfJA14-000241, ECF, PP Page 8 of 11 Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code required improvements and the payment ofcode required impact fees. · · Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus:N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or" Advisory Notes to Applicant." ./ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this · report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision ls not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055. South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or beforeS:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. RMC4-8-110 governs appeals to the. Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Oerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7'11 Floor, (425) 43(}-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these nates are provided as infarmation anly, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00} a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00} p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock {9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock {8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Wrthin thirty {30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding. or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopte(I by the Crty of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee ls paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings u to ERC Repo,t 14--000241.dooc 001228 i ,. -City af Renton Department o/Commun;ty & Economic Development TIIE ENQ.AVE AT BRJDIE RIDGE Report of March 31, 2014 Ertvironmentcrl RMew Committee Report WA1,HJ00241., fir, PP Page9of U 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a· 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over SOD-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. Water: 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. z. A water availability certificate from.Water District #90 will be required. 3. New hydrants.shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: L Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156th Ave SE near the intersection. with SE 144tli Street and ext6ending the sewer main into. the plat The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156"' Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156"' Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at least half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156th Ave SE up to the north property.line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main fa the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. · System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per lot based on %-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance 'of the construction perrnit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid. 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. Surface water: L A drainage plan and drainage report dated February 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 Klng County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in· the report. The 8. 7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the Oty's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project Is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates ERC Report 14-000241.docx 001229 . i. J -·~~·-____ ., -0ty of Rmtrm Department of Community & Economic /Jevelopmen, 71iE ENCIAVE AT BRI/JI..E RIDGE ROl)Ort of Mairl> 31, W14 -------·· -Environmentol .Review .Committee Repiirt lf.J/J.14-{1(10241, ECF, l'P Page lOofll for the forested condition extending frorn 50%. of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed· a coml:iined detention am!. wetpond to be located ;it the southwest corner of the .site. Appropriate individual lot flow co~trnl BMPswiil be requl~ed to. help mitigate the new runoff created 6ythls developrnent. · 2 A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submrtted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils wm not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was fo4nd at a mimber of test pit,s. pue to the high moisture. content, the geotech recommends Site grading to be limited to the Slimmer months. 3. Surface water system development fee· iS $1,228.00 per new lot Fees are payable prior to issua rwe of the.construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading ;ind dearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plah (SWPPP} is requ1red for thi~ site. Transportation: L The currentlransportation impact fee rate Is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of buildjng permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit 2. A traffic an;dysls dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdiVIsioh would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips .. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate .23 vehicle trips, with i7 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour .PM trips would generate 31 vehlde trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the. intersection .of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to. deterriiin'e wr,at; if any impac;ts the antfi:ipatec(new p~ak fiourAM and PM trips created by this developm~nt' would have on· an .operational standpoint at this ·intersection. This i.ntersection is· controlled by a stop sign at eac~ approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the st1,1dy indicates this )ntersection wciulcl continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this inteise.ctibn would increas.e to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the develop merit will be mitigated by payment oftransportatioh impact fees. Final determination will be made by the City's transportation department at 9 l;iter date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary .cul-de-sac is p:roposed as the internal site access. The.cul-d~sac must meet City of Rent,:m code .and flre Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street .standards, the new internal roadway shalt .be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City ccide 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-faot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed ;,long both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the. minimum separation of .intersections along an arterial is 125 feet If in future . there are signlficant concerns regarding lefti:urnst~ and from the south loop of the internalpub/it street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic :operations may tmpose left tum restric:tions. at that intersection .. 4. To meet the City's corrtpl.,te street standards, frontage fmprovements along the project side in 156\h Ave SE shall h\clude.22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter; a D.Sfoot wide Ctit'bi an 8- foot p!ant<'!r strip arid a 5-foot ro;idway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and halffeet,-f right of way dedication will.be required. It is sho.wn on the plans. · 5. Paving and trenc:li restoration will compfy with the Oty's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. E/IC Report U-000241..dqcx 001230 -CJty of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 111< ENClAVE AT BRIDLE /IJOGE ReportofMan:h31, 2014 Enl(fronmentol Review Committee Report WA14-D00241, tCF, PP Page llof 11 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be ir1cluded with the civil plar, submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Stand;irds. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural ·calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection ls required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. £RCReport14-00024LdoDC 001231 -- --------EXHIBIT 1 ' • ! I lHE ENO 1111~€1 ~~~1F . --'"'L--_,._.'IC -~ ,-'>:f / L__ r- ~ --J • -~~· --· -~--r- t= rr ./ ~ ~~ ~ '-.:: ~:~ ii m= r--, ;;i rl,-n -\ ! • _,__ ---., - ~ -_ w:::._,__,. lk r--ie-8/tSI:-;--~ f--I fl ~ -,,_ ~ ~- t-~ ---=-"'!..~ r--,_~ ,,T,,_ /T, --~ .! r- r r---.. ,= ,-,....._ r----r--~ -r r-,_.. r--t--! r-,-!= ,--~ ~ r-l'\ F ~ ---:]s~ I· i J r---~ t:1 r-,--rr ..... n-, r r // i\ --·-· .,\.... -----. ----c-j /) r-------~ ---,._..----0 ,-;::: -~ F -~ ~ ~ .... I I I ~ -<I-It I , l ! I • J ' • ! l :t .. - -~ ·-- ~ . ~ -f! ,~ '----~· · 1 .... .... ' ' ' ' I . · 1!1!!!! !If I' Ill f -uo0c •.. u .•. ;d1111 ·1 d Ill ljlll!IHIIIII. Iii! I' 1 l f,11111111111 1:1 l .· l I J ! . I· I • . . . . .~ I ,I 111;1,PP"j·1n1 .~ • ,~~ ·--= fili.~ I ·\ I ; ~ . (i ; ; . l lr 1,111 .. · • 1 5"'-' I I . ~.., . ' I EXHIBIT 2 i '· 001233 •• ' l ' . --~··-·----- ! ' I -r= :r. I jl I I I I EXHIBIT3 TI-I£ ENa.AVE· i i I ,t ,1 g, ,, . !l ~ I~ i I I I • 001234 f ··.:,··."·' _,., ,.: f{ it( •'·'·' i. ) ) "=!' ~ ca .... :c ~ g ~ -»·--·' -~-----~- ----.. ----'f. ---y---r-·-·'a. \\ I ' .. ,. ·-:;·~ .... -*·· ·······-·-··'"":· _ ................ B/'"" ...... .. ...... , . -.,JI. .... ·,1{:;j;;:,-··· .. •· ........ ''~-l!C'--1--·'--~~----.. j .. _, 22 1,,,_':.. ____ .. •,, ,r--- ~ ---oc:=J ~ ~~ ,.,. --~~-==--I• -rt lllli"I.,. IIE!I ~ ·- JI~ Am CITY Of ~ RENTON --- @ NORTH --LJ • ' i';.r,; ltl£ "'~M~~ ... , -- DRS ,.O,(,CT NO. um IA: in C") N "I"' C) C) --- J I • I - ---- ; ( /t:::.. f EXHIBITS THE' ENCLAVE • . i : ;~ \ \ \ r 11U•HJ G 1i: ~ I ~ Ii I i~ ~ 0 1 Q1© !IP~ I l!II, ,, I . . ! q i i I '! • -... I , , I l I - I . 001236 - Greenforestlncorporateu Consulting Arborist 2./IB/2014 Justin lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 - EXHIBIT 6 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CJTY OF RENTON PIANNING DMSION RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-902.3, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUmNG AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from DR Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week-and inspected the trees indicated on.the sheet, which are the subject of this report. 1REE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Bath health and structure were evaluated. ·A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and ide.ntifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree js predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (Near tree 6IB5) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with.thinning and/or chlorotlc · canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed roatcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycellal fans and fungal rhizamorphs, oozing resin flaw, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. · . 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 001237 " I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ( I I I I I ----··----------- PREPARED FOR AMERJCAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 --~-----·-~----~-~- EXHIBIT7 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Of RENTON PlANNiNG DIVIS!oN Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 .Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336--8710 001238 . / / February 3, 2014 Justin Lagers - PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge..CityofRenton swc Job#l3-l87 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sewal EXHIBIT 8 ~--· .... RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON PlANMNG DIVJS/ON This report describes our observations of any juriscticti<inal wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the propose<! "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels {#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156tl\ Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the «site"). Vicinity Map 001239 I --·-------··--.--·· - EXHIBIT9 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038156"' Avenue SE R~ton, Washington DRS Project No.13117 Renton File No, o~r/App/tca'nt PNW Holdings LLC . . .• 9675 SE 35th Street, i3ilfie 1_05 Mercer lsla:rid, WA 98040 . · ···. . . . ReporlPreP?red by [fikt;J) .. ·.· .. ·.. ... . D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7th Avenlle · · · . : ·. Kirkland WA 98033 - {425) a27i3003 ··~ . ; • · Report lss1,11;i: Date ... . · .. Febru~J19,·,2014 •. <=2014 D. R STRONG Consulfi"IJ Enginee,. Im .RECEIVED FEB 2 7 ZD/4 CITY Or: R(NTON . PLANIIJNG 0/V'JSioN 001240 ----·-·· ./ - EXHIBIT 10 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by C!ilffEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 124"' St, #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 C,ry OF RENTON Pi.ANNING DiVISIQ • N 001241 I 1· I I ! I i l -~·-~----- EXHIBIT11 March 21, 2014 Jiff Ding. Senior Planner Planning Division 1055 So Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 David Michalski 6525seS"'pl Renton,Wa 98059 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000Z41/ECF/PO. I live off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned sulidivision. My com:em is reg;,nf'mg the traffic going North and South on 156"' Ave Se. Since th_e bui~_,:,g of the bridge acro.ss Cedar Rive~.,..·=-- traffic on 156'" ave se is unbearable. Coming.out ofany of the side streets off 156"' .,;;.;,-,;-i;-;,~etimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehides do a quick stop and accelerate ·up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill stow traffic down , there is a huge backlog of vehides and this causes temble traffic congestion. I see signs for addmonal develo·pment in the future on the West side of 156"'. I feel that an·immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. I-las anyo·ne thought.about addmonal access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, __ .'L_ ':D~fY\l~q~ David Michalski Email: dcmichal@msn.com Ph#425-271-7837 001242 March 22, 2014 Ms. Till Ding Senior Planner CEI'.>-Planning Division City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way · Renton, WA98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay@Jdinr:@rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, l: EXHIBIT 12 Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUAl4-00024I, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22,,.i. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Heariog. Tralfte Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5ill Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this inten;ection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 51h Place in light of.the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service . associated with AM. Peak period trips northbound on 15611, Ave. This additionahtudy should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142 •d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual inten;ection of 15611, and 142,,.i that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156th north of this intersection. . Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress turn from SE 51h Place (sho)'IIl in the traffic study as SE 139" Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142'"1, and then only IF the northbowid vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156"' north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats ihc inten;ection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 15611, even more difficult 001243 ----~··- The addition of ANY new trips to. SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation bas significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access I 56"' from SE 51b Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements ofadequate provision dictated by RCW 58.J 7. I am also v;z. concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 1142nd intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute ho11IS, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 15~/ I 42..i intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the 156tb/ 142°" intersection, including appropriate signalization (4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City ofRenton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The Ci1y of Renton Sanitary Sewyr Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topo_graphy and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing tbe residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to tbe new se;xer Hoes being im;talJed as part of this project.·---- While City Engioeers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with tbe newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots l through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curven and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project 001244 .-.. · ~:-: . ··-;-: ·" .·· .. · .. -.-.. ' . -. ·-~ .. -~- Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed Jot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed lots in.the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard dn proposed Jot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform tbe City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that lf written conuoent cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April 22"' public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City bas advertised that ill! comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April 22"d, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination_ Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the pi;ocedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's· intended mitigation measures. they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Detennination. 001245 1~ --------------------. - If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPauJsen@cs.com. · Sincerely, Sent Electronically W-rtlwut Signature to APoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment PDF ofNotice of Application 001246 -- NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNS-M) A Master AppOCilticn tr.as be~ med and ;ic;epted ·with the Department~ Community & ~nomic Pevektpment (CED)-Plannlnc: Dlvls:ior1 of~ City a( Renton. The. foRowinc brlefly dHm'bes the app1icatiD1'1 and thl! ~ry Pt.ibllc Ap~ls. OA1£ OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: M.arch 10, 20111 LANO USE ,.,iuMBER: ll.l!,l'l-0002!,11, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: Th!: Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION! Proposed subdivision of a 8:8 ain pro_kct stle located within the R-4 (~ldmtlal 4 dwellin& units per o1cre) wiling desl~ation. The propcxsaf would r£S&llt In the creation -or 31 lots and 2 ~ru: [Trms A ;md BJ and'a ~ pubflcstrtct. The proposed Iott would J'iln,ge ~ stie fi;om 8,0SO square feer to 12,,566' ~re feeL Jv:a:s.s ll1 th!! l"N!W bu would bl! provkl~ vi.I a nl?:w public sbl!t!t off of 156th A.venue Sf.. A· lot line .adjU5tment [LUA14.0004SO] is pmpased between t:u: p.trcels 142.3059057 and 1<1234J59U2 whid1 will result ln 30.175 square. fe:e:t of pa~ 1423059057 be!ng ~vtd from the propose~ subd"'MsiDn. No aitlcal M!:as a~ present on ttie projeaslt.e... PROJECT LOCATION: 14038 156"' Ave 5c QPTIONAL. DETERMll'(ATIOf't Of NON-S!GMFlCANc::I; MffiGAleD (DN5-MJ: Ai the. teold AgBicy, the Oty of Renron has dete:rinlocd that signif"JOl'lt envitonmentlt lmpacti; ,1re unl11r:ely ta result-fn::uTI the pn:>posed prpject. Therefore, ;;s p@Fffli~ und~ the fl.CW 43.21Ul.O, the City Df Renton iS using lM Dptkmal ONS--M protcll ta giv@ nolke that ;11 DNS- M is 5kefy to bl! iuued. Comm.ent periads for the project and the propo.s;d:I ONs-M are integrated into J ~ comment pcriod. Then! wltl be no comment period fo!IQwlna the isiwince af the Threshold Oetennination of Ni:m:Significanct;- Mitigatcd (DN5-M). A 14-day appeal periodwiU (oOoW the ksuanll! of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPUCATION DAlE: Febru;uyZ7, 2014 NOTICE OF COMPt.ET£APPUCATION": March 10, 2014 APPUCANT/PROJECTCONTACTP'ERS~: Justin;° Utc.ets i PNW ffoidJnCS, U.C / 957ifse 36 .. 5~et Sutte 1as, Mercer~i~d. WA 98040 / EMt.: l~n@o1rnerlca¢auichomcs..cam Other Penilit:s wbkh may be ~lrtd:: Envi(~etltal (S~A)"Rl'vlew, Pr~D:mJnary Plat; Revii:w Coristrud:lori1 Bujldfn~ FR Re_qu~ Studres:: lD~tl~ wh~ :app6?tfon may b': n:vlewed:: PUBLIC HEARING: Drafna.p-Report,, Ge<itechnJQJ lleport,, T~cStudy · o~~ntof~& Economl~ ~lo~l!:nt(CED)-Pbinnlne- !)M$ion, ~ R~r Relltim. Oty Hall, ioS.5 South Gr.ady ¥/o1y, flentlX\ WA 911QS7 Publchearfng § tenh¢Hdy ~ltii" A~ni ZZ, 21Jl4 bl!:fon! tb! Renton · Hl!:alfnp: Examiner in ftentan Councif ~ffibetiat 10:00 AM ~n the 7th floor of R~tun Oty Han located at 1055 SQlllh Grady. ~'f. If r.ou would lille to be made a p;arty of record to receive fl.Wther ioform;n:fon Qn this proposed p,oject,. corilple:te this form and rttumto: OtyofRentcin, CEO-Pl~nnr~ aMsion, 1055 So, GradyW~ • .flen_ton. WASB057. Name/Fil~ No.: The Enclave~ Bridle fl.ld,:~UA14-000241. ECF, PP NAM~-------------------------~ MA1UHGAD0ft£SS.:, ______________ Oty/statejZjp:0. ---------'- TlliPHONENOc ------------ I ' i I 001247 . -----·~-·--- Envihmmcntaf-Doi:umel}ts that Ev.iJ!uatl! 'Plf Pl'i:tpased ProJer;t;: Devl!lopmi!nth:(ul:afun:is: :i.Js:~ ~r PniJect:'MJti.ptJon:, ~------------------- ~ St.!bJe~:hlt:e ~-d~~J:~~:~dd~ low Q,e:islty {COMJ:1-RlD1 Oil the·C?.y ~r Rento., Com.prol!risfve la11d Uff:_Map ~~ R4_ 0_11 the. qy's Zo'nirg Map. • The pr.o~ct Wm be ~,ie.ct to_ the Oty's SEPA ~rdlnaoce, RNJc 1.1:-2-uo Rufdent'pl Dev~lop_me.nt. ;inlf othef appa~bk; <odes and regulafions as .appropriate.. . . Proposed Mitfgati~ ~l!;isur~·~ l~1e:f~ng ~it~_tia'ri"rrteos..ires wi{J Jikt'J,i be Jmpo.i;ed on th;: prapo$ed · ·pro}e¢ ~ reCOrqmenQed.·¥1tlg:atfon ·Me:asur5 -~ddr~ l)r:oJect impacts ,ID~ CO\l'e.f~ by 't.dslmg .code.$ arid ~ati~~ ~ dted ab_ove. ' "" Projcc't ccmstr11ctlon shai/.~ r~ to campJr .;Ith~ SUbmltted~oteduiii::al (ep_ort.. IC Projectcon"strudlar1 shall b~ re"qulted CD COmply_w_lth µie subri1ftte~l-troffic stupy. ~-1;$ on the aho':'t,_~pplicatfon.rnust be subinltttd ht writiiK"_to JUI Dint,-Sen1Pf Plaoner, cm-PlifflrUOt Oiviston, 1055 Sauth Grady \'Vat, ~n,,. WA 98057, b\''5:00 PM 01\ !"1,afdi 2.:i~ 2014.. Thli m.rtter"ls .dsCI-tt;;talivdy ~che-du/ed for a pt!blk hearine ci11 ~ 22,. lOl.ZI, ~t.10:00 AM. Couri:u ·ckmb_ers.:-Sev.enth Roort P.2Ji:tcn Crty Hatt,: 1055 -soutM ·Gra,dy W;iy, Rer,1.J11. If YoU are inr~d in a~1ng-the bearlrig, please contact the Phmriinc; Divbion· to ~:rure thl!lt thil! hearlog tw: nc.t been: ttsdi¢wed·~-(425) .1130-(i57~. If CDmml!nts cariimt. be Sll~.d iil writing by the dare irtdiC2rul abci',-t; you ~.still ~iu:t ttie htarinJ_,.nd -prese.,t yo-tst ~eats on l,!:tc pro pow before:. the Mearing ~iner •. · ff·.,io·ti :~2¥e; ·qu~ris il;h:,.ut:~,pl"tJpag:t or Wislp:o "he niade a: iurtY-·of f"ecohf".l"Od ·n;c:eN~ .iddEtio~ "infomuition by M, plme'.d)ntactthe project. m:a_llclg~~ Allfc,nt wfo, su~mits-"vm;l:e,;, c:omments-will·~~ticalfy beCDin~-.a party d ~4 ~ will be notified -of-any deoiiori·.on µtit proJect. · CONTACT PERSON: Jill Ding, senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6598; Em!: id/ng@rentonwa.gov· .. ·--·------- If ycU ~rd like tct be mich: a .pa1:q' of riconf:ta re;eM! f~rthii:r mfofflletioo ~n tbls-proposed-p..=ojca. c.oi:iple.le. this fo"nn Mid re:t!J:n ttt: Gfy rif ~--~ -Plannin~ DM:sto"' 1055 Sa. 13,radr Wir, Renton. Vi.!'A 9S057: Narni!/fife :Na.: The Encbr-1e :at 8tjdfe_.fU~e/lUA14-000?41. W~-s,p . . NAME!--------'---_:__---~------------------ MAillNG AOORESS:~------------°'</St,r,j/ljp: ________ _ ia.EPHONE NO,------------ 001248 - NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Appf,ation has beei:i flied a~ ;:teeepted with t_he Dep:artm·ent of corninu"lt)' & Eeonomic: Oe\leloprMnt [CfO)-Pt.anntng Division of the dty of R~ton. 11tefollow/ng brfeflydeserfbes the applic;ati1;1n and the neces:sary. Publk: Approv,is DAT£ O!= NOTICE OF APPLICATION: March 10, 2014 1.AND USE NUMBER. LUAf4-000a:t..ECF, PP PROJECT NAME: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge P'A'OJECT Ol&R1PTJOl'i: Pi:i,posed .subtforlsion of a 8.8 aQl! pro.feet -sit~ located -within th~ R-4 {ResIQential· 4 dwelling units p!!r-ac~e.) iOnin!: designation. The J)t'Opo,al would ·r£Sult ln the cre:~tio11 tif.3'1 lots and 2 tracts· (Tracts: A and B).aod ~ new pubrcstreet The proposed lots-would range l.n size fronf8,0SO squal:1:! f.eet to 1Z.56Ei squa~e feet. Aa:es-s b:I the new lots wo_uld be pl'tlVid~ via a ne~ p_ublic street off of J-513.th Aventie SE. A, lot line adjustment {WA14--00ClZSO) is proposed hetwel!ll. tax parcels 1423059057 and 14230591Z2· which will result in 30,17.S squa.te feet.Of part:el 1423059057 being removed fiom the prol)o~d subdMsion. No crittca.l ~re~ are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: 14038156"' Ave SE ~PTJONAL DETERMINAT10N Of NON-SJGN'JAW.CE. Mrn~:rm (DNS--M):· ~ the Lead Agency, the Oty of Renton has d~termli'led that-:signifi~llt envfrorunen.tal impacts are unlikely to !'eSult ·m;im ~ propos!d prOJect. Therefurer as permitte~ under the RCW 43.llC.110,: the Oty of Rento!l-ls U$ing the Optional DNS:M process tu give notice that-a DNS- M ~ 111.ely to be lsroed. Comment perio~ fen• the project·anrl the proposed DNS-M are·Jntegr.lted lnto :a slngJe eomment period. There wru:be n6 comment period fr?UO;Wlog the lsfuance of th~ Thresfio_lcl De-te~ination of Non-Signifiq:m:e- Midga~ (DNS-MJ~ A 14.<fay appeal period wll! follow-the issuance of the· DNS--M. PERMIT ~PLICATION ~:r& NOTICE OF COMPLET£ APPLICATION: February 27, 2014 Mai-ch 10, i014 APPLICANT /PROJE:Cf CO ITT ACT PERSON; Ji.tstln Lag·ers/ PNWtfokfli'i~ LLC/"9675 SE361 " Street Suite 105, Merctr [Slif;t"ld, WA 98040 j EML::-JuStin@amer1canc~skhome.s.com Per.mfts/Revle.w Recjuerted: Other Permib which ma.y-be.r~ut~d, Locatio.n wher1! -app6~_may be reviewed: PUB UC. HEM~: Environmental (SEP_AJ R~ew~ Preliminary Piaf: Reyfew -Constn.fd;hm, BUlldfng, Fl~e. Dratoagif1(eport;:G~~){t:~~~J:J~}j~y De-partitlentof Co~lty & Econ_omlc Oevelophlent (<:$)-Planning Oivl5rOn1 ~ FfQo-r Renton lJW.f<aii,_10~ Sa~h.Qady·Way, Renton, WA 98057 . . . -~ Puplk ~arlni:· JS teritative(ysdiedu~d 'rOrAPril 2Z; W.4 tie:fpIJ t~ Renton . _Hearin«·§qmji,er in R·errton Courldr ~bets-at .. 1D~AM Oil the ?th floor of Reiitcn oty_ Hit!l .kieated at 16SS Sciut:h Grady Way. If :you wc~!d .life.; to ~e _lflilde_ a party of rKOrd to _receive further lnfm"rnaticnil on· this propon,cf' project,, c,omplete this farm and retumto: ·aty ofRenton, CED-Plilnnlng-Dniision, 105_5 So. Grady Wa'f, Re~ton, WA 980!)7, Name/ffle No-~ The Enci'ave at,Bridle Ridge/LUA!4-00024L ECF, PP NAME:--------------------------------- MAIUNG AOORESS: _____________ Clty/s>at,,iz;p: _________ _ TELEPHOHE ND'.:------------- 001249 . ..----. -----~---------·- - CONS!stailC'f OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: ~vin::nirnantar oocurnents thilt Eva_toate tha f'ropased Prtj}ect: Development Reeutat!ons Use:cl for Project Mltlg;lltfom · · __ :Pro~os,ed Mitigation Measures:. -,. ·. •· : .. !'·,:, . . ___ .--··-·· - ·lhe· ,su6j1fct-sl:te: l;s. .d~g"nated Residentb.r lowoe:ndty (COMf4U.O} o"t'i the oty of' RBltwr_eornprehenslve Land U.sit-Ma.p' ilad ~ on the dt(s 1.oning Map .. Envl"rormtentar {SEP.Al Checklist ~ project" wlll be subject to ~he aty's SEPA _ordinance, R:MC 4-z.~110 -Resklenllitl Dev,lopment. and .other applicable. tode:S .ind reg'ul.ilticns as '.appropriate; -~~:fol!OWfnf_~~fti~ .. ~u~S: _w~f J~ely be ~posed qrVthe--pmp'"o$ed ):iroject:These·rei:o·mrn$tdec;I Mitigation ·Me.ilsures addm;s projec.t impacts 'not ~av:e,ed by Blds:ting codes and regulations as citl!!d abov.e. • ~roject wnstructlon_shait be reqWred to wmpl,r -~ith the submitted geot£chntcal report. Project r:onstrudiOn".sharJ be recjufied to co'!lJJ!Ywnli the_:subril/tted t;rufiir: studr, "Comtrtents ~" the above app~c::a_tkn murt be-~d fn wri:i:tng ~JilJ_Dint, Sen tor Planner, ceD. "7.Plann(ng omskJn; 1055 South Gr.ady'Way, RMton,-WA 98057, by s:OO·PM on·.Marcft24,.im4. ·Thls matter is: also ti!n"tativery sdiedufed fQr a public h.eatjng on April Z1., 2.014, ·at_ 10!(1!:! AM, CoU~ ~~m~ 'Sev.enth f{opr, Renton ·City Hi!il,. 1US5 South Grady" W'ay. Renton. Jf you are lnte:resl:ed In .itteruDllg the· treanng, pleas~ ti:lnl:it.cf (tie Planning Division tO ensure that the heilring ha$ 11ot ~ ieschedu1ed-.at f4'25)-410.-6578. "if c:orn"rne'nts cannot be $_14)~~ in writing .by the elate Jfldi(:;;l:ted abov~1 you may still a_ppe.ar at the hearing _a_nd present y_ou_r-com menu _On the ~posal b1:fore the He.a-ririg Examine-r~ lfyou Mve questlons·atio~tthis'propos.if, O'rwfs-h to·be rriade a part:y of re·coro and re~iYe; a,dditiof\il[ information by m&4 pie~ co·ntact the PIV~ mana~er; Anyone WficJ .SUbmits_ written cc,,mr:nents wnl autp.rnatkally b'eccmE!. a party of rei:ord iWf will be l"\Otlfied "of any i:led5ion On this ~ciject. CONTACT PERSON: Jill Eml: jding@rentonwa.goil Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (42!,) 43!Hi59ll; I PLE;ASE INCi.UDE THE PROIECTN'YMBER WHEN CAWNG FORPROPEIHILE IDENTIFICATION If you wOufd ~e 'ta be macf~ I party.-of'r~· to ~1ve·fu·rth~friforrtiat_lon-OA th~ propoJ.ed pn:;ije~ O)mptete this form.and retutn.to: City.of Jterruirt. cto-:Fw:tning DM.sf.o.nt 1Q5S .so: Grady Way, R_entan,WA "98057, Name/File Noc The Eri<I= at Brid.l• Rldge/LUA144'.>1241. ECf, PP ~AMe_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- MAJUNG ADORES.S: _______________ Gty/State/Zlp:. _________ _ TB.EPHONENO~-------------- 001250 -----____ ........... ·.···-·-····,·-·· -EXHIBIT 30 Commu~ify & Economic Develop,,;entDepartment · · May-19, 2014 . · · · . C£ ·chip'Viricent, Adniinist'i'tor . . Roger Paulse~ ... ·. £617 SE 5tti Pliace · RentCJn, WA 98059 CllYOF RENTON . . . ·' : .. •. MAY 2 0 2ffl4 · ... · .. RECENEci. ·. · CITY' CLERK'S OFFICE .. . Subject: ··RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR R~CONSIDERJ\TION . Encl~ve at Bridle ~dge Pre!iminaryPlatl l.UA14-000241, PP, ECF . . . . . . . · ·Dear Mr .. Paulse~: · The Environmental Review Committ.ee (ERC).tield a meeting-on May l.9, 2014 to.con.sider·. · your Req~esi: for Recon;ideration, submitted April 16, 2014. Please find att!'ched to this letter~ copy of the dt:cislon of your Request to/Reconsideration· signed. byth·e members of the ERC in~luding.one newSEPA mitigation m~.isure: · · ·· · ff you have ariy q~estion~, please contact the project manager, Jill Ding; at (425) 430-65.QS .· · . or via. email atjding@rentonwa·.gov. · Sin·cer.ely, .· . . . : . . . . . . ·. .'-;: . . . '. -P~er;3'1mm9/Pf «'--···• · Gregg Zimmerman · · • En.itir<'>~mental ·Beview Committee, Chair Attacflmeints · cc: . . ' . Bohnie wi31fo_n; City .Clerk. ·. .. Jus·t;n.Lagel'SI A.ppnCaOt . '5ally.LouNipert /Owner .. G. RiC~ard Outfnet./ Owrier '. Par:ties of .Reco.rd. . Renton OtyHall • 105S·South ~radyWay • Renton,Washington \lso57 • rentonwa.~ov ()01251 . ) ·1 I i I j i I I I ! ' I . ! i l i ' i I ' i .·[ ---.--,· --. ·.·---·:----"-·,·-·:'. . I -- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT; MEMORANDUM May 19, 2014 Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Jill Ding, Senior Planner Enclave at Bridle Ridge (LUA14-000241) SEPA Request for Reconsideration The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat application and issued a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) on March 31, 2014 with one mitigation measure: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). I i The DN!,;,Mwasvub:J!sh"'d on,Aptil-'4,''2fil4 With an appeaf. peoo~ that ended on ·~&,c·::·:~~c, · .i:' _; _ ,.-..... J .. 2014.'>I. request for reconsidetatioh of-the SEPA: determination was received'oh'A:pril-17; . . 'i 2014 from Roger Paulsen. The request for reconsideration cites transportation impacts ! and public notice as the primary justifications for the filing of the request for reconsideration to the ERC. Below is a summary of the concerns cited: 1. The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis {TIA) prepared by TraffEx (dated December 27, 2013) relied upon by the ERC for the issuance of the $EPA DNS-M was incomplete and did not include the AM and PM peak hour conditions per item #1 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis. Staff Comment: The originally submitted TIA included a PM peak hour level of Service (LOS) analysis. After the receipt of the request for reconsideration, the applicant voluntarily conducted an additional traffic analysis and submitted an Addendum to the original Traffic Impact Analysis (dated April 29, 2014). The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156"' Avenue SE/SE s"' Place intersection and an AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis. After conducting the additional analysis, the applicant's traffic engineer concluded that the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the existing surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the originally submitted TIA and the Addendum and they concur that the proposed h;\ccd"fllanninglcuu,:ot plarming'~,,,,jcds\14--000241.jill\= reconsidaation r=mmcndation m=o.dot.doot 001252 l ---~-- 7. ~,-.-. --. -. . ·-- Environmental Review Co~ee Page 2 of 4 May 19, 2014 project would not have a signtficant adverse impact on the surrounding street system. The City's Transportation Division has conducted an independent study of the existing background traffic situation at the 156"' Avenue SE/SE 142"• Street intersection. Based on the City's study the existing conditions warrant the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection with or without the construction of the proposed subdivision. Wrth the installation of a traffic signal atthis intersection, it is anticipated that the traffic conditions in the project vicinity would improve. The installation of a traffic signal is not included on the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), therefore transportation impacts fees would not fund the installation of a signal. Due to the existing LOS designation Fat the 1561h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection and the fact that the required traffic impact fees would not fund a traffic signal at this intersection, staff recommends as a new SEPA mitigation measure that the proposed project be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a new signal to be installed at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips = 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The submitted TIA provided a Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for the 155th . ''i"-'-~'"A.1eri'JJ· SE/SE 142~if-Sfr~~'ff~t~~section; it aTcr'n.si \'~~iucfe ~a' LOS ana~~1sf6ri:°fl~~.c' ' ,, " ... ,, ..• , isG'h AveiiuEis@;s{sth p'1;~e i;.;t;;secti~~~ . ' • ~, • •. . ,., . " . . Staff Comment: Item# 2 of the City's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis states that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a_ 5% increase in· peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development". The proposed development would not result in a 5% increase in peak hour traffic at any intersection therefore no analysis of any intersection was required. However per the City's request an analysis was done for the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Street intersection and was included in the submitted TIA. The submitted Addendum included an analysis of the 156"' Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. According to the addendum the LOS for the 156th Avenue SE/SE s"' Place intersection currently operates at a LOS C and would continue to operate at a LOS C with or without the proposed subdivision. The current delay for westbound traffic is 15.1 seconds, the delay is anticipated to increase to 15.8 seconds without the project and to 16.1 seconds with the project. n,erefore, according to the submitted addendum, it is anticipated that the proposed subdivision would resuit in an additional delay of 0.3 seconds for vehicles at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection. The report does not recommend any additional mitigation beyond the required traffic impact fees as the LOS at the h;\ccdlplanning\currcntp1anning'q,rojocts\14-00024!.jillle,creconsidera!ionrecommcndationmemo.dotdocx. it. ·;~·,1 : -.... __ , -··· , . .J 001253· ·-· .. ..,.,-.•.-.~--.·.·. ·.·.·-· ~ :c.~•-:-:-·.·-·. '-" Environmental Review Committee Page 3 of 4 May 19,2014 --.c·c.·--.---.·,-:-i:-.·---·-·:-·---- 156th Avenue SE/SE 5th Place intersection will remain at C with or without the proposed subdivision. Therefore, staff concludes that no further traffic mitiga.tion is warranted for the subject proje_ct_ 3. Public notice for the proposed subdivision was misleading. People who didn't submit written comments during the 14 day Notice of Application comment period may think they can provide comments on the SEPA at the public hearing. Staff Comment: Public notice for the proposed subdivision was provided in accordance with the requirements outline in RMC 4-8-090. The notice states that individuals have 14 days to comment on the proposed subdivision application and also mentions that additional comments may be provided at the public hearing. In addition, any party who requested to be made a party of record would receive the applicable SEPA determination, which provides a 14 day appeal period. The notice' is not misleading as anyone receiving.the notice would have been notified of the public comment period, the date of the hearing, and has the opportunity to become a party of record and receive additional information on the project. Recommendation: In light of the additional information provided in the independent traffic study conducted by the City, which states that a signal is warranted at the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142 00 Street intersection, staff recommends that the ERC retain the .. '"*'=~: '"!i;i:;ting DSN'-M"with0 ~n'e\,;;~ ~it_igation mea~ufiaSfoliows: •>;•c=-c .• , -C -C ' --. . .. --· -.. . . -~-. .. -------· - l_ Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth · Solutions, NW (dated February S, 2014). 2. Due to,the existing Level of Service (LOS) designation of Fat the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142°d Place and the proposa I to add additional trips to the existing situation, the proposed project shall be responsible for paying their fair share of the cost of a newsignal to be installed at the 1S6'h Avenue SE/SE 142"d Street intersection. A fee in the amount of $3,435 (9 new PM peak hour trips/1,310 Total PM peak hour trips= 0.00687 x $500,000 = $3,435) shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2014, Appeals must be filed in writing together w·1th the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. ·Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton Oty Clerk's Office, (425) 43Q-6510. h; \ced\plamring\curn:nt planninglprojc:cts\! 4-000241.jill\en: reconsideration re<oirlI!lenda!ion memo.dotdoc:x ., ... -' 001254 Environmental Review Co~tte< Page 4 of4 May 19, 2014 - Date of decision: May 19, 2014 Gregg Zimm r a , Administrator Public Works epartment Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department ••• ...!.: : Date signatures: C.E. "Chip"'vincent, Administrator . Department of Community & Economic Development ··.-~-:fy' · ....... _ ..... .,...-~.:..: ~; ':' .. Date 001255 ,.-.-.-.-~-." April 29, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW_ Holdings, LLC. -~-~----: ._ -.·.-.· .. --.-. '. . -.. - 9675 SE 36th Sl, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge~ Cify of Renton Addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: .,·--;;---- We are pleased to present this addendum to traffic impact analysis (TIA) report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located at 14038 156th Ave. SE in the City of Renton: The purpose of the addendum is to provide information in response to questions concerning the original TIA and requests for additional anal~sis. The additional information includes traffic counts and an analysis at the SE 5 Pl/156th Ave. SE intersection and also traffic counts and analysis of all study intersection in the AM peak hour as well as the PM peak hour. The trip generation, trip distribution, background traffic growth and other data and assumptions are unchanged from the ·original TIA unless otherwise noted. -:: -···~:·· ..... ,.~-·· . .=.-.-= ',. _ Theci an_alysis is summarized as follov.(s: . ---~ .. ~ ~-~·~,-:).----i·-·"- • No roadways or intersections experience a 5% increase in traffic volumes due to the proposed project. • Adding the project generated traffic volumes does not change the LOS at any of the study intersections. • The 142..;, Pl. SE1SE 156th intersection currently operates at an overall LOS F and will continue to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS AND ANALYSIS - AM peak hour counts were taken at the SE 5th Pl/156th Ave SE and 142"d Pl. SE/SE 156th intersection on Tuesday 4/22/2014 from 7 to 9 AM. The peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:_15 AM. The counts are attached in the technical appendix. Figure 1 shows the AM peak hour volumes for all four study intersection.s for existing, future without project, project trips and future with project conditions. No Page 1 001256 I I ,-,c.. --I ! -• • •.•• ' .• _.,._ -' -.~ •.•• -· '· -... .,:,: •• •.• . .-.'"-·-••• '<' , ........ -PUB UC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: MEMO RAN.DU M Mays, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportatio_n Oper,,tions Manager. Ronald Mar, Tran-,portation Operations ........ :::···· SUSJECT: Pr0posed Signal, Southeast 14z'l'! Place at 156th Avenue . . . . . . . . Southeast . T.ssue: Should we irista!l a signal ~t the lnt~rsection of Southeast 142"d_Pl~ce and 156th Avenue Southeast as ;:,,quested by Carlo_s Bay0e pf anbayne@gpiaiLcom? . · Recommendation: We should_ place this intersection ninth in ?Ur priority list of locations to ~nsider fur a 11ew signal. · .,,~-~~--::-:,;~-: - ..__ .. ':'"::...-::: .-._., . ·: ~--. ~~ . ---;_., ~~ -Y~;;; ;_'. -{:-\ -: CT Ba~kground: We hav.e :analyzej;J the int!'r<ection of South<;'a.s_t 14z"d Plac~ and 156"' Avenue Sou~heast for signar'warrants acc~rding to Section 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 11iis'proposed location meets Warrant 1, fnterrupti(ln of Coni:in.uous1raffic for Eight Hours. Thls location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy oithe traffic volum'as, Table 4C-l fr;ni the Manual o{ Vnifo;,, Tmffic Co~trol Devk;5, figur~ 4C-1 through 4,('4. from the Manual of Uniform Traffic· Control Devices and.a copy of the Slgnal Warrant Analysis. · . . : • .. 11,is intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash ew~rie.nce. Since 2009, t)iere have . . . ~ . . beep five recorded accidents 9n 156 Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two inVQl\led vehicles run off the road to avoid hittjng a d~er. Of these, only one·accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"" Place and 155th'j._v~ue Southeast. The otherfutir acciden:ts oocurred at lea,;t·twa blocks away from the intersection in question. Please fin·d attached the raw e11forcement reports of the five accidents .. h:\ariisic;m.s\trampor.trt\o~tl~\,:t,n\tom\1Dm9645a.doc 001257 -.,-.·,·····.·.•·.-.·:-c.·.·.·.c;; . . . ' , .. , .. ·-·-·.,--_._ ·'-=~: , .... -- PUBLI(: WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: . ~ssue: MEMORANDUM Mays, 2014 Chris Barnes, Transportatio_n Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Tran$Portation Operations Proposed Slgna_l, Southeast 14~'1(1 place at 156"' Avenue Southeast Should we install a signal a.t the int~rsection of Southeast14200.Pl~ce and 156"' Avenue Southeast as r:equested by Carlos Bayne of anbayne@€)Ilai1.com? . · ·Recommendation: We should_ place this intersection ninth in p~r priority list of loCiltions to consider for a -new sign a I. · .,. • ·==---=-~ "':.'~,-: -. ~-· ..• .' x;, • • -- ··.:_ '"',, .... Ba~kground: We hav_e ,analyzed the inti,.rsection of South¢ast 142nd P!ac~ and 156"' Avenue Sou_theast for signal warrants according to Section_ 4C of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Contra/ Devices. This proposed location meets Warrant 1, tnterruptipn of Contin_uous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes.for Four Hours. Please fi.nd attached a copy of the traffic volum.es, Table 4C-1 fr;rri the Manual oi Vnifor"m Traffic Control Devices, Figur~s 4C-1 through 4p4.from the Manual ai Uniform_ Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This Intersection does not meet Warrant 7 for crash €)(perience. Since. 2009, t~ere have . . th . . been five recorded accidents on 156 Avenue Southeast. Three were rear end accidents and the other two invqlved veh"icles run off the road to avoid hitt)ng a dieer. Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142"" Place and 156th Ave,nue S~utheast The other four acciden:ts occurred at least-two blocks away . from the intersection in question. Please firid attached the law enforcement reports of . the five accidents .. hc\cfrvi>i~n.s\tr.nspor.tat\o~~\ron\tom\tom9645a.doc ~--: ·. d.-_c· . ll ·--." ., T . 001258 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: -· COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT April 18, 2014 ~· :.:::·----- MEMORANDUM Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Neil Watts, Development Services Director Traffic Concurrency Te!it for The Enclave a.t Sridle Ridge Preliminary Pl;it The proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge preliminary plat consists of 31 single ram Uy lots, with a calculated daily trip generation of an additional 297 trips. The project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows. Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass? Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan? Yes Within allowed growth levels? Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees? Yes ~: -.·~. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project? Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2013. Within allowed growth levels?: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 96,998 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 297 additional trips from this project. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees?: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project?: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use app,roval will also be completed prior to recording of the plat. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The Clty of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurnency test nequirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: 001259 -TranspOrtation ConcurrencyTest-The Endave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat April 18, 2014 D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development acbvity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System estabfished in the Tran sport a/ion Bement of the Renton Comprnhensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test resuff describing the outcome of the concurrency test ;z_ Written Finding Required: Prior lo approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concwrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of conwrrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specif,c land uses, densities, intensiues, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the . . . . ·-. I concurrency/est,,theproject,app/icalicin shall be denied by the decision maker wlt/Jthe·authdfi/y'fd'"-',"''' '· · ~.: 0 -·· -~·''1 approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page Xl-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Tronsportotian Plan, payment of o Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. 2 001260 ' . ~ EXHIBIT 31 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PlANNIN\:J u1v1:,1uN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING . . On the 22 day of May, 2014, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA reconsideration /determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Justin Lagers Applicant . Sally Lou Nipert Owner G. Richard Ouimet Owner See attached Parties of Record See attached Agencies .--... (Signature of Sender): I I ,' . '. . ,.,,,\\\\\11111 STATE OF WASHINGTON ~~"( P0~~1111 ) ss ff-.P~?\"\.,s,1 \ COUNTY OF KING ) f ((•~1 '::_• 11 1 . ~ ~ ~ -I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante ~\, '°c,,\.,c, '.\ J O _· signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for1'1,,ill~e2in11!:p~oses .... ~. ''"'\\\\\'-~ mentioned in the instrument. O;: woe'-'' Dated: 'M"j 22. JOit./ ) Notary (Print): ___ ~tf-n~I f._....v_7?.~0J~•~l"1C~· ->~------------ My appointment expires: A'(! Qf-~ '7i J_o / i The Enclave at Bridle Ridge LUA14-000241, PP, ECF 001261 M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 LUI-. -.100241 THE ENCLAVE AT BRID . .._..)GE OWNER/APPLICANT/PARTIES OF RECORD DAVID MICHALSKI Wade Willoughby 6525 SE 5TH Pl 6512 SE 5th Pl RENTON, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Roger Paulson Richard Ouimet 6617 SE 5th Pl 2923 Maltby Rd Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98012 Jason Paulson Eloise Stachowiak 31 Mazama Pines Ln 6614 SE 5th Pl Mazama, WA 98333 Renton, WA 98059 001262 Dept. of Ecology •• Environmental Review Section . PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region"' Attn: Ramin Pazoaki King Area Dev. Serv.1 MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers 0 * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 35030 SE Douglas St. #210 Snoqual~ie, WA 98065 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura fi.ttn: $EPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 ._, ,..,,,, AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS)· WDFW -Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office • Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program• 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Divlsion • Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Jack Pace Director of Community Development Acting community Dev. Director 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98056 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Kathy Johnson, Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 355 110th Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Mailstop EST llW Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98004 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov :t 0 oepartment of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist1 Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: seoacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing 001263 Denis Law M.i)iot · May 22, 2014 Roger Paulsen 6611 SE 5.th ,Place · ·. RentO[l, WA 98059 · ·· Community& Economic Developme,ntpepartment C.E 'Chip"Vlncent Administrator ·~.· . -.. CITY OF RENTON MAY 2.2 2014 RECEIVED· CITY CLERK'S OFFIC.E. · RE: · •. Enciave at Brielle Ridge Pr~limiriary Plat/ LUA14,000:Z41, PP, ECF .. · . Dea~ Mr:Pa~lse~:> ' • As Part ofthe review of your Requestfor Reconsideration, the City conducte.d an independent study cif the 156'h Avenue SE/SE 142"d.Place intersection. The study conduded that ttie 156'h . Avenue SE/SE 142nd.Place intersection warrants the iffstallation of a traffic signal.The City tias . . · added and is priorltizing the instaliatibn ofa traffic signal at this location to its Tra'nspbrt_ation · ·. · 1mpro11enient Program (TIP). Although it h.as been determined that the adcliti~hal traffic . ' anticlpatecl through the development of the Encl av~ at Bridle Ridge preliminary platwould not signifTcantly impactthe existi11g traffic situation atthe 1S!>'h Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place' . intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has decided to require the. developer to pay their fair shareforthe installation ofthetraffic signal as an additional . •· mitigation ·measure through SEPA; It is not anticipated that the installation of the traffic sjgnal wmiJdoci:ur as a part of this projec;t,. but would occur at a later.date as additional funding .. ' becomes· available, . . . . . . . . . . ' . Jfvou have any further questions onthJs m~tter, please i:ontactJiH Ding, Project M3nager, at.· (425) 43()C6598 0[1/ia email ai: jding@rentonwa.gov, C.E. "Chip" Vincent ,CED Administrator Att:achrtienis cc: ERC Members . Bonni~ Walton; City·~lerk Justin Lagers, Applicant . ·sa1IY Lou Niper, Owner : , G. Richard bu'imet, Owner·. P_artif?s'of Record·· Renton Oty Hall , 1055 South Grady Way ,' Rentpn: Washington 98057 , reri;onw;i.gov . ()01264: - J PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Issue: MEMORANDUM May 5, 2014 Chris Barnes; Transportation Operations Manager Ronald Mar, Tran,portation Operations . Proposed Signal, Southeast 142nd .Place at 1561h Avenue Southeast . . Sheu Id we install a signal at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and 1561h Avenue Southeast as requested by Carlos Bayne ofcmbayne@gmail.com? Recommendation: We should place this intersecfion ninth in our priority list of locations to consider for a new signal. Background: We have analyzed the int.ersection of Southeast 142"d Place a.nd 156th Avenue Southeast for signal warrants accordirig to Section 4C of the Matwal of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Thls·proposed location meets-Warrant 1, Interruption of Continuous Traffic for Eight Hours. This location also meets Warrant 2, significant Volumes for Four Hours. Please find attached a copy of the traffic volumes, Table 4(-1 fro in the Manual of Unifor~ Traffic Co;trol Devices, Figures 4C-1 through 4C'4from the Manual of Uniform · Traffic Control Devices and a copy of the Signal Warrant Analysis. This intersection does not meet Warrarit 7 for crash experience. Since 2009, there have been five recorded accidents on 156111 Avenue Sciuthe.ist. Three were rear end accidents and th.e other two i~volved vehides run off the roa·d to avoid hitting a d~er: . Of these, only one accident occurred at the intersection of Southeast 142nd Place and ·155th Ave.nue Southeast. The other four accidents occurred at least two blocks away from the intersection in question. Please find attached the law enforcement reports of the five accidents .. h: \division .s \tra nspor.tat\operatlo Von \tom \tomg64Sa .doc 001265 Page 438 -Standard: r'-'. The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the .following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist oh it the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or 1'_;- B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-l exist oii;" • 'the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. , .. , In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: os If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if .. " the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the·:;1 traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-l may be used in place of the JOO percent columns. \Ji Guidance: ,'<1,:,;;, 06 The combination of Conditions A a11d Bis illlendedfor applicatio11 at locatio11s where Condition A is 1101 .. :;·: satisfied and Condition Bis not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of olher alternatiresi' that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has/ailed to solve the traffic problems. · Standard: 07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-l exist on:.•,: the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; anil,f:· B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-1 exist ori'/;. the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. :.\;'. . These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, ·<. 'he 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Sect 4C.02 Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A-Minimum Vehicular Volume NumW of lanes for mO\fing Vehicles per hour on majot street Vehicles per hour on higher-volume !raffle on each approach (total of both approaches) minor-slreet oij)proach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 10~· 8Q%b 70%' 2 or more 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition B-lnterruptlon of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving Vehicles per hour on major street Vehicle$ per hour on higher-volume traffic on each approach {total ol both approaches) mi/\Of-slreet approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 2 or more 900 720 630 5D4 75 60 53 .42 2 or more 750 600 525 420 100 80 70 56 & Basic minimum hourly volume ~ Used tor combination of Condltkins A and B atter adequate trial of other remedlal measures t May be used when the major-street speed !llceed.s 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 " May be used for combination oJ Conditions A and B after adequate lrlal of other remedial measures when the major-street speed mit.eeds 40 mph or in an isolated community wllh a population of less than 10,000 l.'· . .-.,,, ; Page 440 - Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 5DD 4DD MINOR STREET 300 HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH-200 VPH 100 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE I I 1 LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) "Note: 115 Vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower thre~old volume for a minor-street approach with .one Jane . Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH- VPH s~et. 4c_04 200 200 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE I I 1 LANE & 1 LANE 300 400 500 600 700 BOO MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 9DO "Note: BO vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. 2009 Edition 600 500 ....... MINOR 400 STREET ........ ......... HIGHER- VOLUME 300 APPROACH - VPH 200 100 - Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour "' i,,._ .... I'.... r---..... ./ 2 OR MoR1 LAN 1s & 2 1 oR MIRE 1 Es r--......... ....... ...... I', /2 OR MORE LAtES & 1 LANE .... ............. ... ~ · I I ............. i,,,....__ I'-.... ..._ '> K. LANE & 1 LANE I ..... -.a:::: -- Page 441 150' 100' 400 500 600 700 BOO 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour {70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET} 400 / 2 OR MORE LANIS & 2 FR MOIE LANiS MINOR 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE STREET 300 i-,,..~+=...+---'=1i,,..,-¥--+---+--~-+---+-----a HIGHER- VOLUME APPROACH -200 VPH 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 100 vph appfies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. - Signal Priority Ratings: A = Number of correctible accidents in a 12 month peliod AR = Accident Rating = 100 / 5 x A Vm = Average of the 8 highest hours of main main street volume in veh/hr (total both directions) Vs= Average of the 8 highest hours of side street volume in veh/hr (total both directions) Nole: right turns on red and/or free right turns are subtracted from the side street volumes. K = reduction factor= {0.97 In (Vm / Vs)) -0.32 Cv = Capacity constant Note: When the 85th percentile speed of main street Is >40 MPH, MUTCD volume warrants are reduced therefore, reduce Cv so that Cv = 0.49 x Cv Number of Lanes Main Side Street Sire.et Cv 1 1 750 2+ 1 900 2+ 2+ 1200 1 2+ 1000 VR = Vehicular Volume Rating= (Vm x Vs)/ (K x Cv) Pm= Average of the 8 highest hours of main street pedestrian in ped/hr {total both directions) Wm= width of main street in feet Gp= pedestrian constant= 78000 PR= Pedestrian Volume Rating= Vm x Pm x Wm/ Gp Total Rating = AR + VR + PR Intersection A ::AR: Vm SW 41 st ST/Oakesdale AV SW 5 :10.0 615 S 4th STN/illiams AV S 0 ::)F 442 NE 44th ST/1-405 NB Ramps 3 :)JO: 539 SW 7th ST/Lind AV SW 6 :1:2:0 783 S 7th ST/Talbot RDS 0.3 /6\ 990 NE 12th ST/Union AV NE 0 ::::(,:;: 449 SE 31st SUBenson ROS 2 Ao:: 1221 NE 4th ST/Hocuiam AV NE 2 :':4Q: 1899 S 55th ST/Talbot RDS 3 :,6:W 898 N 44th ST/1-405 SB Ramps · 3 :,:eo; 460 NE 12th ST/Kirkland AV NE 6 :'.1:W 542 SE 142nd PU156thAVSE 0 0 976 s Eaqle Ridge DR/Benson RD S 3 ::6ii:: 1148 N Landing LN/Garden AV N 0 :::'(," 504 NE Sunset BUHooualm AV. NE 2 ':4W 838 S Carr RD/Mill AV S 1 ::~Q: 1887 NE 4th ST/Bremerton AV NE 2 :;:40: 2035 SW 34th ST/Lind AV Sw 2 ,::'\(f 1161 NE 21st ST/Duvall AV NE r :::21)'.: 1310 NE 12th ST/Duvall AV NE 1 ,::20:: 994 S 26th ST/Benson RD S a ,:::tr:: 1008 NE 6th ST/Duvall AV NE 0 ::•:(t: 949 NE 10th ST/Duvall AV NE a .:::a::: 458 NE 4th ST/Queen AV NE 0 ::;:q::: 1641 Vs 407 357 476 306 315 220 270 153 174 179 120 167 93 158 69.5 44.5 20 49 37 37 27 38 48 16 ::::::J\;{:'.: Cv :C:::::l;/R'::::: Pm ::;:1:1.~~:: 900 :'.S~51:!;19:: 0 ,::~o,.n 1000 ,fi3f13::4l 12 ':::,O,Z:O::: 900 ,i4Z!l'A2 0.5 :::C:0.'59\ 1200 ::337.:(,4:: 0.5 ::::o.7.s::,: 900 e:A3itfa:,: 9 ::::.d:'37 ::: 750 :;:G:sef.:os::: 6.25 ·:::1,~4::: 1100 ::;21>2::04':: 0.33 {ZiU,F:: 588 :::2~2,7'4'.:: 0 :,::1~:J'::e' 750 ::J6:~::&0 :: 0.37 ::o:~i:F 1000 :::.i:aci-.:2~;:: 0.17 :::1/l-L 900 ::::Jl3,2l'i:::: 5 :::ts~:::: .750 :C:1:5.6Jl-7':: 0 :tJ2,' 539 ,::·93,$\t::: 0 .':;0'.8:1\: 750 ,::1:$:f.'BT: 16 :::~:10::: 368 ::::'i'5c65·::: 1 :-Ji:~L: 441 :::,57:44\: 1 ::.A:=11i;:: 441 ?:22:;Hl;': 4 \)!;'I'S.: 1200 ,::::rr.:~4'.::: 0 :: ::i,;14,: 441 ::::3/i:Oo::: 0.5 ::::2$1':::C 441 /2ltl:l4,::: 7 '.::;i]9':;: 368 ,,::2-a·.:1.r.,::: 15 0::ZJiO ::: 441 ::::29:·t.li:::: 2 :::::t'fil::: 441 :;e.~1;>.fi~/ 6.38 AF::: 441 . -:11-:2:7>. 0.16 ( Wm :'.:l'.f.l::C: 56 :,0;01t 43 ::2,~.r 40 :'O;:M:: 51 :,o:2e:,: 74 ::SA:;:: 45 :::t:62:' 51 ::o:;ie:: 62 ::Q:fl[J:: 36 ':Q::1!;:: 56 J'l:Qfj': 38 :::1::s:1:r 39 ':J:t:tlO:: 39 :::o::tl[J:: 41 ::-1:.24,: 37 ::0;40:: 49 ::;i:,19:: 56 jiJl'l;' 58 ::(;);0!:1:: 53 :;(J;;/1):j:: 51 ::;/1;$:i:: 47 '.;9::f:1:: 58 '1:4.1:: 58 -:2,:11:: 66 :o,n: :JoJa.t: :'~S.!ia iH~SP :1,:1~: :':if58:'. :,4:5;{" :,::l'siC :,:~112::: '::2P:': ,::?Z,f: :::Hm. ::Ja)i:: :\1:M::· :::1~4::: :::.;::ii;::: :::1'.~fi/ :':'.:7.fj:::: ,:,:ea::,: :::cS7:? :,::S1>:i /$4} :{3i:;:: '.;'•31"::: '.:'.:29=::: :;: :f:1::;: done done done done done done 001269 - TOM 9645W SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Southeast 142"d Place/156th Avenue Southeast WARRANT! WARRANT 2 WARRANT3 WARRANT4 WARRANTS WARRANT6 WARRANT7 WARRANTS WARRANT9 fN:TOM!ISlOW Meets warrant -volumes meet Condition B for eight hours. Meets warrant-four-hour volumes exceed the curve in Figure 4C-1 for seven hours. Does not meet-this intersection is not near an unusual peak hour traffic generator. Does not meet -the number of pedestrians crossing the street never exceed 100 per hour. Does not meet -this is not a school crossing. Does not meet -there are no plans to make this a coordinated system. Does not meet -there are fewer than five accidents preventable by a signal within a twelve-month period. Does not meet -We classify 156th Avenue Southeast south of Southeast 142"d Place as a residential street. Does not meet -This intersection is not near a railroad crossing. 001270 Cl Cl ... N .... ... Sheet1 :f()~-[~~}5W 1---156th_~Y:-~E-I _ [ SE _1~_2ND PL J _ _ ________ J __ _ _ HOUR' __ ENb ! ___ f'J_~_ i_ SE3__ :-NB_-t:?_~ \-__ V\11:l -I EE3 ____ \~l'!_+_V\IB_ !TOT,l},l,_ _ '. ----0---i fob· 1-i --+----13 -I-20 _ r -28--I 26 -,----54 -----74 - _ -------------------·-----------__ -------,-_______________ ,__ ___________________ 1__ _ ____ . __ ---______________ L__________ I ---- Ji illiL~--1=f-1···· I~j···· 1 ·r-1ij~i=Jf =l•·i- ___ J .... '········-----··· . ---------__________ , . -------1-··-· . . ----·---------------------_[ --· ... -~66CJ __ L 70g \_1 _ _1j_5 __ J _____ 8? __ ! ____ 227 ___ .! ___ 1?i3_ L ___ 530_ ; __ :_7_t;_l3_ .. , _____ 98!:> 70_0 __ J _ _il_QQ_ . I I ?~---i----__ 13?_· _J __ 3-65. . : ?!59 __ -! __ (l~?----'1··-~-9-~~--L __ 131_6 igg '--}Jo0o·1-~-~~~---\---~~--····'! -j;l-I, ---~r-~---i····· :~ .. 1 • i~~-... j ~ 1 /0 9 -- -1001r-·1100 1 ,·152·· r ---92---T--224------2oa-----310 --;--:---s--:ia--+ 742 ... ----. -----...... ·---.. -----i----------. 1-.... ---... --· .. ' . . ... ---)-. ··----·····--.. . ······ '---... --... ... .. -! . . ......... ---- 1100 120g 1 ... ·_ 124 _ " ___ 9_~ __ J __ 2_20 _, ____ 24_13 __ J ____ 29_3 __ J _____ ~41 _j __ 761 __ ~i:grJ!r=li! J:iil L m-:t hl J Jif r=ti=J=~;; --~!~~ -j~~~g-r-_: r:~--J_ -~ ;:----!------~~----1---;~: --) ___ -__ ::~ -... L ·.--~~ii.·-r 1!~! 11ocf :-1ao1ff ~ 161 · 1--1"§2· ·; --···353 ·1----125·· ·I 465--1 ;·--11aa·· + 154f- ··--1800-\ 1goo ··1·:-139~:~:_; 165 ~[:·-2ge; r·--5_if ····-·r .3-~f_-__ J_· 967 ____ 1 ~1}~?-_' 1900-, 2000 J -~ 99 -i 119 .. I · 218 , 343 \ 266 1 609 \ 827 __ 2900-1 219o_!1-· _70 ______ 1 ___ 10~--J. · 1713 ___ 11-___ ?_31_ ••. ·1' _?2~~L __ Ll!5LI_\ __ .632 -- 2100 ! 2200 . 47 I 77 I 124 . 170 151 . 321 i 445 _-~_ao_:r-z3-oo __ J _--23·:-· -i :_: _4s·-_='.•-· -)-s····-T----~:102-:_:_ f--1 o4 --1 _-20~_=:::1=?7t - -23oo_ __ , __ 2~o_9_L __ 1_3 ____ ) ___ 3-6 ______ 1 1 ____ 49 _J ____ _5~---____ (l,i __ 1 _ 120 __ _169 __ • ! I l I j , --. I ---• ----··· ... · .. I··· ·-· ··--·-·······r··-·--·-·········"·····---· J · ' · · · ........... · · _.! ..... _-...... -····-·----! ! 2356 1 2091 _! _ 441?_ ; 6022 6729 I 12751 Page 1 ( ( Angelea Wickstrom From: Sent: To: Subject: Jill, - Terrence J. Flatley Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:13 PM Jill Ding RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 EXHIBIT 33 I concur with the arborist report. It's unfortunate that the trees in this area cannot remain in their natural state and development occur beyond them. From: Jill Ding Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:54 PM To: Terrence J. Flatley Subject: FW: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Hi Terry, Were you able to go out and look at the trees for this project? Thanks! Jill From: Justin Lagers [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:27 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 We never heard back after Terry's visit? What were his findings? On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jill Ding <JDing@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Thank you Terry! Please let me know if you need anything from me before visiting the site. Justin, please make sure the gate is open so Terry has access to the site. Thanks! Jill l 001272 From: Terrence J. Flatley - Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 1:21 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: 'Justin Lagers' Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUA14-000241 Hi, I can schedule this for Tuesday, April 15th at I p.m. From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 6:52 AM To: Terrence J. Flatley Cc: 'Justin Lagers' Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Plat LUAl 4-000241 Hi Terry, I was hoping you could review the Arborist Report and Tree Cutting plan that was submitted with a plat that I am reviewing. In particular, the City is interested in retaining as many trees along the east property line as possible. Several of these trees have been identified as diseased, dangerous, or dead in the submitted arborist report. I have attached a copy of the arborist report and tree cutting plan, I've also highlighted the trees in the report and on the tree cutting plan that are of particular interest for possible retention. The developer of the plat has requested that we contact him before you go out to the site as the property owner likes to be informed when people come to the site, also the site is fenced and he needs to open the gate. Let me know if you need anything else for your review. Email is the best way to contact me as I primarily work from home, however I am in the office on Thursdays from 10 am-2 pm. Thank you! Jill 2 001273 Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton jding@rentonwa.gov Justin Lagers American Classic Homes, LLC Director of Land Acquisition & Dt:velopt11e11t 9C,7:i SF 36th Str~e1. Suite 105 Mercer Island. WA 98(141J Office. 206-588-! 147 Cdl. 253-405-5587 justin@americanclassichomes.com www americanclassichomes.com 3 001274 ' r-- r-- r- I i~ I ' I ! I I I ! I I I ' I 11-iE ENC EXHIBIT 2 ,,,r--1__ i 00127 rl;J. j~ • a ~l J I t ::oQ '~~ ;:. 3--< I 00 :, ZTJ j' EXHIBIT 3 "2' t:; ca 1-1 :c ~ ' • ! I I I I ~ '!I d i:i w iE I I i--- I f------- ' I .,.101• . _ _J!if fllcLJ:'lEASH~Jmotr RIDGE · ,2:~c·,c s-,~!o.Q1 ~_;j I ~ -.J •• ·-•l . ma: ROEN7/0N CALct/LA11CWS ---··"' ==:.:-=---: ====~: ---======:. !:"'~u.1-.. -----==.~--·-.--- ... c L£CDK> ~:u=-- JS( 13) -·--,,,.~ /.- \0)\.0'-"''"' .... -_, Qi 0 ,::,.==.::-,-_,, "" N "I"' C) C) ~--- ---"' l::,~1 ~ -., 1~1-1-,.. ~ ~ CITY OF RENTON ~--¥ RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Cf kENTON PL/\~,H1.;!NC DIVISION @ NORTH --1..4 • lHE ENa..AIJE: AT BR!Ol.E RIDGE PRELI WIN ARY Pt.AT TIIEE CUl'TNQ »IJ I.NC)a.uaN) PlAlf DRS J>RO.ECT NO. 13117 IA ,....,.. ... n. ' ' t~!· ,, ,Ii !~·! ! ' " :,i .. R,, i It'll ii § 1,~I "Ii l~l! ; I ~ lf'j " .! g.l: Ii~: ! ! .. '' t~ --.... 11! ?. -- -1-!!! ! ... -, . ' ! '·· ! .... . -. ' . ' . . . I " ' ' !I! •• ! ----! -•• • llt I ; ' ' ~i 11 UillilililillliilililLilllll~J_UililililLil~~~'I xxxx-xxx 3!>0JM 31QIM8 J.V 3'\Vl:JN3 3Hl ! I i Ln l:i cc ""4 :c ~ < d i5 w "' S£ !C! SEC710N 14, TOv.HSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 !'i.,. W.U. 11 , , , •· .. • Tffl= ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RluGE ~-;:t~i · 1 1 ·: ·'.:.~L.;~i' ~;;,';;·~," r Adiz' ·;d,Y • · <L';;/,;·d ./ I ii ·j : · 1""7' I fl I :y ,a,·· ·1; ' · 1 • , ,,. , .,, \ ·,;,"' ~'1 I -~ Jb"'f _,,,_,~;-____ ,_ ·1-:<:.:_ I 11:;:,.t: ·-10,0"'"' ~1,f! ij 1:;c:I~! cl iii -·:,P:) ./' ii'. jfj' l i 11 ' I t1 ti -.,, ····:..i·,i::' 11 ,,,, -.;rl ': 11 .. 1 ·;. I -· :,1·! C'.: ·:~~:,:: , ' ""' '"'lit t ' c~r-1· !l1 q ... ,..:-.: ·,;c;. '._1_1. _ 1 , -·. '~}~\~ti:,~ \'~1'-',-,i~F i . ; : i,·;c~,t'.:''':,,;.~ /.' 1 · :J. •ire;,,,•~?{''-" t 1T /L l--- ---·st .•. ,.,,, " , :::;y;;:~,~;.Zii;: ·.)' t;~;r: ~~~ './~-·-:~7-:/ . -·-:I{!~~;_:_ 31) 29 ·-..... ,. " .. .,,,.?1 22 ··--.28\ -. "F ... u'{,. '1]:;:;: ··. '·23 24, ,~>/ I) ~.\ <l.).<;l ,, ••• • ·1, ''"' c.tl• ~,·,. ,..,.,._, o ,·w ,~-~-~ ..Jr..... ~ --~ ~ CITY OF RENTON _mm::.._~ "-'"'"9/~-i:,.,., IJflllolll;J-'.::-':a' -!'--~-IMD - @ ~ N 'I"' 0 0 NOR.TH --. . . --..., ,1>01••1"1 lHE ENCLAVE 4T BRIOlE RIDGE PRELIMINARY Pl.AT """"""""""'""' DRS PRO.ECT NO. 13117 I l •, ~ w I ~ E8 C 1' f .~ ! s1 -0 . ' 0 ~ ~ q ~ ~8 r ~ ~ ~ ~ C•. ~, ., I! .. r--1----,-1 I ' \ I I ,. I I ' ' ,~.,.~ I ;. ~)Ill / ·t .... l ..... (.:.( .<r· ........ 'f • " • ! .! ! EXHIBIT 6 ' 'cc:--• ' . I -·....=!..~----'-< r·- / i ' I r-H,'="'ccc-,-,-..,.; RE'VISIONS MAfCHUNf -5ef 5Hfffl,-::, .,... ---' ----' ' ~--"•: : . : : ', ---y-; !--;,------,.------:--1 : .: ···:-: ',, : I: \: -1·----.----, ,-~-~-~ -' -.... -- ' ' 20 9:264..~.F:.. i" I ,Y "fMi\,,wS:j,'{' ~ffU, 11'~ I ,<.,t,,1.!.W.'I ~ Cf !t:•!.t' : U'l1:illlr.W--N ____ , ' ' i --J,C<.. 21 "l!':950_ S.F. : 1 · ·r-t· ' ' 22 8,050 S.F. ---\ / ··,.-L _ ,-:~ --------: :---·:_-:1~_---i-i : i'·,.. I 't.. \ J , 1 '• I : : ·---23 : : 24' : I: !s : I I I I • I : 8.osO·-~,r. i i 8.683 df. \. I t 9,5J? S.F. i : --, , \ ')I: -, ,>j~•'\W11-i(JWSr.,',"!;ll\ff!£.fi'.'!l{ I , ; I : l)'l)f/t-lWM'.M:("f-1t'.'£ I l l: I C."f,'11(1\)1,j --~-·-·~---' I' . < -_____ __::,~ ' ' "I; : I " : J <('t0ff!!J.ff,';!!Uf(l -~,,~ I : 18\ \: :·-.. ' s.:.,~----,-,____ '\ ' ' 't'l'J ".~ I ' -a 050 $.F. 2_ •I' I ', .,.,,,~ ts ,, ' C)" : : 9.251 s,. ""'-: :---,_ ,;cc 'i : ' ' ' u ,, _) : : : ' l:k '\ --__ , __ • I I I ---I '-,--: :-------,L----t;, ', --~ -.. 17 B,{!~:'S.F. ·······-. -----+-.- r:: ~'. _ :~ ~-:--_ ::_" _]· ;-.,,,._,.,..,,,n,,,,,;;,. , I ' 1 1 in.t:(~rrn :,82 1 : -15 : ' -14 I I I . SF ,', 11 :, 83'8SF : ' -,.266SF I I ~ I r 1 . : : 11: : : j .: ,.--Ji--i---:-~---:1 :·. / I JI '._ I I ____ j: j ( ____ ~'~:::~--,---~)JI:,-~.----- ------ ' ' '., ' '' , ' ' ' , ' tRACf"A"' STORM oRAt~A<iC-.. : , 13, A5f 51'.CllOI{ ,,o sfr~ / :I f/5 50 [A5H!E}\lT I J2. 114 s.t:· /--/~~ -=-·~-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-\~-j LHV.<Jl'W<l'/Wltiff..oJt'~ n~«-w: ror-i tl5r,uwt;,.m;; flJ!l1l?f.'HJ(I"·~ =ffi ' --' ·-.1 ,-- ' ' ' --.. )_. ' ' ' '- ··· .. 1·· ,• .. ' ' ', ' • •• I ·-' · .. , l~ .• ,- ' ' ' ' ' 1111 ~ ~ \:::,. r;z U ID :::l iS ,E ',J", ""~ ~ 0."' <cs l\J~ (5 ID~ I>"' ~ :5! ,,_ u z ID t --"'-iu-u L-2 . . ~ mf51Zt 22V'1 ';:(X.,t 111 ~ 20'--{_'1" 5H'ff 2 of 7 .,-~LL (>4~.l-·----1. .... :-s-1 -~ L _ I ___ _L_ ' /.,,..-....... ><--- /I ' ' ··,,, .......... i \.lb .,.-----1.. 1 ·, '>f.;;"F.1,3e"f;t. I .1., )- ~-1 I i ': ., " ; I i~:,-, I ' " 1 \, I '1 · ~-;i:~i l ' ' u•~l,J,IQ'.Oft:'1.Hf~.«·e'!: N5f,'j.1.f.17 Af fl,\(; Cf H"llf- C0161'1!U::1n.1 I ------------ -+--·31 .. ,1-f---·",, ' : I I , I ' ' 2" ' I I t;f, I E I '-I I I I 8 050 SF_",, I ---30·· 8,050 $.F. : 9,5J9 S.F. ' ' ' i __ ... JOB"J- . i.:-_:::~~~-________ : I I I , I ·t··-: 1 . _ 'i I ' -• • .,--, I I I I I ._ ______ --------~ '. __________ --c-__ : , -I r---------------, ,----------T----· I I I I I •. I I I I I I '· I I t I I ' I I I ! - I I I I I : 20 : ' 21 : : \ fi:264-. S.F. .••• ,. --: -·..JB I I Ki'11,1;•r1n.11wJtY:.·;.;.:~ fflct' ' 1 ii;G.!iO._S.F. : \ "'"', I I I ~~w.,urn~ : ·--t-t--- 22 8,050 SF. . .J r-""-~~--"';~!,, 1 ' 1·· ', ' i"' ' 3 ·ll: I ' B:nm..SF. '[ .·· ',... 2'' ' • II : •.. '-, 8;tf!,O S.F. ',, , ,, 8.986 ·;_,-_.. ' ' ' -~-c ·-.--------·,_ I '•, '· I I .I '•,1 ' ' ,.1 I i'"· 28'. : ' ' 1 i5,.i_so s.r. ·· .. ', I "•.1 I "f. ~ I : ·---.... 27 : I '• I I ••• '- : B)iBJ. .. S.F. \ ' ' ' ' l·J -.. $ ' __ •·. ,-----··.-t, ' ' ' ' . ' \ ·.. ·,( '-26· ' ' •,, I ~, ,ss sf·-.. _; ' '· I I: I I•, ' , . [',, . ! L __ "~-------·· .•. } L·-·--... __ -----.. ----~~t \_-\-----·~r----J. K''~~l':IIJ"tl!, ~(•l:ll N">fll,tW~flWt Cf ii'M!((V,~ ' I ' ·[ ',,, . "-.._ ', --------, ;-~~~~ -----------, I>-----~·-____ \ .J. : ',, . : I/\ \ . -.\ I J ' l I 1 : ·r--.. \ \!1 1 , I 1 \ Lr \ II \ : / ;:. I I ' r I 23 8,()!j()"•S.[- }5 9,5Jf 5.F. ~ I I I ( I ---------------' ~-~-~-;,;;.;;;-J ~--------~-----JI~ -~ _www_ : : . 24 ].': · ' ll 8,58.J S.f". / : cO • .• 1 1 I I I •.I I _ .. _. I ,j,.. .;,_ -;.;... MAfC.11.-INf -5ff 5rffH-2 ---- -, -". \ ', J I "/)., '1: ·. ', \i'\ ,,:::1;131, 1~11111111 . ' ,__, ~-- '·... u "-' __, -' __, s::::. ii' r "' ~ fi: .,, ~ ~~ ~ !-1/-1 c\ ""'> D ;t'\ ···19et: ' I Z n ., .\.. -~ < ::i :z -' "-~ "-' t ,, l ,, I ' i t ' l_l :. I: ~ ~14-11 ,--'~ I N •:tUf 51ZE 22,,-1 l-'? 5ff'f'Oef, ,. /-----------' ,' L--:---:c-·'. __ I -I • >.J. ' __Jt ' ' ., \\ ' ' ' ........ L ,. ' ' ' ' 9 "-.,8,052 S.F. 1 .................... _ ' ' ' ·.' ·., '· ' ,, ' ' ' ', --------"-.-1-- ·10 8.05fr·S F. L ____ ·---~---.."_!!; ··:·. 11 L ··, 8,051 S.F. .~ ' •, ' ' ' ., ~--;- :i.. ~--.-------- ' ' ' .. , ' \ ······,o.Xfs.F. \ . ~- /\ 1Wi'..'l. 'or ;;··~·~ =~~ ,---J.'--.. ,1. <. l!ro:tl:".:ffCM.~r •· I . <:-:-~·. ·, ,\(·' I .. , .' 7 ,-..,_. - ::1 -··' 0------J 'ff0..~U(M.'ff fVfP.!M!N ':1-tlV. •n 5f0RMWA11:R POND • ;Cl1'MA11C 5eC110N · NOR1H t,JQJ'!"Q'"{fl_.(; "l'lofl.'.tf(}..1.,9.;f f\t.f(.IW-1 ~. ";{[ (,ftp;:::.'ffft.,'/1[ fJ..F.,1a,(J>;V ..... }:\ '.£! (~1-'.fl /\ 1WU.or I f ":,~ C\~l:OUN llt < • i.N,V':0/1."it·'tt J\,~'S} ~ r=•rnu, " :.1,i s/-. -~--::-~-- 5fORMWA1i'R POND · SOi'MA11C SeC110N · fA5f t¥Jff0':(A1 ftf.U. '.tf O..t..'Xr :,r(b,<W1,I!:~ nw :ncM..:n ~rHUWh.l. '.te------1 Ct.t.Pr /\ ~~mt I; ;, I 1. ~f\11".i'.fil:l'~M',t.'f,/' 1·v~ l~'.tf I \Q'ffl~ 'ff!ll'. 'ff ;.___ «-~~MV<Jf'l;n.H< ---...r...-u__ 'N-:.taw:! V/t'I';', T;"(M. '.ti 5fORMWAll'R POW · ;Cl1'MA11C 5eC110N · fA5f 00tf050'l.t =EB • • w 5CJt..E; I"~ 20'-0" ~ mr~n: 22,~-1 •I !II l•1 ~ ~ • \DUI IJ ""' ..l ---' ..l <;:::,.:;,c "' "".., ~ lies"--li3 >il ~ ""'~ I>- 5' <~ z ---'.., "-"-.) ::z ""' ""' £_ -~ ·-.-: lrm: 1'I -"' ... r10 =1 W/4 IIDDI L-S '.'ttH, of, THE ENCi EXHIBIT 7 I \ 1!! ;,l--- ' ! l l;lll !! ! ,_ .. ,+''-----·-· ~ S' .. ."·_ - ___ ,.,. ____ ... -· _ ...... I ! 11~1 ij f I ! • j I ; -f''---~~;';' I ,. I I I I _J I I ~J I I I I ;_:~Jg• ' !-1~ ' I I' I I I I Iii i i 11' 11 I ! I l I ! ' I' ' I • , ... I ~ II . I I ••• •q I• I ! I l lj 'I '1 !1 ii II Ii I ! I THE ENC' \ '· .. }~ I !I ' jl I !I ' ,1 l 11 EXHIBIT 8 ;;) s. /'; 00128 ! I i en I- t-I cc 1-t ::c >< w w w cc = • ,.,,..,c.1 ........ . ,......~-~-· --i' ........ ,.._.._.., ........... " ...... _ ... i .. ,.....,., '-~:: : ' --,s -1.~·--L: THE ltl'ci.A'VEMl.lf1 BRIDLE Rff)GE "''" " r' -I ' :.~· \1,: ,, • ·-~--}; l1 I!' (" ', , \.:.:-·;, //1 1 il1-,1 i -, ./ •."•· "I C!c.'C; -:,~ / .. , r====~-i~::i:.,1:-._:~~~11, __ / ... ·· , ·.--,X _;·· .. ·:·.-;;~:±~ I , ~ ,-~ ,.,_,_, L 1 •''1,u.,, '··11 "N r• ',c t I T ~,-'~IL ":t I -I ,i I.' j j ..... -:...-~ .•. -Hi ·I !l1 -------, ", l ' ' ' ' ~\J~I 1"'.f _t_ if -r·1·--3a--·; --. ___ 111,.. I,,:, .... , • 1 11 I l I I /~ ~I~ il ··!.:.:::.:.: ____ 1 i ________ 1 -• / 'r:!s! 1: ·:,'< .,,.r' . . I j!: . , . -h,:g : '(:-'"'-------, 1--------1 · -'J1 r': · \ __ : : .. ~? s '· / 1r· II;~: •0 "1,~ M'r,,; I I 21 . 111 I ~ . : : · t··--.. ___ ... ·t r ""· ·-.. ___ .1. . .,,,..,.,1,11. j ·:, · ., .. '"''",, J,, __ c. __ i/lL__ -~ !\!-, ·\ ~~------1 :;--------~~ ~ 11 ,; i .;' 'J'I ' . I . . , I. 'I ./_1 ,:ij,; I ~=· ~ilf;. ,. l ''"'/!ii•) 1 ... ,/::':•:d ii\ f'1 ' 1,·~·.·.· ~-tj.,J'~-·--,··11{J,_ · ---·,o .•• >.fl1r ••or>••," \O,-) ... "t i;t : : ,rn,,/~:'t,;: )~~· ~~ •h· '"' "'/'·'" ', iii l, ,~?:?;~]} ,, ,,::,·-zJ'y~/j, /J " ·=/'l 'r" :~~ ,J WW ii /--~~T\_ .!!i-,:w.+-- ,· ..:, r/J·.- -,.. r-C;--""'--;, ' : t' 0,.. \ /~ ~Ii~:'.~-~~1 · Li~-~~-.Jt"' ·. ['fr..:~-~-:)/?..Jt' 12 -- ' . I,,_,\ "'"' ' 1S::: ;R Moln:MM; ~ t£TT , •.. _ ... -___ .. i. ---/jtl~TI?L~:::. ·-· ·"",I I I"' 1· .,, ... ,, , .. , ;~:, .\\ 1:i j ;;/~' ., :;o'' I :'; Ii I I I .!., .. ii I :r .. i! -I I ,, ... ,,1 I (ii .;;_,_ 1 1 ·• 1 ---ll ;.~ 'I (J I . 1'1 ,:,, 1· ,; :ju: '''"' \1,.: 11,, ·r::.~, .... ,;,_,, ., .r i ___ .J. ••• J/ . ;;.~: t.:~;,~; Jii' p-1 '" ,.,.,, I''.·' '/II\ \. .I I ·, 'i,' j ·-·-·-·· 11 . r·· SE143RDST / ·:, I ------ /;1 I . · r ·1.'.·.I .. :·! .. ( ,-·-·-!·: I -,1 I ': I 'I ,· ,,,,_ 1.n .; . '" \ Ii I ;~ I h ' I h I ' I' ···1 I . / t, I I .! ,1 I \. ;I-, 11 l_JI I '1 ! ' 1.1 1" I I ; I I ' ,. ,, : I ~h- .. , 'I 1 1' I· I .'' :-:1 \I, -" co N ,.. 0 0 @ -~,,,_,::·_ ·1· fl I i,;, -1·/ ~-:::;•:\=,: IA•;L: ~:1\l 1 ';,•\, ,,,~r;,,•, . fi .'j,'_ \. ;~.;-:;; t·l~~\;' NORTH ----"-•-l ~ ~ -' ' --. SE 144TH ST ;~!:ji ~:-'J i;:}~l"/i}:'.,s";~'" ~. CITY OF RENTON %..-.,.: "''·'"iil'l'O!.l lHE ENCLAVE AT ~IDLE RIDGE PRELIMINARY PlA T -urure,""' • -'l[ ...... R .. =-D~~ I.,'::.'=. I ~ ~--tio,I. ~ -~ IMTE 1--~ PRO..ECT MD. 1Jl17 ==,---------------TH_E EN( EXHIBIT 10 I ! lfr~i I I I J 11~· 1:.:f:1 , "P ' . 00128 ~m 1f Ii~ !1 iii Ii 11 ~ I • ~ I I J I Ii~ • I ~, l,; l ~Q I a2=1 --; i ~~ J ; ~ i! 1~12 ~ I ~e g~;,; r· ~ t~ ~ til! J:; ~ ~ ~ ·itijr I; '·' ! ' I I O'U." I ~ ('.,, ' '1 . ,, .:: ~ T BRIDLE RIDGE THE ENCLAVE A . I -r xxx-xxxx I _J 00128 I ! if J pu 1j f I J ~&] ii 11. 11 I Ii ' I I I I I 1H£ ENCLAVE AT PAMJ;T-BR1Dl£ RIDGE I "'"""" STA. "''"' ,.. --, I ~" 1 ! ~l 1-tf r~--~L--~ i ---;-II_ , <:, ' -I '--",: :,. I ,,---, -: _ ' .. i ---L--l:7J-+ : l -1-~ .. I / I ----__ IL --[ . i ~~It-·-l -I I -~ ~ / I • -1·· --.· ---I 1· -r--t-:---I--_ 1 __ : i ---- _ _L __ J _ • I -i--1-i -----! i ! J --j r---;--. --1------•..• ·r • I i --,·! ~~ :=---·r -:-i- ' -[ --I - I I -i_, ___ , __ j__ . I ___ , • I I ' ----,._ I -l -I I I :iili'1'--I , ;:··:! C I -:-i I ~ I -----I ,,, ___ , --1 ' ' " __ J_ j ~t 1 ' ·1111. : I /, -I ' \ I I I ,--\ -__ -;_~ i I 1_..c-1---,I . \ . I - 1 L_ ---;\\-: --· -l _J_-----'. \ ,----' 1 j ' \----__ L I ' I < I i _T _ __J -i --1--+--\--I~=:; 1 '.ijl ~_]_ I [ i \ --1 r:---1' 1 •' ---,--' • "-: I -I 111 I ----_,_ _) __ -11 llllUill :'. i I I i I s,~, ~ i I I I I __J_ ___ i I xxx-xxxx 00129 THE ENCLA I ! EXHIBIT 11 ~f I I ' l ! 00129 EXHIBIT 12 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by C!i!lfEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241~ St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENro PlAN~''"G N ~' 1 ~ DtV/SION 001292 I I I I I I I EXHIBIT 13 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156"' Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdin~s LLC . 9675 SE 361 Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by ll!kt§ll D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 c::: OF Ri:NTON . NNING DIVISION 001293 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 Earth Solutions NW, LLC EXHIBIT 14 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION 1805 -1361h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 . Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 001294 ~. '"':' '' ' :) 2/18/2014 Greenforest lncorporatf Consulting ,6,rborist Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 EXHIBIT 15 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY OF ftNTON PU1i\J/\,Ji'JG D!ViS!ON RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. {Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from DR Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet, which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter {DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (Near tree 618S) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 001295 February 3, 2014 Justin Lag9rs PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton SWC Job#B-187 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sewa 27641 Co EXHIBIT 16 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY o;: Ri:N'.ON PLANNING DIVJS/0/\i This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 156th Avenue SE, in the · City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity Map 001296 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 17 ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT NAME: The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of a 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 14038 156th Ave SE City of Renton .Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-0700 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department April 4, 2014 March 31, 2014 Date ~~~~{.£LJ.._~_:;;, -3.. /-11 Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Date Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services C.i>._ C.E. "Chip" Vincent, dministrator Department of Comm nity & Economic Development Date Date 001297 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT 18 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: · APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC The Enclave at Bridle Ridge PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed subdivision of an 8.8 acre project site located within the R-4 (Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) zoning designation. The proposal would result in the creation of 31 lots and 2 tracts (Tracts A and B) and a new public street. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,050 square feet to 12,566 square feet. Access to the new lots would. be provided via a new public street off of 156th Avenue SE. A lot line adjustment (LUA14-000250) is proposed between tax parcels 1423059057 and 1423059122 which will result in 30,175 square feet of parcel 1423059057 being removed from the proposed subdivision. The site is currently developed with two single family residences and a detached garage. An existing residence is proposed to remain on parcel 1423059057. All other structures are proposed to be removed through the subdivision process. No critical areas are present on the project site. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 14038 1561h Ave SE The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions, NW (dated February 5, 2014). AOIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these .nates are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise.approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays .. 001298 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire: 1. ·The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5- inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150- feet of all points on the buildings. Approved cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are . required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension. ~ 1. Water service will be provided Water District 90. 2. A water availability certificate from Water District #90 will be required. 3. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 4. Approved water plans shall be submitted to the City. Sewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. The project proposes to get sewer service by extending the 8-inch existing sewer main, located south of the site on 156"' Ave SE near the intersection with SE 144th Street and ext6ending the sewer main i'nto the plat. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 1561h Ave SE up to the north property line. The extension of the sewer main from the south on 156"' Ave SE will require overlay pavement restoration of at leasi: half street. The project is required to extend the sewer main along 156"' Ave SE up to the north property line. 2. A sewer stub is to be extended from the proposed sewer main in the internal access road, to the east property line (with a 10-foot sewer easement). A man hole is to be located on the sewer main in the proposed internal public street and a clean out at the end of the sewer stub. 3. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meter that will serve each new lot. Fee per Jot based on Y.-inch or 1-inch water is $2,033.00. Estimated fee for sewer is $63,023.00. This fee is paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. This parcel falls within the boundaries of the Central Plateau Sewer Special Assessment District. Fee calculated as of 3/24/2014 is $438.16 per new lot. Interest accrues at a daily rate of $0.05111 until the fee is paid.· 5. All plats shall provide separate side sewer stubs to each building lot. Side sewers shall be a minimum 2% slope. Surface water: ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2of4 001299 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated Febtuary 26, 2014 was submitted by D.R, Strong Consulting Engineers Inc. The proposed 31 lot subdivision is subject to Full Drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surf.ace Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The 8.7 acre vegetated site generally slopes to the southwest. The site is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is subject to basic water quality treatment and Level 2 flow control. Flow control facility is sized to match the pre-developed rates for the forested condition extending from 50% of the 2 year up to the 50 year flow. The engineer has designed a combined detention and wetpond to be located at the southwest comer of the site. Appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. 2. A geotechnical report, dated February 4, 2014 was submitted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC. The report identifies the soils as sand glacial till. These soils will not support infiltration. Perched groundwater was found at a number of test pits. Due to the high moisture content, the geotech recommends site grading to be limi_ted to the summer months. 3. Surface water system development fee is $1,228.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Estimated storm fee is $36,840.00. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Transportation: 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per new lot. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 2. A traffic analysis dated December 27, 2013, was provided by Traffix Northwest. The proposed 31 lot subdivision would generate 297 average weekday vehicle trips. Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 23 vehicle trips, with 17 vehicles leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 31 vehicle trips, with 20 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. An analysis focusing on the intersection of 156 Ave SE/SE 142 Place was done to determine what, if any impacts the anticipated new peak hour AM and PM trips created by this development would have on an operational standpoint at this intersection. This intersection is controlled by a stop sign at each approach. The intersection currently operates at LOS F. The result of the study indicates this intersection would continue to operate at a LOS F with the new development, while the project generated traffic at this intersection would increase to 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection. Increased traffic created by the development will be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Fina I determination will be made by the City's transportation department at a later date. 3. A looped roadway with stub ending is a temporary cul-de-sac is proposed as the internal site access. The cul-de-sac must meet City of Renton code and Fire Department requirements. To meet the City's complete street standards, the new internal roadway shall be designed to meet the residential access roadway per City code 4-6-060. The new internal roadway shall be a 53-foot wide right of way, with 26 feet of pavement, curb, gutter, an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk installed along both sides of the street. One side of the road will be marked No Parking. As per code, the minimum separation of intersections along an arterial is 125 feet. If in future there are significant concerns regarding left turns to and from the south loop of the internal public street onto 156th Ave SE, the City traffic operations may impose left turn restrictions at that intersection. 4. To meet the City's complete street standards, frontage improvements along the project side in 156"' Ave SE shall include 22 feet of paving from the centerline, gutter, a 0.S foot wide curb, an 8-foot ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 4 001300 planter strip and a 5-foot roadway per City code 4-6-060. To build this street section, five and half feet of right of way dedication will be required. It is shown ori the plans. 5. Paving and trench. restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 6. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be. included with the civil plan submittal. General Comments: 1. Separate permits and fees for, water meters, side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscape plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page4of4 001301 OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE~ MmGATED (DNS-M) Pomo TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMEITTAl ACTION !'ROJfCT NAME; PROJECT NUMBER.: LOCATION: End,rYt 1!1 lrldlt Rid11 Pn,llmlnary Pia! LUA14-0011241, ECF, PP 14038 155• A~ SE DESCRll'TJON: Proposed 1ubdMsh"' of an 8.B acre pl'Q/ti:t sit, loQtcd within t~ 11-4 jR~dt,ntla! 'I dwclnni units i,er 1ae) 1.0nln1 d~tlon. Th pn.,po1.a1I would rault In the crntlon of 31 lots Mid 2 ll'lrt,; (Tracu A ind B) and I new publk struL The ~sd lots would nnp In slu from l,050 ,quar,, fHt to 12.SH "I""" fttt. Acces1 to the nn, lab would t,., provkl•d vi• 1 ""¥ pwbllc rtrHt off of 156th Annu• SE. A lot line adjustment [LUA14-0002SOJ Is priipostd Htwee.n ta pen.els 14Z30.5SOS7 •nd 142.30.5S122 whi,;h will ~It In 30,115 squ1n, fut of parcal 1423059057 bcln1 n,mOVff fn>m the pr,;,po1,id subd1Yls1-Th, sfte is Q.lrttntly denlol)fll with two slncte homily residences and ~ detlld,~ pr.1111. M ubtina: residence 11 pr,;,pos,d to rem;;,!n on l)llrcel 1'23059057. An other rtn,cturtf ue ptcposcd 10 be runoved throu 1h lhe Jubd1Ylslon prou.n. No <riilA!-i.! ill"l! p!l!H'rrl OIi the pro/£ct :Die. . TH£ QTY OF RENTON ENVIRONM[HTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE !ERq .HAS 0fTERMIN£0 TI-iAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. App•;;,I, of the •nvlronmental d"etumloation must be flied in writing Ol'I o, before S:00 p.m. on Aptfl 18, 2014, toa:ethu With the nqulred fee with: Hearing E.umlner, City of Rienton, 1055 South Gr,,dy W11y, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the U111miner arl! coverm,d by City of RMC 4-8-UC 11nd Information reprdin1 the appeal proteu m,1y be obtained" fram the Renlan Oly Cltrk'f Office, (425) 430s6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WJLL BE HELO BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGUlAR MEETIN.G IN TH!; COUNCIL Q-IAMBERS ON THE 7TH FlOOR OF On' HAU. 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL ZZ, 2C14 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE "CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SHORT PlAT, ETC.•. IF THE EtMRONMENTAL DmRMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WIU BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Al" (415) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER.,WHEN'·CAlONG FOR PROPER R!-f IDENTIFICATION . .......... .. ·----·-·--- EXHIBIT 19 I, /J.4,qdr.g lJ. 'cfc5fnr,it,ereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were pefsted in S-conspicuous places or nearby the~ :operty on Date: 1-Z'?-/lf Signed: ~?~1:o#4trar~- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) 55 COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that , A!X&0.eo.., W(C.!--'Dtn.J?1'1. _ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. "''"""'"'' d "~111,..:'1, Date : Wl ,..crb,~}.j61;{~~ 111 ~"f 1.~ 01,..~~ '\ ='O + ,,-l - ~u -• -c. 2 Notary (Print): Ho({, 'f-twU5 ' '°u B'-' '\ : P ___ LLJ:.:.J.v:!-"f---f-LZ""'.<:.<;,.L------- fJ. ~4ipointment expires: ___ .,_4-+'· ""."Wff-''""+-f'""j'---"'.;J"-"i<l~(J'-"'o""t,._,1-m..-.irn,~ u "f 001302 ... ,< · .. · .• -.,-,, :: /,' i' • ,)?tsnx,_g("'~-~r(rp~ ,··. <',,.··. '. -. ' •. ••··· .... • .. ··. :, , ... •.; '· DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY·& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION; ,. -,---·,,/.:-_·, -· f ~·-1-~:'.:~-.-·7-.~,·-·-,··;r,..-,;_..-... :;, .. ::,·J: .. ;. -------•, "·· ······:~ ---,,-. ;· '" . . /:!AFFIDAVITOFSERVICE BY MAILING ·' .ct • (~, ,. _: <> . '~} ·-,·. ·._ ~-A-:e .. , ; .;.· .. ·,-:.\:: ~;-. -· -~ .. ... ·t-· .. _. ·-·: ·-: :·-:!. ·., On the 3rd day of April, 2014, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing SEPA determination documents. This information was sent to: Agencies See attached . ' (Signature ofSenJer): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) See Attached Owner, Applicant, Contact, Party of Record ''""\11 1111 -..._, ,, .--'" o\.L v Po ,,,, I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa M. McElrea ~--":;;;~,,, ~~\, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act forjfl ~ ij~es mentioned in the instrument. ro ~ -• , ~ ::: . . -' :::: -0 ' .. . \ 6' G,IIL\(. :: . 11111 1 "..?9.· 17 Dated: ublic in and for the State ofWasf\l'&W?i . Notary (Print): ____ ._A..._.;.1\,:,-'-"'--·l."".\v.""s'-''--·_,,"f_,~~~ .... ,..,_ 11 _,_-e.._ ...,~""-;,~ 1 -"J. ________ _ My appointment expires: , 'u _:J-<" °' T .,_,__, -i The Enclave @ Bridle Ridge . LUA14-000241 template -affidavit of service by mailing 001303 Dept. of Ecology•• Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region• Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers""'* Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC·TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124·4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or $EPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -172m1 Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office• Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program• 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation"' Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 s. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104·385S City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD·OlW Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 * Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. "'*Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov "'**Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template. affidavit of service by mailing 001304 PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 36th St, 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 588-1147 justin@pnwholdings.com ow_~.~~~.: ... ~--,,;,.~-,,l,_. ~.;, ....... , . .": .. .,..~ Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 P_a~·o~,_R~~r~ ~( Roger Paulson 6617 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (425) 228-1589 l , ,e Enclave at Bridle Rid~~ LUA 14-000241 PARTIES OF RECORD Eriiineei :;;:;.;;.o:, __ ,~,c' _\,,,. ,~,. L,:c;:_,~--.,_,_:,., _,:.,. Maher Joudi D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers 10604 NE 38th Pl, 232 Kirkland, WA 98033 t~.1Y~0 f~~~~i:c!.,., ji, M• -,· -~·· • M.A. Huniu 6608 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 (425) 226-6594 ~rtv-if~I~~-.ra .------- Jason Paulson 31 Mazama Pines Ln Mazama, WA 98333 . -.L---~ . .,:, -~~ .. .',_., _ _. Richard Ouimet 2923 Maltby Rd Bothell, WA 98012 ~a~ o(~~if: .:-~_:~::~~--:.':.~ _; DAVID MICHALSKI 6525 SE 5TH Pl RENTON, WA 98059 (42S) 271-7837 001305 Pae:e 1 of 1 March 21, 2014 Jill Ding, Senior Planner Planning Division 10SS So Grady \Nay Renton, \Na 98057 David M EXHIBIT 20 6525 se _ c· Renton, \Na 98059 This memo is regarding my concerns over the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/LUA14-000241/ECF/PD. I live off of SE5th pl and my residence buts up to this planned subdivision. My concern is regarding the traffic going North and South on 156"' Ave Se. Since the building of the bridge across Cedar Riyer.the __ •. --•. ~~ traffic on 156th ave se is unbearable. Coming out of any of the side streets off 156th aves~ ·1;·sometimes impossible with waits as much as 15 minutes. At the 3 way stop south of me vehicles do a quick stop and accelerate up the hill leaving no time between cars to allow access going both North and South. Frequently when large trucks traveling up the hill slow traffic down, there is a huge backlog of vehicles and this causes terrible traffic congestion. I see signs for additional development in the future on the \Nest side of 156th. I feel that an immediate traffic study be implemented. I am really surprised there isn't more accidents than I see. Has anyone thought about additional access off of Maple Valley Highway for folks to get unto Cemetary Road? Sincerely, __ !\_ 'J) ~ rY\ L ~ -j l-.:::::::,,. David Michalski Email: dcmichal@msn.com Ph# 425-271-7837 001306 March 22, 2014 Ms. Jill Ding Senior Planner CED -Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SENT via Electronic Mail to Avoid Delay@Jding@rentonwa.gov Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Dear Ms. Ding and Hearing Examiner, EXHIBIT 21 Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment with respect to the proposed plat "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", Project #LUA14-000241, ECF, PP. My comments are organized below by subject area and intended to provide input for both the City's final SEPA determination as well as the Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat review process scheduled for April 22"d. I also hope to attend the tentatively scheduled Public Hearing. Traffic Study and Impacts The scope of the traffic study provided by the applicant fails to adequately consider the impacts of this project upon the adjacent intersection at SE 5th Place. I would ask that the applicant be required to supplement the traffic study with an analysis of this intersection as well as the next two streets to the north of SE 5th Place in light of the accident history of the intersection as well as the Level of Service associated with A.M. Peak period trips northbound on 156th Ave. This additional study should include a video analysis of the "rolling stop" situation present at the 142"d intersection during the morning commute to help inform my concerns explained below. At current, the traffic study ignores the impact of the proposed new traffic by concluding that the level or service is already so bad at the actual intersection of 156th and 142nd that the project won't make it noticeably worse. While perhaps true in some respects for this specific intersection itself, the analysis completely fails to contemplate the project's impact to 156thnorth of this intersection. Under existing conditions, the only reason it is possible to make an egress tum from SE 5th Place (shown in the traffic study as SE 139th Pl.) in the morning hours between 6 and 9 a.m. is due to the vehicle spacing interval created by the 3-way stop at 142"d, and then only IF the northbound vehicles actually obey the stop light on 142nd. Adding two additional access points and associated vehicle trips from the proposed project onto SE 156th north of the 3-way stop intersection will effectively consume the limited "capacity" created by the 3-way stop rotation (e.g. those trips will fill up any space that currently exists between vehicles). All of this is compounded by the reality (also ignored by the traffic study) that the northbound morning traffic treats the intersection as a "rolling stop", and then quickly accelerates through the posted 25 MPH zone to speeds exceeding 35 mph, making access to 156th even more difficult. 001307 The addition of ANY new trips to SE 156th between SE 5th Place and the project by way of two additional access points will have a significant impact that is directly attributable to this project, and for which no adequate study has been conducted and no adequate mitigation has been proposed. To allow this project to be implemented without adequate mitigation has significant potential to threaten public health, safety and welfare for the existing residents who access 156th from SE 5th Place and the other residential access streets to the north. By failing to acknowledge and mitigate this reality, the applicant has failed to affirmatively address the requirements of adequate provision dictated by RCW 58.17. I am also ve~ concerned with the close spacing between the proposed access streets to the plat, and the existing 156 / l 42"d intersection. It seems almost impossible that anyone is ever going to be able to make a left-hand turn (to the south) from the plat access streets, due to the lengthy traffic back-up that routinely occurs on 156th during the afternoon commute hours, blocking both proposed access streets. The traffic study also appears to have ignored this reality, in favor of studying the 156th/ 142"d · intersection itself. This also should be the subject of further analysis by the applicant and City prior to any final SEPA determination or plat approval. Based upon nothing more than common knowledge, it seems that the project design should be . conditioned to provide for a single point of access and conventional intersection alignment at the l 56th/ 142nd intersection, including appropriate signalization ( 4 way stop or conventional signal or round-a- bout). This approach is supported by the City of Renton's transportation planning policies, and is clearly warranted by the level of service projections for this intersection. Sanitary Sewer Design The City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Plan includes multiple goals and policies which encourage the thoughtful extension of the City's utility to existing and future development. Most of the existing homes located along the northerly property boundary of the proposed plat are greater than 45 years old, and are serviced by septic systems of that era. Further, the topography and development pattern of these adjacent, neighboring properties is such that the waste lines, septic tanks and drain fields are all located on the south side of the homes, and at an elevation significantly lower than the street which serves these homes -particularly for those furthest east on SE 5th Place. If the City of Renton is serious about implementing its current waste water plans and the long-term responsibility of servicing the residents it has annexed, provisions should be made within the proposed plat to accommodate future waste water access to the new sewer lines being installed as part of this project. While City Engineers are best to identify how to accomplish this, it would seem that the inclusion of simple utility easements connecting the southerly parcel boundaries of the existing homes with the newly proposed street within the plat through proposed lots I through 4 would make logical sense. Even if future connections were subject to latecomer's agreements to fairly reimburse the developer for any up-sizing required to serve these few additional homes, common sense would dictate that now is the right time to be making adequate provision for the future needs of the City's residents. Let's get "ahead of the curve" and take advantage of the opportunity provided by this project. 001308 Rear Yard Designations With respect to proposed lot #4, it would appear that the applicant has applied a side-yard setback where the City's code would indicate a rear yard setback is required. (See Section 4-11-250 of Renton Municipal Code.) Because the final determination of the rear yard for a lot of this irregular lot configuration rests with the City's Planning Division Director (per City Code), I would ask that the Rear Yard requirement be clearly and consistently applied along the entire north edge of the plat as part of the recommended conditions of approval, where the plat abuts existing development to the north. As the largest of all proposed Jots in the plat, there is plenty of room to accommodate a proper rear-yard on proposed lot #4. Wildlife In review of the SEPA checklist completed by the applicant and presumably reviewed by the City, it should be noted that significantly greater wildlife regularly utilize the proposed development site than has been indicated. We regularly observe deer and coyotes on the property, and occasionally have observed owls, hawks, eagles and flying squirrels. It should be properly noted on the SEPA checklist that the flying squirrel is a State protected species pursuant to WAC 232-12-011. Notice of Application and Public Comment Opportunity Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the City's Notice of Application for this project is inaccurate, misleading and biased in the favor of the applicant with respect to the opportunity to influence and inform the City's environmental determination under SEPA. The notice (both of application and anticipated SEPA determination) provided by the City (see attached) states that if written comment cannot be provided by the March 24th deadline, that it CAN be provided at the April zznd public hearing. It is my understanding that the City typically issues its SEPA Determination prior to the public hearing by the City's Hearing Examiner, not after. Further, the City has advertised that no comment period will be provided following the issuance of the planned M-DNS. A SEPA appeal period is provided, but only those who provide comment prior to the SEPA determination are eligible for appeal, per City of Renton code. Thus, anyone who comments before April zznd, but after the City's SEPA determination, does not actually have the opportunity advertised to provide input on this project in such a way as to inform the City's SEPA determination. Given the factually misleading information provided within the above referenced Notice of Application for this project on this point, and the mistaken belief now shared by some of my neighbors that they have until April 22nd to comment on SEPA-related issues including those addressed in this letter, I ask that the City seek to validate the procedural integrity of this application by re-posting the comment period for this application, providing clear instructions in the Notice of Application that allow the general public to understand that if they wish to provide comment relative to any of the potential adverse environmental impacts of the project including the City's intended mitigation measures, they MUST do so prior to the deadline appurtenant to the City's SEPA Determination. 001309 If you have any questions regarding the comments above, please feel free to contact me at RogerAPaulsen@cs.com. Sincerely, Sent Electronically Without Signature to Avoid Delay Roger Paulsen Attachment: PDF of Notice of Application 001310 Jill Ding From: Jill Ding EXHIBIT 22 Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:38 AM To: 'DAVID C MICHALSKI' Cc: Rohini Nair Subject: RE: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lual4-000241/ECF/PP Dear Mr. Michalski, Thank you for your comments on this project. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your comments have been included in the official land use file and will be considered by the decision maker. In addition we have forwarded your comments to the City's transportation department for review. The City is aware of the delay at the 156'h Avenue SE and SE 142"' Place intersection. Unfortunately, the delay at that intersection is anticipated to increase with or without the approval of the proposed project. According to the applicant's traffic study, upon completion the project as proposed is anticipated to add 2.3 seconds to the delay at the intersection. With regards to your question regarding additional access off of Maple Valley Highway to Cemetary Road, the steep topography between Maple Valley Highway and the upper plateau (and on to Cemetery Road) makes it infeasible to provide additional access. Widening 1-405 (which the State is pursuing ) to provide more traffic capacity could attract some traffic now using 156 th SE to access Cemetery Road. The City will also be requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee to help offset the impacts of the proposed development to the City of Renton street system. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for 10 am on April 22, which will include an opportunity for additional public comment. If you have further comments or concerns, I encourage you to attend the hearing. Thank you again for your comments, Jill Ding Senior Planner From: DAVID C MICHALSKI [mailto:dcmichal@msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:00 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: concerns: the Enclave at Bridle Ridge/Lua14-000241/ECF/PP 1 001311 - Angelea Wickstrom From: Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Paulsen, Jill Ding Monday, April 14, 2014 6:46 AM 'Roger Paulsen' RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge EXHIBIT 23 Thank you for your comments. They have been included in the file for official consideration by the decision maker. Below I have attempted to respond to the concerns raised in your letter. 1. In your letter you cite the proposed development's impacts on transportation. Per the submitted traffic study the current delay at the southbound approach to SE 142"' Pl and 156'' Ave SE is 94.8 seconds. The future delay without the project is anticipated to be 133.2 seconds and the future delay with the project is anticipated at 137.1 seconds. Therefore, it is anticipated that the traffic generated by the proposed project would result in an additional delay of 2.3 seconds. I also understand that you have concerns regarding the traffic heading northbound through the SE 142"' Pl and 156'' Ave SE intersection as it makes a right turn from SE 5th Pl difficult. According to the submitted traffic study the northbound traffic at the SE 142"' Pl and 156'' Ave SE intersection is currently operating at a Level of Service (LOS) Band is anticipated to continue operating at a LOS B with the construction of the proposed project. The City's transportation department has reviewed the proposal and has concluded that the payment of a traffic mitigation fee by the project proponent would sufficiently mitigate the additional trips generated by the proposed project on the City's street system. 2. You also indicated in your letter that you would like the opportunity to connect to the sewer being constructed with the proposed project. It is my understanding that the City cannot require the applicant to provide sewer to abutting properties. In order to gain access to the sewer being constructed, you would need to contact the developer (Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings Inc. 253-405-5587). The City would then review any plans for additional connections. 3. You also noted that additional wildlife, not identified on the SEPA checklist is present on the project site. Thank you for this information. 4. You expressed concern that adequate public comment has not been provided for the project and that the City's notice of application is misleading. The posted notice of application is in compliance with RMC 4-8-0906. The notice advertised the 14 day public comment period on the project and also advertised the date of the public hearing. Any comments on the project not made during the public comment period can be made at the hearing, currently scheduled for April 22"' at 10:00 am. If you have any additional comments or concerns, I would encourage you to attend the public hearing on April 22 at 10:00 am in the Council Chambers as an opportunity for public comment will be provided at the hearing. Thank you again for your comments. Jill Ding Senior Planner From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 7:46 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Lisa Marie McElrea; Rohini Nair; jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge 1 001312 Ji II, Please find attached an electronic copy of my comment letter for the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I'm sending this via e-mail while traveling in order to meet the March 24'h comment period deadline. I'll be entering an area of the country (southern Utah) where Internet access is unreliable. I'm copying my son, Jason Paulsen, on this is so he can address any questions or issues you may have if I'm unable to respond. Jason can be reached at jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com. Please acknowledge receipt of this communication via e-mail to both Jason and me. Thanks!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen(@cs.com> Cc: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Lisa Marie McElrea <LMcElrea@Rentonwa.gov>; Rohini Nair <RNair@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 6:38 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Thank you for your email. Could you send us your mailing address so that we can add you as a Party of Record? The plan reviewer assigned to review the Enclave at Bridle Ridge for utility complianoe is Rohini Nair. I have copied her on this email. I do not have her direct line, but she can be reached by contacting the front desk at 425-430-7200. I primarily work remotely. I do go into the office once a week on Thursdays from 10am-2pm. I will also be happy to answer any questions you have on this project via email. I will let Vanessa respond to your request for public records, as I am not sure if we grant them electronically. Thank you, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:41 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Fwd: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Jill, I'm forwarding an e-mail I had copied you on --but had your address incorrect. Hopefully this one works!! Roger Paulsen -----Original Message----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> To: VDolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: jding <jding@renton.wa.gov>; jasonmpaulsen <jasonmpaulsen@gmail.com> 2 001313 Sent: Sun, Mar 16, 2014 10:37 pm Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, This is a follow-up to my earlier correspondence regarding the project named "The Enclave at Bridle Ridge", file number: LUA14-000241, ECF, PP (see below). Now that the project has officially been posted, I request to become a party of record. Attached is an electronic copy of the required form, with my contact information. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, I am traveling out of the area, and won't return until after the end of the comment period on March 24th. I am an adjacent property owner (parcel 9425200080), and this project is of vital interest. I had arranged for my son (Jason Paulsen) to watch for official notice of the proposed development, and have been copied on Jason's correspondence with Jill Ding, of your department. Apparently Ms. Doing is out of the office on vacation until March 20th, and was unable to assist Jason in obtaining an electronic copy of information on the project. I'm writing you in the hope that you can help. If possible, I'd like to receive an electronic copy of application materials and supporting studies pertinent to the SEPA decision so that I can comment prior to March 24th closing date. I am especially interested in reviewing the traffic study. I am quite willing to pay the reasonable cost of providing this information. Let me know the best way to provide payment. Now that the project application has been officially accepted by the City, I'd like to pursue my question regarding sewer service. Can you tell me who I can/should contact to determine whether this project will provide an opportunity for adjacent properties to connect to the Renton Sewer system?? Thanks for any help you can provide!!' Roger Paulsen ----Original Message---- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:28 am Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, Yes you are correct, as long as you are the property owner. The City uses the King Co. assessors data to mail out to the 300 ft. surrounding neighbors, so whatever address the assessor have for tax purposes is where the City will mail the notice. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:33 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, 3 001314 Thanks for the updatell My wife and I will be away from home for the next 6 weeks, so I won't be able to watch for the pink notice posters. Based on my conversation with Chris on Monday, I understand that we'll also receive a letter in the mail because we are within 300 feet of the development. Is that correct?? Our property actually abuts the development. We're having our mail forwarded, so I should receive the notice in time to become a party of record, and submit comments on the project. I'm assuming my question about access to the Renton Sewer system will need to wait until the City has actually accepted the application. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Thanks!!! Roger ----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent Wed, Feb 12, 201412:25 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, The name of the project based on your photos is "1561h Ave. SE Assemblage" This project did go through the City's pre-application process but has not been submitted to the City as an official application. The developer is required to install these public notices signs prior to application to the City. At this point in time we do not have an official application to add you to as a party of record. Please keep an eye on the big white sign, once you see a bright pink "notice" poster stapled to the front of the sign, the application has been submitted to the City for review. At this time please contact the identified person at the City that is noted on the pink "notice" sign requesting to be added to the party of records list. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen Jmailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com J Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Re: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, Thanks for getting back to me'!! Attached is a zip file with photos taken of the "Proposed Land Use" sign recently posted on the property. The address is 14038 156th Ave. SE. I believe the project number is 13117. 4 001315 Does that help?? Roger -----Original Message--- From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 5:23 pm Subject: RE: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Roger, I have searched the City's permit system for a project with the title 'Enclave at Bridle Ridge" or a variation of this title. We do not have any records of a project with this name in our system. Can you please provide me a site address or tax parcel number so I can identify what project you are inquiring about. If you would like to become a party of record for any project, the City has to have an application to assign 'you" to. In order to do this I need to identify what application you would like to become a party of record for. Thank you for the additional information. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:09 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Enclave at Bridle Ridge Vanessa, By way of introduction, my wife and I live on the East Renton Plateau, adjacent to the NE corner of proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. I had some questions about the development, and met yesterday with Chris in your department. He suggested that I forward one of my questions to you. Our property has a 50-year old septic system. It's currently functioning correctly, but I anticipate it's life is limited. wonder if the new development will provide us an opportunity to connect ta the Renton sewer system?? If you're not the right person to address this question ta, please direct me to someone who can. Although we haven't yet been formally notified of the development, I would like to became a party of record. Can I do that via this e-mail?? If so, the fallowing is my contact information: Rager Paulsen 6617 SE 5th PL Renton, WA 98059 425-228-1589 RoqerAPaulsen@cs.com 5 001316 EXHIBIT 24 Department of Community and Economic Development Development Services Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: REFERENCE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: JUSTIFICATION: RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards N/A Landscaping, fencing, pond slopes, and other standards for stormwater tracts and easements and ownership and maintenance responsibility for stormwater facilities. The current drainage code (RMC 4-6-030) references the current King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for compliance with stormwater standards. Requirements for landscaping in stormwater facility tracts are included in Section S.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM as amended by the City of Renton. Section S.3.1.1 of the KCSWDM restricts planting in berms that impound water or within 10 feet of any structure. Requirements for pond geometry and side slopes are listed in Section S.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. Adopted standards allow for the side slopes of an open detention or water quality treatment facilities (pond, wetpond, stormwater wetland, etc) to be steeper than 3:1 if a fence is provided along the wall and/or around the emergency overflow water surface elevation. This standard is resulting in facilities that are difficult to maintain, expensive in labor and materials for maintenance, and create a safety hazard to the maintenance crews. Fencing requirements are also standardized in section S.3.1.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Renton. A fence is required to discourage access to the stormwater pond, prevent litter, allow efficient maintenance, and in consideration of worker and public safety. Recognizing that requirements for landscaping and tree planting contribute to the aesthetics and value of new surface water installations while needing to ensure proper functionality and maintenance of facilities, both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Community and Economic Development desire to clarify standards H:\CED\Planning\ Title IV\Oocket\Administrative Policy Code lnterpretation\CI~ 38\Code Interpretation.doc 001317 Enclave at Bridle Ridge Safe oute Ito School r64 o 32 64 Feet I WGS_19B4_Web_Mercator_Aux11lary_Sphere RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 04/11/2014 Thislmap is a user ge¢erated static output from an Internet mapping sitefd is fot reference only. q>ata layers U,at appear on this map may or may not accurate, current. or otherwise relia e. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATI N Legend City and Ccjunty Boundary l J QU,er t! City of Rti-,ton Addresses Parcels m >< ::c ""' 01 ""' -I N u, ~ ;o ;o ' 2 0 ~ VJ' :J :.-·Ji? ·A, -~-· :~ ,, ,, ,y l~, ,i;' • L•1 '·" '" :!_ A ~· ·/fl ''Ji -., ::r :,!!,"' i: I.fl ~ ~S lth Pl ~':£· 16-1 l ll Pl Sc l!• . 'rr: 166th Pl SE -~ L :, "f.. 148th I SE "' ..., ,., !rTl I - l/) m "' g: ,n ~ _./ I .il4tll Ave 1,1 ilh F'I '.,f- 'Jl m -~ :, :s! 169th Av-=: SE I Iiwaco Pl SE:. ):Jericho Ave' s 'E Jericho Ave NE'2 ·:m -I I l,J ~ :.a c:)" .'.Q ,<:i 3: ' .. /•.:d.::, i','.'(;' 1'\,t_· ~, ., 'Q_ f•,_I . 1 66tll Av-e ::Jf.: !: 2 ·m •.JI '" "' ,_., c, I. Jill Din From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jill, Roger Paulsen < rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Tuesday, July 01, 2014 3:34 PM Jill Ding olbrechtslaw@gmail.com; Vanessa Dolbee Re: Traffic Study Comments Traffic Study Comment Response.pdf Because I believe the record will show that I have until Wednesday, July 2nd to submit my response to comments from the City and Developer, I am forwarding the attached letter to the Hearing Examiner. It is in response to the June 27th e- mail from Mr. Carson. If the City provides comments before the end of today (Tuesday, July 1 ), I reserve the right to respond to those comments before the end of day tomorrow. Roger -----Original Message-- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> To: JDing <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: olbrechtslaw <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; VDolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 2:49 pm Subject: Re: Traffic Study Comments Jill, My understanding, from the Hearing Examiners comments at the hearing, is that I had until Friday, June 27th to submit comments on the two "eleventh hour" Traffic Study documents. Both the City and applicant then had until today {Tuesday, July 1) to respond to my comments. I than have until tomorrow {Wednesday, July 2) to respond to the City's and Applicant's comments. Please let me know if that is not true, and on what basis your finding is being made. Thanks!!! Roger ---Original Message--- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Cc: olbrechtslaw <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 1 :33 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, The record was closed on June 2?1", as such the City will not be providing a response to your June 26th comment letter. Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 7:42 AM To: Jill Ding 1 001320 Cc: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com Subject: Re: Traffic Study Comments Jill, Will the City be submitting a response to my June 26th comment letter?? Thanks!!! Roger --Original Message-- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; 'Justin Lagers' <iustin@americanclassichomes.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsom@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov>; Rohini Nair <RNair@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 8:29 am Subject: FW: Traffic Study Comments Phil, Please find attached a copy of Mr. Paulsen's comments regarding the traffic studies (Exhibits 4 and 5) which were submitted by the applicant and the City at the June 241h Hearing for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge. Thank you, Jill From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:19 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Traffic Study Comments Jill, Please find my comment letter, attached. Because of the time sensitivity of my response, I request that you provide confirmation of receipt. Thanks!!! Roger -Original Message---- From: Jill Ding <JDinq@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <roqerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, The hearing examiner has indicated that any comments/questions you have should be emailed to me. I will forward your questions to the applicant and hearing examiner. Thanks, Jill 001321 2 From: Roger Paulsen fmailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com) Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:01 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Traffic Study Comments Jill, I realize should have been more specific with my question. At yesterday's Appeal Hearing, the Hearing Examiner provided me an opportunity to submit comments about the two "eleventh hour'' Traffic Studies by 5:00 PM Friday, June 27th, but he didn't say how those comments should be submitted. -Can my comments be submitted via e-mail, or should they be in the form of a hard copy letter? -To whom should the comments be addressed? -Is it necessary to copy others parties when the comments are submitted?? If so, what addresses should I use?? I assume I should continue to use you as my City of Renton contact person for all questions related to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. If that is not correct, please let me know. Thanks for any guidance you can provide!! Roger ---Original Message-- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:45 am Subject: RE: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Rohini would be your contact for traffic related questions. Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com) Sent: Tuesday; June 24, 2014 12:07 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Jill, To whom should I address my comments on the traffic studies??? Thanks!!! Roger ----Original Message-- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; 'Justin Lagers' <justin@americanclassichomes.com>; 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsom@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:04 pm Subject: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 I am going to be sending all the exhibits in separate emails as the files are so large. Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton 3 001322 iding@rentonwa.gov 4 001323 July 1, 2014 Dear Mr. Examiner, The following is my response to Mr. Carson's June 27th comments. a) Neither the City nor the applicant has demonstrated that an additional traffic study was not required to support the City's May 19th Environmental Determination. b) Neither the City nor the applicant has demonstrated that the City supported their May 19th Environmental Determination with a traffic study which analyzed the impact of the proposed new traffic signal. '· . . . c) When I filed my Request for Reconsideration and appeal on June 5th, there was no such traffic study in the public record to support the City's May 19th Environmental Determination. d) If I hadn't appealed, there most likely wouldn't be a traffic study in the public record today to support the City's May 19th Environmental Determination. e) If the City had accepted my June 5th Request for Reconsideration, and completed the traffic study it requested, an appeal wouldn't have been necessary. The record shows that Request was denied -without proper justification, in my opinion. f) As a direct result of the City's denial of my Request for Reconsideration my appeal was filed. At that time, all of the following was true: The first reason for this appeal is simply that the record lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service at the two proposed streets associated with this plat, and the adjacent intersections of concern, including the intersection at 156th Ave. SE I SE 5th Pl., and the intersection of 154th Ave. SE/ SE 142nd PL.. The City was aware of the plan to install the new traffic signal, but failed to consider its impact on the proposed development when it issued its threshold Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated on May 19th. g) Acceptance of my Request for Reconsideration would have allowed the City to obtain a traffic study to support their decision, and would have allowed all parties of record a 14- day appeal period to examine the new information. h) Thanks to my willingness to pay the $250 appeal fee, the City did obtain the requested Traffic Study. However, with the exception of the City and the applicant, the appeal process allowed only one party of record {myself) 3 Y, days to review the new information -and then only due to the generosity of the Hearing Examiner. 001324 I understand that the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) allows jurisdictions a certain amount of discretion, but SEPA exists to inform the public's understanding of the likely impacts of a proposed action, and that was not done when the City issued its May 19th Determination. I ask that my appeal be upheld, and that the City be directed to re-issue their Environmental Determination, including the supporting traffic studies, and that all parties of record be given a 14 day appeal period to review that new information. Thank you for your consideration of my response. Sincerely, Roger Paulsen 6617 SE 5th Pl Renton, WA 98059 001325 Jill Din From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 4:13 PM To: Cc: Phil Olbrechts; 'Justin Lagers'; 'Roger Paulsen'; Garmon Newsom II; 'brc@vnf.com' Rohini Nair; Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: City Clarification of Outstanding Questions for Enclave at Bridle Ridge FYI, see below. A couple of projects I had identified as having preliminary approval, have approved utility construction permits. Thank you, Jill From: Rohini Nair Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 3:52 PM To: Jill Ding Cc: Steve Lee Subject: RE: City Clarification of Outstanding Questions for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Hi Jill, Both Liberty Gardens and Maplewood park East have approved utility construction permits -just wanted to let you know. Sincerely Rohini From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 3:40 PM To: Phil Olbrechts; 'Justin Lagers'; Garmon Newsom II; 'brc@vnf.com' Cc: 'Roger Paulsen'; Rohini Nair; Vanessa Dolbee; Steve Lee Subject: PW: City Clarification of Outstanding Questions for Enclave at Bridle Ridge Phil, I received some additional information on the projects listed under #5 below. Liberty Gardens is only 36 lots, not 46 lots. The 29 lot project identified on Exhibit 14 has had a pre-application meeting with the City, the project name is Alpine Gardens, PRE14-000293 with 29-31 lots. The property is located within King County, a formal land use application cannot be submitted to the City until the area is annexed. Thank you, Jill From: Jill Ding Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:59 AM To: Phil Olbrechts; 'Justin Lagers'; Garmon Newsom II Cc: 'Roger Paulsen'; Rohini Nair; Vanessa Dolbee; Steve Lee Subject: City Clarification of Outstanding Questions for Enclave at Bridle Ridge 1 001326 Phil, Below are the responses to the outstanding questions for the Enclave at Bridle Ridge: !.Clarification for the question regarding the 2% annual traffic growth for this project -The Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Developments mention that the forecasted volumes include the projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. For this project, when I discussed with Transportation, 2% annual traffic growth rate was recommended for this area (this was based on historical data on this area). Until 2010 we were using 3% annual traffic growth rate, but due to the recession, the rate recommended for this area after 2010 was 2%. The applicant engineer used 3% annual traffic growth rate, which was okay with us because the engineer was analyzing a scenario that included more background trips. 2.Clarification for the question if we have adopted the ITE Trip Generation Handbook by code or if we use it by policy-It is by policy. The Rate study for the Transportation Impact fee that was adopted by the City uses the data reported in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, latest edition (8th edition at that time). 3. 20 trips to trigger a traffic study, is this code or policy -Policy. 4.The am and pm peak our times, is this code or policy -Policy. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook also mentions the 7 to 9 am as the AM peak hour of the adjacent street traffic for single family detached housing. 5. Exhibit 14 submitted at the hearing was a map that included 10 new projects with the corresponding number of new lots anticipated. I have identified the names and file number of the projects located within the City of Renton and have been able to confirm the status of these projects. Two of the projects were located within King County's jurisdiction and I was unable to verify those projects. For your convenience I have identified the projects by the number that was identified on Exhibit 14: 1. 17 -Saddlebrook I & II (LUA12-077 and LUAB-000626) total 17 lots, status: recorded 2. 2 -Mair SP LUA14-000708 totals 2 lots, status: preliminary review 3. 8 -Mindy's Place LUA14-00093 totals 8 lots, status: preliminary review 4. 36 -Liberty Gardens LUAOB-093 totals 46 lots, status: preliminary approval 5. 14 (north of NE 2"d Street, not the 14 located on the west side of 1561• Ave SE across from Enclave)-Maplewood Park East LUA12-018 totals 14 lots, status: preliminary approval 6. 7 -Renton 7 S.P. LUAB-001214 totals 7 lots, status: preliminary approval 7. 46 + -Copperwood LUA14-000550 totals 47 lots, status: preliminary review and Dewitt short plat LUA12-085 totals 4 lots, status: preliminary approval. 8. She had identified two projects within the County, one with 14 lots and the other with 29 lots. I could not find these projects on the County's website at the locations identified on her map. Please let me know if additional information and/or clarification is needed. Thank you, Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton jding@rentonwa.gov 2 001327 Jill Din From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Olbrechts, Brent Carson <brc@vnf.com> Friday, June 27, 2014 11:51 AM 'olbrechtslaw@gmail.com' Garmon Newsom II; Jill Ding; 'rogerapaulsen@cs.com'; 'Justin Lagers Uustin@americanclassichomes.com)' Response to Appellant's June 26, 2014 Letter At the close of consolidated hearing on Tuesday, June 25th regarding the Enclave at Bridle Ridge, you gave Appellant Paulsen until Friday June 27'h to review and comment on the traffic studies submitted into the Record as Exhibits 4 and 5. Mr. Paulsen submitted his comments in a June 26, 2014 letter. On behalf of the Applicant, here is the Applicant's response to Mr. Paulsen's June 26th Jetter. On the issue of traffic impacts, Mr. Paulsen's SEPA appeal {Exhibit 1) raised one issue. He alleged "that the record Jacks any analysis of the impacts of the proposed traffic signal upon the level of service .... " Mr. Paulsen's appeal then assumed, without any analysis, that the signalized intersection would cause longer queues and a worse level of service. Exhibits 4 and 5 provide the analysis that Mr. Paulsen's appeal indicated was Jacking. These studies demonstrate that a traffic signal will improve level of service and reduce queue length. Mr. Paulsen's June 26th letter admits these results and provides no counter to these facts. Instead, Mr. Paulsen continues to argue, without merit, that these studies are not relevant to his appeal because they were not available at the time of the Environmental Determination. As the Hearing Examiner noted during the hearing, the purpose of an open record hearing on a SEPA Appeal is to allow the parties to present evidence to address the issues raised on appeal. Exhibits 4 end 5 directly respond to the traffic issue raised in Mr. Paulson's appeal. As o result of these studies, Mr. Paulsen's appeal should be denied. Brent Carson I Partner Van Ness Feldman LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, Washington 98104-1728 (206) 623-9372 I brc@vnf.com I vnf.com ThiS communication may contafn Information ond/or metadata that Is legally privileged, confident lo I or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read or review the conte-nt and/or mettJdata and do not dlnemlnote, distribute or copy this communication. Anyone who recei~s this me55oge In error should notify the sender immediately by telephone (106"623·9372} or by return e•moll and dele~ ft from his or her computer. 001328 1 Jill Din From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Mr. Olbrechts, Brent Carson <brc@vnf.com> Friday, June 27, 2014 12:15 PM 'olbrechtslaw@gmail.com' Garmon Newsom II; Jill Ding; 'vince@nwtraffex.com'; 'Justin Lagers Qustin@americanclassichomes.com)' Enclave at Bridal Ridge -Response to 'Public Testimony Exhibits 6-27-14 Response to Exhibit 14 Pipeline Projects.PDF; 6-27-14 Response to CARE Traffex comments.PDF At the conclusion of Tuesday's public hearing on the subject preliminary plat, you allowed the Applicant to submit, by Friday, June 27, 2014, responses to the exhibits that were submitted into the record by members of the public. Attached please find two letters from the Applicant's traffic consultant, Mr. Vincent J. Geglia of TraffEx. One letter responds to the traffic related comments in Exhibit 13 presented by CARE. Mr. Geglia's letter further supports the record established at the hearing that this preliminary plat meets all applicable city road standards (including intersection spacing and sight distance} and will not cause public health or safety concerns. The letter also addresses the background for using a 3% annual growth. Mr. Geglia's other letter responds to Exhibit 14 and the testimony by Ms. Hydh regarding additional houses expected to use these roadways. Mr. Geglia's letter demonstrates that his 6% growth assumption over the next two years more than adequately considered traffic from projects that have submitted applications or have been approved. Brent Carson I Partner Van Ness Feldman LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, Washington 98104-1728 (206) 623-9372 I brc@vnf.com I vnf.com This communlcotlon may con ta In Information and/or meta data that is kgally prlvlleged, confidential or e-Jtemptfrom disclosure. If you ore not the intended recfpi'ent, plea!.e do not read or review the content and/or metadota and do not disseminate. distribute or copy this communication. Anyone who receives this message In effor should notify the sender immediately by telephone (206--623-9372) or by return e-mail ond delete It from his or her computer. 1 001329 TraFF@x June 27, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36m St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton NORTHWEST TRAF'r!C EXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St. #590 Kirkllld. WA 98034 Phooe: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 Review of Exhibit 14 and Analysis of Pipeline Projects Dear Mr. Lagers: Purpose: We were asked to review the attached Exhibit 14 and the number of alleged new pipeline project housing units identified and determine whether the trips we had estimated from an annual 3% background growth adequately addressed the anticipated development. Short Answer: Yes Background : Our TIA estimated a growth rate of 3% per year over a 2 year period for total growth rate of 6% which added 68 PM peak hour trips to the SE 142nd Pl./1561h Ave SE intersection. The basic distribution of trips for residential projects in the area is 70% to the north and 30% to the south. One lot roughly generates one PM peak hour trip per ITE Trip Generation. Pipeline Projects: We have reviewed the pipeline projects in Exhibit 14. We included 7 projects that were either approved or have submitted applications. We did not include 2 projects in the ~re-app stage, namely the 29 lot Alpine Estates or the 14 lot plat on the west side of 1561 Ave SE. Trips generated by the 7 valid pipeline projects that pass through the SE 142"d Pl./1561h Ave SE intersection were estimated as follows: 47 lots of Copperwood plat -the 70% north oriented trips will go up Jericho and not 156th, 20% of the south oriented trips turn right from SE 142nd St. to SE 142nd Pl. and do not pass thru the SE 142"d Pl/156th Ave SE intersection . Therefore only an estimated 10% go actually thru the intersection = 5 trips 17 lots of Saddlebrook -only the 30% south oriented trips go thru the intersection = 5 trips Page 1 001330 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge 14 lots of Maplewood Court East -30% south oriented trips= 4 trips 9 lot short plat -30% south oriented trips = 3 trips 2 lot short plat -30% south oriented trips = 1 trip 8 lot short plat -30% south oriented trips = 2 trips Traff/8;3 36 lots of Liberty Gardens -north oriented trips go up 160th Ave, therefore only the 30% south oriented trips go through the SE 142nd Pl/156th Ave SE intersection= 11 trips The total trips the generated by the 133 lots of the pipeline projects passing through the SE 142"d Pl/156th Ave SE intersection = 31 trips Conclusion: The 68 PM peak hour trips background growth trips estimated in the TIA more than adequately addresses the estimated 31 trips generated by the pipeline projects plus other general background growth passing through the SE 142"d Pl/156th Ave SE intersection. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page2 001331 i " ~ l ' ,, !; ! " ' .. Maplewood Ct ; Ea.st -:r!'! -., -~·"' +1 I J .. " ! lH' i: ' ~-~v(rmd • i::;. ~ En(:la~e « ; ~· '.! \l< . ., ~ C " ! ~ s. 't 0 e-- [Ji.ti ,: ~ ~ !k "' -'.«' ff,i"-'I!' r .- 001332 TraH&Jrr June 27, 2014 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 N0RTHW£ST TRAF'FIC EXP£RTB 11410 NE 124th St. #590 Kirklald WA 98034 Phooe: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Review of Exhibit 14 and Analysis of Pipeline Projects Dear Mr. Lagers: We are pleased to provide the following response to comments from the CARE letter dated June 24, 2014. Comment: ·15(/' Ave SE Is straight and fist 111 1h11 access stre11ts with excellent sight distance in both directions. • This 1s a true statement, but ii is Insufficient to fully describe the s,tua1,on. :;1: 14;;--1-'L ,s not stra,gllt at 1n1s location and has terrible sight distance. When there is any vehicle waiting at the southbound stop sign on 156'" Ave SE, any vehicle waiting to tum eilher rigM or left from SE 142 Pl onlo 156" AVE SE will not be able to see. This will be particula~y dangerous When vehicles Is entering or leaving the proposed southern access for the project. The driver wiB be obstructed by the telephone pole in front of Ille stop sign and the southbound car, and will not be able to see any exiting vehicle on the access street In a scenario wijh a southbound vehicle ll.lming left into the project, the driver wm be further obstructed by a solid fence and vegetation. If the tractor trailer truck thal fives at parcel# S336700015 ls pa/1<ed Where is usually is-the driver will see lhat trucK and very little else. Please see the accomi>ilnying Sighllinelllustration.pdf. Response: The posted speed limit on 1561h Ave SE just north of SE 142°d St. is 25 mph. The required stopping sight distance for a design speed of 25 mph is 155 feet. The distance from the center of the SE142nd Pl/1561 h Ave SE intersection to the center of the 1561h Ave SE/Enclave south site access street is 247 feet, therefore stopping sight distance requirements are met. Furthermore, northbound vehicles departing the intersection are from a stopped position (since the intersection is an all way stop) and will be in the process of accelerating from O to 25 mph thus increasing the elapsed time to reach the Enclave south site access street. Additionally, the City noted in their May 5, 2014 memorandum that the historical accident data since 2009 for the SE 142"d Pl/1561h Ave SE intersection does not meet warrants for crash experience. There were a total of 5 accidents on 1561h Ave SE. There was only one accident recorded at the intersection. The other 4 accidents were at least two blocks away. The low accident rate is an indication of adequate sight distance and comparatively safe operations. Page 1 001333 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraHmi:f Comment: "A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each yeat of the two year lime perior1 {for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. Th" 3% f)(lr yoer growth rate shoulr1 result in a conse,vative analysis Si!lce /he growth in traffic volumes has remainer1 relatively net the last several years.· Response: The City requires a 2% per year growth rate to be added to existing traffic volumes. The 2% rate included traffic from pipeline projects. The Traffex TIA used a 6% background growth rate (3% per year for a two year period from now to the horizon year of the project) to insure a conservative analysis. It is our experience that traffic volumes have remained float over the last several years since the recession and therefore we believe the 6% increase in background traffic is in all probability greater than what will actually occur. Comment: The southbound stop sign and crosswalk for lhis intersection is located about at lhe center point of parcelil 5336700015 which is approximately 70 feet north ol the southern boundary of lhe Enclave site. Figure 2 of the TIA shows thal the stormwater tract is proposed to be 1)5.24 feel wide and Loi 19 is proposed lo be 94.59 feet. This yields a measure of 189.86 feet north or lhe southern boundary of lhe Enclave site as the proposed location for the south access lo 156" Ave SE. 169.86-70 yields a measure of 119.86 feel which fails to meel the inlersection distance standard of 125 reel. Please see lhe accompanying 1561hAveSEloterseclionLocalion .pd!. Therefore. we request thal the 61reel access as proposed be rejecled. Response: The distance between intersections is measured from the center of the intersections. The distance from the center of the SE 142nd St/1561h Ave SE intersection to the center of the 156th Ave SE/Enclave south site access street intersection is 24 7 feet and therefore the 125 ft. intersection spacing requirement is met. Comment: The original Traff'rc Impact Analysis (Exhlbit_a_._ Traffic_lmpacLAnalysis.pdf) states (bottom of page 2) that 156th Ave. SE is a "'minor arterial"'. Based on the traffic volumes Renton reported as a result of the citizen recommendation to investigate the need for slgnalizalion earlier this year (and which Roger Paulsen graphed) the road segment including this inlerseclion should be classified as al least a minor arterial (12K Average Daily Trips.). Response: 1561h Ave SE is classified as a minor arterial by the City. Page2 001334 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraHf_jw If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page3 001335 Jill Din From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Jill, Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:19 PM Jill Ding Re: Traffic Study Comments Traffic Study Comment Letter.pdf Please find my comment letter, attached. Because of the time sensitivity of my response, I request that you provide confirmation of receipt. Thanks!!! Roger --Original Message--- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: RE: Traffic Study Comments Roger, The hearing examiner has indicated that any comments/questions you have should be emailed to me. I will forward your questions to the applicant and hearing examiner. Thanks, Jill From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:01 AM To: Jill Ding Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Traffic Study Comments Jill, I realize should have been more specific with my question. At yesterday's Appeal Hearing, the Hearing Examiner provided me an opportunity to submit comments about the two "eleventh hour" Traffic Studies by 5:00 PM Friday, June 27th, but he didn't say how those comments should be submitted. -Can my comments be submitted via e-mail, or should they be in the form of a hard copy letter? -To whom should the comments be addressed? -Is ii necessary to copy others parties when the comments are submitted?? If so, what addresses should I use?? I assume I should continue to use you as my City of Renton contact person for all questions related to the Enclave at Bridle Ridge development. If that is not correct, please let me know. Thanks for any guidance you can provide!! Roger 1 001336 ---Original Message--- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 6:45 am Subject: RE: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Rohini would be your contact for traffic related questions. Jill From: Roger Paulsen (mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:07 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: Re: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 Jill, To whom should I address my comments on the traffic studies??? Thanks!!! Roger ----Original Message-- From: Jill Ding <JDinq@Rentonwa.gov> To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>; 'Justin Lagers' <justin@americanclassichomes.com>; 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com>; Garmon Newsom II <GNewsom@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:04 pm Subject: Enclave Hearing Exhibit 1 I am going to be sending all the exhibits in separate emails as the files are so large. Jill Ding Senior Planner Community and Economic Develoment City of Renton idinq@rentonwa.gov 2 001337 June 26, 2014 Dear Mr. Examiner, Thank you for allowing me additional time to review the traffic studies performed by the City and the applicant for the Enclave At Bridle Ridge proposed plat. The studies appear to confirm !ha~ if this signal is constructed and operational by the study horizon year (2015), the intersection at 156'" Ave. SE and SE 142 .. PL. will improve in level of service from a failing level to a functional level. This Is important Information relative to the City's approval of the plat itself, as it Is clear that appropriate provision for streets cannot be made for this plat, pursuant to RCW 58.17, absent an installed and functioning traffic signal at this location. Neither of these studies confirm nor guarantee that the signal's construction is certain, let alone likely. In fact, based on the City's current prioritization of the signal in their 2014-2019 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program, the signal won't be Installed for approximately 18 years. Therefore these studies confirm ihis plat cannot be constructed as proposed, without contributing traffic to the failing intersection for which the City has identified the need for project specific mitigation. To approve the proposed plat based on the record is clearly not in the public interest. With respect to the applicability of these new traffic studies to my appeal of the Environmental Determination, I have confirmed that both were completed AFTER the date that the City issued it's most recent Environmental Determination for this project (May 19°"). My appeal is of that Environmental Determination, and the information that was part of the record as of that date. For this reason, these traffic studies are not relevant with respect to my appeal of the Environmental Determination and I ask that you take this fact into consideration as you consider my appeal based upon the record. Sincerely, ~o~ 6617 SE 5th PL Renton,WA 98059 001338 Jill Din From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jill, Thanks for getting back to me!! Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Friday, June 27, 2014 10:40 AM Jill Ding Bonnie Walton; Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee Re: Request for Reconsideration Explanation I do disagree with the City's interpretation because I believe it deprives the pubic of their rights under the law. I will pursue this with City Administration and the City Council once the Bridle Ridge plat approval process has been completed. Thanks again!!! Roger -----Original Message--- From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Cc: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov>; Chip Vincent <CVincent@Rentonwa.gov>; Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 8:15 am Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Roger, I have been asked to provide a response to your request for an explanation regarding why your second request for reconsideration was denied. Requests for reconsideration are governed under RMC 4-8-110E.2: 2. Optional Request for Reconsideration: a. When a reconsideration request has been submitted, the matter shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration. A new fourteen (14) calendar day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. b. In order to request reconsideration, the person or entity must have been made a party of record, or submitted written comments to City staff prior to the issuance of the determination for which the reconsideration is being requested. Under subsection a. above, it states that "A new fourteen (14) calendar day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration.' We have interpreted this sentence to mean that once a decision on the reconsideration has been issued, the next step is an appeal and no further reconsiderations are considered. I hope this answers your question. Thank you, Jill From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday, June 26, 201412:11 PM To: Jill Ding Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Jill, 1 001339 Can you please respond to Mr. Paulsen. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Chip Vincent Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:52 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Vanessa, could you please handle the following. Thanks, Chip From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 8:20 PM To: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning Cc: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Chip, Can you or one of your staff please respond to Mr. Paulsen on this issue? Thank you. Bonnie Walton City Clerk From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 5:36 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Request for Reconsideration Explanation Ms. Walton, At your suggestion, I requested from Mr. Vincent an explanation for the denial of my June 5th Request for Reconsideration. It has been over a week since I made that request (see below), and I haven't received a reply. That seems a reasonable amount of time. Please advise on the best way to proceed to get the requested information. I'd prefer not to escalate my request, but will if necessary. Thanks!!! Roger Paulsen 2 001340 --Original Message----- From: Roger Paulsen <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> To: cvincent <cvincent@rentonwa.gov> Cc: bwalton <bwalton@rentonwa.gov> Sent Tue, Jun 17, 2014 7:01 am Subject: Re: Appeal Mr. Vincent, Please see my question below to Ms. Walton, and her reply, suggesting that I forward my question to you for clarification. The only reference to a Request for Reconsideration that I am aware of is in code section 4-8-110, which is titled "Appeals". Therefore, I assume a Request for Reconsideration is a form of appeal. Is that a correct interpretation?? If so, it appears my June 5th Request for Reconsideration met the requirements of the ERG letter dated May19th, which leads to my original question: What is it that disqualified my Request for Reconsideration? Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Roger Paulsen -Original Message--- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov> To: 'Roger Paulsen' <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 2:01 pm Subject: RE: Appeal Mr. Paulsen, I see that the response to the request for reconsideration issued by Gregg Zimmerman did not state the option for filing of a second request for reconsideration, but it did allow for an appeal process. So that is why the appeal is being processed next. I am not an expert on state law or land use, but it seems to me that doing this fairly preserved your right to be heard and your viewpoints to be considered, but it also preserved the rights of the applicant to receive timely processing of the land use application submittal. The better person to contact for this clarification really would be Chip Vincent, CED Administrator, however. His phone number is 425-430-6588, and his email is cvincent@rentonwa.gov. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 From: Roger Paulsen [mailto:rogerapaulsen@cs.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 6:31 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Re: Appeal Bonnie, Welcome back!! I also was away much of the week, but did have a chance to review the copy of code section 4-8-1 O that came in the mail. 3 001341 I'm curious what in that code section disqualified my Request for Reconsideration?? From my perspective, the ERC modified their determination, and it was that modification that created a nexus to the proposed installation of a problematic stop light That appears to qualify as "any administrative decision made". Thanks for any clarification you can provide'! Roger Paulsen --Original Message--- From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov> To: Roger Paulsen (rogerapaulsen@cs.com) <rogerapaulsen@cs.com> Cc: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Sun, Jun 8, 2014 5:16 pm Subject: Appeal Mr. Paulsen: I'm going to be out this week, but you can look for the attached to come in your mailbox. As you can see, no Request for Reconsideration process is available at this point. Instead, we will be proceeding with the appeal process. The appeal hearing notice will be coming to you by separate letter this week from my office. The appeal hearing will be held on June 241 h which is when the plat hearing also will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. I'll be out of the office this week, but if you have questions, feel free to contact Jill Ding or my main office number and someone will be able to help. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6510 4 001342 February}, 2014 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge-City of Renton swc Job#l3-187 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 27641 Covrgon Wey SE #2 Co,,i-gta,, WA 90042 253-8$-0515 RECEt\lE[J FEB 2; ZO/~ CITY or,·.:,, ,,-'. Pur,J ,,J.:~·; ... ~~,~:;~~. ;tV This report describes our observations of any jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 200' of the proposed 'The Enclave at Bridle Ridge" plat, which consists of two Parcels (#1423059023 & 9122), located on the east side of 1561h Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Vicinity Map 001343 En/cave/# 13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. February 3, 2014 Pagel The site is 8.54 acres in size and contains a single family home with associated sheds, lawn and landscaped areas, as well as gravel driveway. The site is located in the SE Y. of __ Section 14, Jownship 23 North, R~nge 5 East ofthe.W:.M. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site on January 24, 2014. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (W ADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The site was also inspected using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement (Version 2.0) dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the M unse/1 Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990). The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual/Regional Supplement all require the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. 001344 3.0 OBSERVATIONS 3.1.1 NRCS Soil Survey .. Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. February 3, 2014 Page 3 According to the NRCS Soil Mapper website, the entire site is mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Alderwood soils are not considered wetland or hydric soils. NRCS Soil Map of the site 3.1.2 USFWS National Wetland Inventory According to the mapping done by the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory, there are no wetlands or streams mapped on or within approximately 2000' of the site. 001345 Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map of the site 3.1.3 City of Renton Stream Inventory Map February 3, 2014 Page4 According to the City of Renton Stream Inventory Map, the closest stream to the site is approximately 1,000' west of the site. 001346 Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. p- f: SE I J8th Pl t ,_ .. -~~ .. ··;;;·=~~ ~ Sf 139th Pl !-.• .~· ·-::~.-'-~ • • SITE i Sf 143fdf SL 144!~ SU ., .. Lu. "' r Cl};' >- February 3, 20!4 Page 5 t f' , :\ SE_ 146th Pl ..(') _.. t, ,· :;;. i -:e· , !<_ l t f8U, ,: t ,.~-----·-,.~ c . r . • I t(/4910 . .J'-../ ! '--c•·, City of Renton Stream Inventory map 3.1.4 King County iMap Wetland and Stream mapping. The King County iMap website with the stream and wetland mapping layers activated (see vicinity map Page I of this report) depicts no wetlands or streams on or near the site. 3.1.5 WDFW Priority Habitats According to the WDFW Priority Habitats mapping website, the closest "priority habitat" is a biodiversity corridor mapped along the stream ravine approximately 1,000' west of the site. 001347 Enlc<IVel#J 3-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. February 3, 2014 Page 6 Above: WDFW Priority habitat mapping of area of the site. 3.2 Field Observations As previously mentioned, the site currently contains a single family residential structure located near the southwest portion of the property as well as scattered remains of farm buildings, sheds and old foundations a gravel driveway and an old well house. The site slopes from a high point on the northeast comer of the site to a low on the southwest. The majority of the site is fallow pasture although the eastern and northern side of the site contains some third growth Douglas fir forested areas. Scattered native overstory trees including douglas fir, big leaf maple, red alder and several cottonwoods are found on the site. Understory species in the forested areasinclude Himalayan blackberry, indian plum and sword fem. The pasture is vegetated with a mix of upland species such as orchard grass, tansy ragwort, Himalayan blackberry and scotch broom. Soil pits excavate din these areas revealed a dry gravelly loam similar to the Alderwood soil profile with no soil saturation or wetland hydrology indicators present. 001348 Enlcave/#13-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc. February 3, 2014 Page 7 A small patch of buttercup is located near the driveway where a roadside ditch overflowed onto the site just north of the driveway. This area was investigated and found to have dry, upland_soils with no wetland indicators. __ In addition, a low spot where a former pig wallow was located according to the owner was investigated as it contained small patch ofred-osier dogwood. This area was found to contain a dry, loam with a soil color of IOYR 3/2 during our January 2014 site visit in the wet, non-growing season. This area was determined not to be a wetland. 4.0 CONCLUSION No wetlands, streams or buffers are present on the site. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 001349 REFERENCES City of Renton Municipal Code Stewart Plat/#/ 3-178 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 19, 2013 Page 8 Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79- 31, Washington, D. C. NRCS Soil Mapper website Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. USDA Misc. Publ. No. 1491. USF&WS, National Wetlands Inventory Maps. Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St. Petersburg, Florida. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USFWS supplement to Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9) May 1988. USDA NRCS & National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, September 1995. Field Indicators ofHydric Soils in the United States -Version 2.1 · US Army Corps of Engineers, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement (Version 2. 0) June 20 IO WADOE, Washington State Wetland rating System for Western Washington, Revised, Pub#04--06-025,2004 001350 \ I i ' ! I j 1 t I Greenforestlncorporated ( \ / Consulting Arborist 2/18/2014 Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 ClTY GF ~ENTON Pl t°'1··J\_:;t'·J:; Dl\/iSiO.\i RE: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Tree Inspection, 14038 156th Ave SE, Renton WA 98059 Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and evaluate the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. (Tax Parcel Numbers 142305-9023, 9057, & 9112). I received a TREE CUTTING AND LAND CLEARING PLAN from DR Strong Consulting Engineers showing the location and numbers of the surveyed trees. I visited the site last week and inspected the trees indicated on the sheet; which are the subject of this report. TREE INSPECTION My initial inspection was limited to visual observation from the subject parcels. Trees off site were included in the inspection but are not included in this report. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline extension and recorded visible defects. At the east property boundary (Near tree 6185) is an infection center for a root rot disease. This is evidenced by a tree-free circular area (actually, semi circular as bisected by the parcel boundary) with standing dead trees, recently or previously failed trees, and trees with thinning and/or chlorotic canopies at the edge of the infection area. After my initial inspection I returned to the site and performed rootcrown excavations on the conifers bordering this infection area. I found both signs and symptoms of armillaria root rot fungus, as evidenced by the presence of mycelial fans and fungal rhizomorphs, oozing resin flow, and varying stages of root decay in approximately a dozen trees on the north and south sides of this infection area. 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 001354 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 2 of 12 The results of this inspection are based on what is visible at the time of the inspection and is limited by the extent of feasible root excavation. The attached inventory provides the following information for each tree: Tree number as shown on the attached plan. Tree Species Common name. DBH Stem diameter in inches measured 4.5 feet from the ground. Dripline Canopy radius measured in feet. Dangerous Tree Certification Trees that are certified as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous.1 Notes Obvious structural defects or diseases visible at time of inspection, which includes: Asymmetric canopy-the tree has an asymmetric canopy from space and light competition from adjacent trees. Branch dieback -Mature branches in canopy are dying/dead and the tree is in an active state of decline. Canker -Disease cankers are established on trunk/branches. Dead -tree is dead. Diseased -foliage and trunk/branches are diseased. Dogleg in trunk-bow or defective bend in trunk. Included bark -Bark inclusion at attachment of multiple leaders and is preventing a wood-to-wood attachment Lean-Trunk has significant lean from vertical and at risk of failure. Multiple leaders -the tree has multiple stem attachments, which may lead to tree failure and require maintenance or monitoring over time. Root Rot Infection -tree infected with root rotting decay fungus. Suppressed -tree crowded by larger adjacent trees; with defective structure and/or low vigor. Retain tree only as a grove tree, not stand-alone. Trunk failure -Tree trunk previously broken and defective. Taper (Slender) -change in diameter over the length of trunks, branches and roots. Root Rot -The tree is infected with a root rot fungus. Suppressed -Tree is suppressed by adjacent tree canopies. Trunk decay-Advanced wood decay is visible in the trunk. 1 Renton Municipal Code. §4-11-200 DEFINITIONS T: (Accessed online 2/12/14) Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001355 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 3 of 12 SIGNIFICANT TREES The attached tree inventory identifies 305 significant trees. Eighty-one of these trees are considered dangerous as defined by City code. Sincerely, ISA Certified Arborist # PN -0143A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist' #379 PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor #579 Attachments: 1. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2. Tree Inventory Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001356 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 4 of 12 Attachment No.1-Assumptions & Limiting Conditions 1) A field examination of the site was made 2/13/2014. My observations and conclusions are as of that date. 2) Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/arborist can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 3) Unless stated other wise; 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees from the subject property, without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the subject tree may not arise in the future. 4) All trees possess the risk of failure. Trees can fail at any time, with or without obvious defects, and with or without applied stress. 5) Construction activities can significantly affect the condition of retained trees. All retained trees should be inspected after construction is completed, and then inspected regularly as part of routine maintenance. 6) The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made. 7) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 8) Unless required by Jaw otherwise, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 9) This report and any values/opinions expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 10) Ownership and use of consultant's documents, work product and deliverables shall pass to the Client only when ALL fees have been paid. Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001357 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 5 of 12 No 2 -Tree Inventory Tree No. Species DBH 5024 Black Locust 8,12 5027 Black Locust 8 5029 Douglas-fir 8 5030 Douglas-fir 18 5111 Red alder 16 5124 Red alder 12 5128 Douglas-fir 20 5130 Douglas-fir 8 5133 Douglas-fir 14 5134 Douglas-fir 18 5139 Douglas-fir 26 5142 Douglas-fir 10 5143 Douglas-fir 18 5144 Douglas-fir 28 5173 Douglas-fir 14 5174 Douglas-fir 10 5175 Douglas-fir 10 5176 Douglas-fir 8 5177 Douglas-fir 8 5178 Bigleaf maple 8, 8, 10 5179 Bigleaf maple 8 5180 Douglas-fir 8 5209 Douglas-fir 44 5210 Douglas-fir 36 5211 Douglas-fir 32 5229 Douglas-fir 28 5230 Douglas-fir 26 5231 Douglas-fir 24 5232 Douglas-fir 16 5233 Douglas-fir 12 5234 Douglas-fir 10 5235 Douglas-fir 8 5236 Douglas-fir 22 5237 Douglas-fir 26,26 5276 Douglas-fir 10 5277 Douglas-fir 18 5278 Douglas-fir 20 Greenforest DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 14 Asymmetric Canopy Double Leader With Included 10 Yes Bark 10 16 12 Yes Diseased, Branch Failure 12 Yes Diseased, Decayed 18 Asymmetric Canopy 0 Yes Dead 14 Yes Trunk Decay 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 10 Suppressed 16 Asymmetric Canopy 20 Asymmetric Canopy 14 12 10 6 Asymmetric Canopy 6 Asymmetric Canopy 12 14 Asymmetric Canopy 10 20 20 Double Leader 16 Yes Trunk Failure 18 Yes Dogleg In Trunk 18 Double Leader 18 Asymmetric Canopy 12 Asymmetric Canopy 6 Yes Dead 8 Asymmetric Canopy 14 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Yes Trunk Girdled Multiple Attachments With 24 Yes Included Bark 12 Suppressed 14 Asymmetric Canopy 14 Asymmetric Canopy @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001358 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 . 2/18/2014 Page 6 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH 5285 Douglas-fir 22 5295 Black cottonwood 20,40 5297 Black cottonwood 38 5298 Bigleaf maple 8,8 5300 Black cottonwood 36 5301 Black cottonwood 20 5306 Douglas-fir 24 5307 Douglas-fir 24 5308 Douglas-fir 32 5313 Bigleaf maple 10,10,12 5394 Black cottonwood 10 5398 Douglas-fir 58 5399 Douglas-fir 36 5400 Douglas-fir 26 5401 Douglas-fir 32 5402 Douglas-fir 32 5403 Douglas-fir 18 5404 Douglas-fir 10 5406 Douglas-fir 10 5408 Douglas-fir 10 5409 Douglas-fir 18 5410 Douglas-fir 18 5411 Douglas-fir 12 5412 Douglas-fir 14 5413 Douglas-fir 18 5414 Douglas-fir 16 5416 Bigleaf maple 8 5417 Douglas-fir 20 5418 Douglas-fir 24 5419 Douglas-fir 22 5420 Douglas-fir 22 5421 Douglas-fir 18 5422 Douglas-fir 22 5423 Douglas-fir 8 5424 Douglas-fir 26 5425 Douglas-fir 18 5426 Pacific dogwood 8 5427 Bitter cherry 8 5428 Bitter cherry 8 Greenforest DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 16 24 24 10 Multiple Leaders 24 18 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 18 Multiple Leaders 12 25 Deadwood 20 18 20 18 14 6 Suppressed 12 Yes Root Rot Infection 12 Yes Root Rot Infection 16 Yes Root Rot Infection 12 Yes Root Rot Infection 10 Yes Root Rot Infection 16 Yes Root Rot Infection 16 Yes Root Rot Infection 14 Yes Root Rot Infection 12 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 18 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Yes Girdled 16 Asymmetric Canopy 8 Suppressed 16 12 6 8 Yes Top Failure 1 Yes Trunk Failure @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001359 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 7 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH 5433 Douglas-fir 8 5434 Douglas-fir 10 5436 Douglas-fir 8 5441 Douglas-fir 8 5442 Douglas-fir 28 5443 Douglas-fir 22 5444 Douglas-fir 26 5445 Douglas-fir 38 5446 Bitter cherry 8 5447 Douglas-fir 12 5448 Douglas-fir 12 5449 Douglas-fir 32 5450 Douglas-fir 20 5451 . Douglas-fir 22 5452 Douglas-fir 32 5453 Douglas-fir 14 5454 Douglas-fir 22 5455 Douglas-fir 26 5456 Douglas-fir 8 5457 Douglas-fir 12,16 5458 Douglas-fir 24 5459 Douglas-fir 18 5460 Douglas-fir 18 5486 Douglas-fir 10 5487 Douglas-fir 28 5488 Douglas-fir 10 5489 Douglas-fir 12 5490 Douglas-fir 6 5491 Douglas-fir 8,18 5493 Douglas-fir 14,14 5494 Douglas-fir 10 5495 Douglas-fir 10 5496 Douglas-fir 16 5497 Douglas-fir 12 5498 Douglas-fir 10 5499 Douglas-fir 26 6000 Douglas-fir 16 6001 Douglas-fir 16 6002 Douglas-fir 20 Greenforest DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 10 12 8 8 16 Asymmetric Canopy 14 Asymmetric Canopy 16 20 10 14 14 20 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 14 16 Asymmetric Canopy 12 Suppressed 16 18 10 16 Double Leader 16 14 14 12 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 8 14 Asymmetric Canopy 10 Asymmetric Canopy 16 18 Asymmetric Canopy 12 0 Yes Dead 14 Asymmetric Canopy 12 Asymmetric Canopy 8 Suppressed 18 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 14 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001360 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 8 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH 6004 Douglas-fir 38 6005 Douglas-fir 22 6006 Douglas-fir 12 6007 Douglas-fir 18 6008 Douglas-fir 24 6009 Douglas-fir 28 6010 Douglas-fir 24 6011 Douglas-fir 20 6012 Douglas-fir 20 6013 Douglas-fir 36 6014 Douglas-fir 20 6015 Douglas-fir 28,34 6017 Douglas-fir 20 6018 Douglas-fir 10 6019 Black cottonwood 12 6020 Douglas-fir 16 6021 Douglas-fir 26 6022 Douglas-fir 28 6023 Bigleaf maple 12,16 6043 Black cottonwood 24 6044 Douglas-fir 28 6045 Douglas-fir 16 6046 Douglas-fir 14 6047 Douglas-fir 8 6048 Douglas-fir 24 6049 Bigleaf maple 6 6050 Douglas-fir 18 6051 Douglas-fir 16 6052 Douglas-fir 22 6053 Douglas-fir 14 6054 Douglas-fir 16 6055 Douglas-fir 16 6056 Douglas-fir 16,20 6057 Douglas-fir 14 6058 Douglas-fir 20 6059 Douglas-fir 20 6060 Douglas-fir 26 6061 Douglas-fir 28 6062 Douglas-fir 8 Greenforest DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 18 16 Asymmetric Canopy 8 Suppressed 12 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 18 16 Asymmetric Canopy 14 14 18 16 25 Double Leader 14 12 Yes Stem Canker 14 14 16 18 16 Double Leader 18 20 Asymmetric Canopy 14 Asymmetric Canopy 12 Asymmetric Canopy 12 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 8 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Double Leader 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 6 Suppressed @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001361 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 9 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH 6072 Red alder 8 6073 Douglas-fir 26 6074 Douglas-fir 26 6077 Douglas-fir 24 6078 Douglas-fir 26 6079 Douglas-fir 16 6080 Douglas-fir 14 6081 Douglas-fir 28 6082 Douglas-fir 14 6083 Douglas-fir 26 6084 Douglas-fir 24 6085 Douglas-fir 26 6086 Douglas-fir 22 6087 Douglas-fir 20 6088 Douglas-fir 14 6089 Douglas-fir 16 6090 Black cottonwood 18 6091 Douglas-fir 12 6092 Douglas-fir 18 6093 Douglas-fir 18 6094 Douglas-fir 10 6095 Douglas-fir 6 6096 Douglas-fir 14 6097 Douglas-fir 16 6098 Douglas-fir 22 6099 Douglas-fir 20 6100 Douglas-fir 20 6101 Douglas-fir 20 6102 Douglas-fir 20 6103 Willow (6) 6 6104 Douglas-fir 18 6105 Douglas-fir 8 6106 Douglas-fir 14 6107 Douglas-fir 18 6108 Douglas-fir 6 6109 Douglas-fir 26 6110 Bigleaf maple 10 6111 Douglas-fir 10,24 6113 Douglas-fir 18 Greenforest DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 10 Yes Diseased 18 18 18 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 14 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 18 Asymmetric Canopy 12 Asymmetric Canopy 18 16 18 Asymmetric Canopy 16 14 12 16 18 14 Asymmetric Canopy 16 Asymmetric Canopy 16 8 6 Suppressed 16 14 16 16 16 16 Yes Dogleg In Trunk 16 0 Yes Dead 16 Asymmetric Canopy 6 Suppressed 12 Asymmetric Canopy 16 6 Suppressed 18 Asymmetric Canopy 0 Yes Dead Asymmetric Canopy, Double 18 Leader 16 Asymmetric Canopy @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001362 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 10 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH 6121 Red alder 10,12 6123 Red alder 6 6124 Douglas-fir 6 6125 Red alder 6,8 6127 Red alder 10 6128 Red alder 8 6129 Red alder 8 6130 Red alder 8 6131 Black cottonwood 8 6132 Black cottonwood 20 6133 Red alder 10 6134 Douglas-fir 8 6135 Red alder 8 6136 Douglas-fir 8 6137 Red alder 6 6138 Douglas-fir 16 6139 Douglas-fir 20 6141 Douglas-fir 32 6142 Douglas-fir 40 6156 Douglas-fir 14 6157 Douglas-fir 8 6159 Douglas-fir 16 6160 Douglas-fir 6 6161 Douglas-fir 8 6162 Douglas-fir 8 6163 Douglas-fir 8 6164 Douglas-fir 8 6165 Black cottonwood 16 6166 Black cottonwood 8 6167 Douglas-fir 12 6168 Douglas-fir 6 6169 Douglas-fir 6 6170 Black cottonwood 8 6171 Douglas-fir 8 6172 Red alder 10 6173 Red alder 10 6174 Red alder 8,10 6176 Douglas-fir 6 6177 Douglas-fir 26 Green forest DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 16 Yes Trunk Failure 8 Yes Branch Dieback 6 Suppressed 14 Yes Trunk Dieback 14 10 Yes Lean 4 Yes Trunk Failure 12 Yes Trunk Failure 2 Yes Trunk Failure 16 14 Asymmetric Canopy 10 Asymmetric Canopy 6 Yes Branch Dieback 10 Asymmetric Canopy 6 Yes Suppressed 12 16 18 20 16 10 16 Asymmetric Canopy 8 Asymmetric Canopy 8 10 Yes Root Failure 8 8 Suppressed 18 . 6 Yes Lean 14 8 Asymmetric Canopy 8 Asymmetric Canopy 10 Yes Slender 10 Asymmetric Canopy 10 Yes Trunk Decay 8 Yes Trunk Decay 14 8 Yes Top Failure 18 @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001363 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 11 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH 6178 Douglas-fir 16 6179 Douglas-fir 14 6180 Douglas-fir 24 6181 Douglas-fir 24 6182 Douglas-fir 20 6183 Douglas-fir 22 6184 Bigleaf maple 26 6185 Douglas-fir 12 6187 Bigleaf maple 8 6223 Red alder 8 6226 Douglas-fir 8 6229 Red alder 8 6230 Red alder 10 6231 Red alder 8 6232 Bigleaf maple 10 6233 Bigleaf maple 10 6234 Bigleaf maple 8 6236 Bigleaf maple 10 6239 Red alder 8 6240 Red alder 10 6241 Bigleaf maple 16 6242 Douglas-fir 8 6243 Douglas-fir 10 6244 Red alder 8 6245 Red alder 6 6246 Red alder 8 6247 Douglas-fir 10 6248 Douglas-fir 20 6249 Red alder 6 6250 Red alder 8 6251 Douglas-fir 8 6252 Douglas-fir 44 6253 Douglas-fir 16 6254 Douglas-fir 18 6255 Douglas-fir 6 6256 Red alder 8 6257 Douglas-fir 8 6258 Douglas-fir 34 6259 Douglas-fir 34 Greenforest DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 14 16 16 16 Yes Root Rot Infection 14 Yes Root Rot Infection 16 Yes Root Rot Infection Root Failure; Root Rot 14 Yes Infection D Yes Dead 10 6 Yes Trunk Failure 0 Yes Dead 6 Yes Trunk Decay 8 Yes Trunk Decline 6 Yes Lean 14 Asymmetric Canopy 14 8 Yes Trunk Decay 12 Asymmetric Canopy 0 Yes Dead 12 Branch Dieback 18 10 Yes Suppressed 12 Asymmetric Canopy 10 Yes Trunk Failure 0 Yes Dead 10 Yes Trunk Decline 12 16 3 Yes Trunk Decline 10 Yes Branch Dieback 10 Asymmetric Canopy 18 12 Asymmetric Canopy 16 8 Asymmetric Canopy 0 Yes Dead 10 18 18 @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001364 Justin Lagers -PNW Holdings, LLC RE: 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2/18/2014 Page 12 of 12 Tree No. Species DBH 6260 Bitter cherry 8 6261 Douglas-fir 42 6262 Bitter cherry 8 6263 Douglas-fir 26 6265 Red alder 8 6266 Red alder 8 6267 Bigleaf maple 10 6268 Douglas-fir 48 6269 Red alder 14 6270 . Red alder 8 6271 Red alder 10 6272 Red alder 8 6273 Red alder 8 6274 Red alder 10 6275 Bitter cherry 8 6276 Red alder 8 6277 Douglas-fir 10 6278 Red alder 8 6280 Red alder 8 6281 Douglas-fir 10 6282 Red alder 14,16 6284 Red alder 8 6285 Red alder 10 6286 Bigleaf maple 8 6287 Red alder 8 6288 Red alder 6 6289 Red alder 8 6290 Red alder 10 6291 Red alder 8 6292 Red alder 6 6293 Red alder 8 6294 Douglas-fir 34 6295 Douglas-fir 26 6341 Black Locust 32 Greenforest DL Dangerous Tree? Notes 10 18 10 18 0 Yes Dead 12 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 10 20 18 Yes Top Dieback 8 Yes Suppressed 12 Yes Trunk Decay 6 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 8 6 Yes Asymmetric Canopy 0 Yes Dead 6 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 10 6 Yes Branch Dieback 8 12 16 Yes Branch Dieback 10 Yes Branch Dieback 14 Asymmetric Canopy 0 Yes Dead 10 Asymmetric Canopy 8 Yes Trunk Failure 8 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 14 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 12 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline 8 Yes Lean 6 Yes Lean 18 18 16 Yes Branch And Trunk Decline @ Registered Consulting Arborist 001365 THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 35th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by l!illfEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NE 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 December 27, 2013 001366 TraF/'@x December 27, 2013 Mr. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC. 9675 SE 361" St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Lagers: NORTHWEST TRAF"F7C EXPERTS 11410NE !24th St. #590 Kirkland WA98034 Phone: 425.522.4116 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 31 lot Enclave at Bridle Ridge plat located on two parcels at 14038 1561h Ave. SE in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRI PT/ON Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The two site access streets connect to156 1h Ave SE. The site access streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Curb, gutter and sidewalk will also be installed on the site frontage on 1561h Ave. SE as shown on the site plan. Development of The Enclave at Bridle Ridge is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. One existing single family residence within the project site will be removed with this development. Page 1 001367 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Traff@% TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 31 single-family units in the proposed Enclave at Bridle Ridge are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting 148 149 Average Weekday 9.57 297 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 6 17 23 25% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 20 11 31 63% 37% A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation. for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: 156th Ave. SE SE 142nd Pl. Page2 Minor Arterial Residential Access 001368 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH&Jx 1561h Ave. SE has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a shoulder approximately six feet wide in the vicinity of the project site. 156th Ave SE is straight and flat at the access streets with excellent sight distance in both directions. SE 142"d Pl. has a speed limit of 25 mph and consists of two 12 ft. lanes and a paved shoulder. The 1561h Ave. SE/SE 142"d Pl. is an all-way stop controlled intersection with stop signs on all three approaches. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks on 156th Ave SE or SE 142nd Pl. in the project vicinity. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the two proposed site access streets to 155th Ave. SE and the 1561h Ave SE/SE 142"d St. intersections. Per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development intersections and road segments that experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes require analysis. No intersections meet these requirements. However, a level of service calculation was performed for these three intersections due to their proximity to the site. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on 1561h Ave SE/SE 142ndPI. intersection and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and Bare high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and Fare low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page3 001369 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraH&Jx TYPE OF A B C D E INTERSECTION < >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and -Signalized 10. ~20.0 ~35.0 ~55.0 ~80.0 0 Stop Sign Control ~10 >10 and ~15 >15 and ~25 >25 and ~35 >35 and ~50 .0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%) from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS of for future 2015 conditions except for the southbound approach to the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142"d Pl. intersection that currently operates at LOS F and continues to operate at LOS F for future conditions with or without project generated traffic. The project adds 9 trips to the 1,375 total trips passing through the intersection that is 0.65 % of the total trips. Since this is well below the 5% City of Renton volume increase threshold, and the LOS remains unchanged, the proposed project does not significantly impact the operation of the intersection. The Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys in the City of Renton Street Standards, requires a site access street to be located a minimum of 125 ft. from an intersection on a minor arterial. The south site access street is located Page4 001370 F >80. 0 >50 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TraHIKl:{ approximately 250 ft north of the 156th Ave. SE/SE 142"d Pl. intersection and therefore meets the standard. TRAFFIC MIT/GA TION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family residence on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 30 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 287 trips (30 units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $21,525 (287 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA T/ONS We recommend that The Enclave at Bridle Ridge be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for the site access streets and site frontage on 1561h Ave. SE. • Contribute the approximately $21,525 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 5 Lanry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx 001371 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT North Site Access / 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 12.6) South Site Access I 156th Ave. SE. NA NA WB (B 11.2) 1561h Ave SE/ EB (D 25.6) EB (D 29.8) EB (D 30.7) SE 142nd Pl. NB (B 12.4) NB (B 12.9) NB (B 13.0) SB (F 98.8) SB (F 133.2) SB (F 137.1) • Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay WB westbound approach EB eastbound approach NB northbound approach SB southbound approach Page 6 001372 '-' "' l,' a. > ii. "' m C!:iil!Ex TRAFFIC EXPERTS .. ,.u . ., 4.111,,I I I J f (11) "' ' ~t. Lna t-'1 "' • ... -SE 2nd Pl ... SE 136th St:': SE 136th ui' ~ " C. . . 5') · · o,=,.,sE 137th SI· t ' SE 137th Sf · SE142nd st· .. "' "' :, . •l'I t.'J_l"\U .4-' . SE 144N1 Pl SE 3rd Pl . SE 139th Pl Project Site SE 143rd St The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton Vicinity Map '! . SE 41hSI SE 5th St . SE 141stPI ~ :,- ~. n . "' "' SE 142nd St ~ SE 144th St ~ :,- :!! "' m ~ .. u, m I! '. . ! ! SE 1j ;. SE145~ Y!. ! ~ .. W, Figure 1 001373 C!i!lfEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS +,-------------·---------~156= TH AVE SE J·-· --l---+ . --~-----' -• J ' . •', .~ -,--, -.' r ------l / ;_ : : ~to i I ' ~ l / ,i--·:,,· ·=--~11<::c:::...--1 ! : ' ( ' I 1 1 i-) ! ~CQ : ' ' 1 _____ I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' -- r· ' I ' ' I ;..... I ~O) : I I L---~--1 I ---, ' ' ' • ' I •-I ' ·"' ' ' l i f -------------------- I rtfr l I I I ~ I b ' ~ I ' I)) I r-------~ ' ' ' ' I - ' ' i~ ' ' ~~ ' I ' . - ' -' ' ' it! I ' I I : ' I ' ' J ;--~~---! , Ol ' i-' i : 1 J., I I ---' ic. ' I I ~<) ' ' ' -.. ' ' • ' •t! ' ' ~ ' ; d i~J Ill I ' ' ' ' ' ' ·- ' I ' -··, I t-~;-='"c""=-:::--;-· -+-·~· -~iu=.:___---t L : r -~ ... I I s-i ' : I I I ' - ' j. ' ' I ' ' I ' I ' : : i~ I ! : ~ ' I ~ ---' I . ' ----, --1 r - ' ' I I ' I ' I 1" ' ' •!~ I ' ·-I Frff'_ - ' I I ! I I I I l ll'---=-..------1. - I i !:--! / I 1'I l ,-:/ .. f--. :.:\c:_:;:_,,_ ... __ o::_:.:::c:::.:~c___JI'-- . C' •-,), ' I I : ----;~----.;i--7=::,:~~":='--!-l ! / : ----~ ; :., -~ '~ i 1 ~( !~ j ! ______ ., ·/ : ~ I I ., J ~ -I ' ' ' ' ' ' I -' ' ' : I ' i:;: ' ' ' ' ' I ~ ' ' '· I ~ I ________ : ; , , : ~~ : i~!lll:. : i' I . .------:: ,_,-·-----§ L • 1-1 ~ C-------' L _______ , ' ) ) i / :<.> i -~~ ~+---. ----_ _L ~-------. ----_ __2_a ~~::.-:) 'c- l \ ,-11 I 'I \I I ' I " ~ (/I -...,,..:~ ~::,.~ ,--~-------~----,--~" ___ ,--~~---, ___ --___ '. ~~-~--~ ("'·<::-\ -' ' ·, -• f I -I I ! I , -, I I l I I ! l ., I ·: I 1 .... \ ~ i-\ I i~ ~.: f i~ ·: ~ i \ l i~ 11 1 '~ : \ , J :~ I 1 !f~ : ~ ~C) l !:; : !:; : 1 t...... I !:: ; !: : I I . \ : : ; : : \ : ! \ 1 1 1 : '\ : _ _, -- !~ ' ' ' -' L----~-------' •--------' '--------J ~-----·---' •--------'-,-------,.--' _____ J L _______ ., l-------' -· I The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton Site Plan i N Figure 2 001374 f ',: '' '' ' • I ' :~. :.---:· : SE142n<1St· PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 20 Exit 11 Total 31 .. ~-.V.. ·t -... . o T"' r . . ---~----· .. -,__ ! :,x, i "' ~. "' ,'. SE 139th Pf 0 ·~ Project ....... -------___ : '-Site--. -....... Q) ,I:!, M: :.t C I . gL~ ' i r;!]\• @ 'l).,,... 'l. ,., " , ' ! . I '\~'l-nO t>' -s~ , b..;r N Access/ 156111 ave S Access/ 156th Ave 156thAve/ SE142 Pl SE 143rd St The Enclave at Bridle Ridge -City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution TL:i!!fEx TRAFFIC £XPeRTS '' -··-·-·· ·--·--·---~ - SEl~lstPi - '' Legend 15 % Percentage of ProjectT raffle -3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 3 001375 ~ "' "' a " .. ,ffl SE 139th Pl l:!i!!fEx TRAFFIC £XPE:RTS .. .. ' ---~-----"'--. ~ ----·-------, ,. ' Existing M ~ C, I '-Q CDC t (' ,-0 M C, <O SE 1.42nd St N Ao:;rass/ 156th ave S Aca,ss/ 156th Ave 156thAve/ SE142 Pl Future without Project ,_ <O ,_ C, I '-CD -o r I r 0 N Access/ 156th ave ,_ ~o 0'-,0 t r r 0 M o ,_ S Access/ 156th Ave 156thAve/ SE142 Pl SE 143rd St Project Traffic N Access/ 156th ave N ,- 1 I. 4 0' t /'" 1 MM S Access/ 156th Ave "' -4 ... / I o~~ C, "' 156thAve/ SE142 Pl The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • City of Renton PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes -. SEHlst Pr ·.sE142ndSt,, a':::SE 1-t_._ g. ~?dPI "' < "' ~ Future with Project N Ao:;rass/ 156th ave S Access/ 156th Ave 156th Ave/ -,cc 14 2 Pl Figure 4 001376 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 001377 ' I Prepllfed for. Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Riooe: (253) 926-6009 FAX: (2S3)922-7211 E-Mail: Tftl"1@TC2inc.c:om WBEIDBE klt•NCtlon: 156th Ave SE & SE 142od Pl Dall ol Count Tua 12'J7rl013 l.oc•lon: Rcuton, Wuhirigroc Ch.dwdBy: ,_ Time Frcm North on lll") From Sollll on (NB) nom E•t on r,NDJ Fram W•ton (a,J ht.val loterval 156thAve SE 156th Ave SE 0 SE 1421ldPl Total EDdio11:•l T L s R T L s R r L s R T L s R 4:lSP ' 0 16 126 0 32 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 28 283 4:30 P 6 0 I) '" I 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 27 308 4:45 P 2 0 " '" 0 " " 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 " 34' 5:00P 0 0 " 179 2 22 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 20 328 5:L:S P I 0 19 148 I " 17 0 0 0 0 0 ' 70 0 24 306 .5:30 p I 0 20 "' 0 19 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 28 297 5:45 P 0 0 " Ill 0 1, 19 0 0 0 ' 0 0 " 0 " 3)9 6:00P 0 0 24 144 2 " 14 0 0 0 0 0 I 74 0 17 291 6:15 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tota.I S=~ 12 0 1'7 1224 6 179 117 0 0 0 0 0 I "' 0 202 2497 Peak Hour: 4:!5 PM "' 5:15 PM r,>1 9 0 68 I 655 , I " I 63 0 o I 0 I 0 I 0 0 309 0 1100 1287 Annroacb 7ll Ill 0 409 1287 %HY ,,. 2:.6,r, "" "" 1.0% PHF 0.93 156th Ave SE :n ' J - Gu :._':'._; I< O ,Bike SE 142ndPI 6~S I " r--o·-iPed ~ Ped/ oj Bikel O I I w6I ~ '"' I r;;;;-4:L5 PM "' 5:15PM "~ N s E w Pol~ 0 ! " ~ l.O PHf PcakHOllT Volwnc Acrau, " ..,. 0, ... I 0 Bikc: __ 9 __ .! PHF %HY ' lNT 02 0 EB w, -- !NT 03 --! 0 Liiu ~ Ch~k WB w, '""" 0 ln: !287 NB 2.6% -- """ __ , 0 I )2) I Out: 1287 SB 1.2% '""' NOPEDS 0 156th Ave SE Tl111. 0.93 1.0% !NT 07 -, I 0 !lc,.clN Ftam! • I • I ' I w lss Queues I -, ... '"'" -' I 0 "'" -: 0 ,., '"'" ' 0 INT 02 -'. 0 il• INT 10 -I 0 INT OJ 0 il• --: "'" -i ' 0 '"'"' ' 0 ,,. 1NT12 ' 0 INTC5 --I 0 8-10 "' "' "' 0 INTD6 i---,os~ ' 0 8-ID s-ial Nole6 INT 07 ' 0 8-10 ·--Rolling queue headed SB ~ at most dicrt" "'"" 0 ,., were 5-& ,,.chicles actuaUy stopped. "'°' -I 0 l 5+ signifies rolling queue as f111 .u l could sec. INT 1C _: 0 "'" 0 -INT 12 0 ol 01 ol 00 0 0 0 0 TRA13184M 01D 001378 Existing PM Peak 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline .,} t V Stop 309 100 0.93 0.93 332 108 440 167 332 99 108 0 0.03 0.12 6.2 6.6 0.75 0.30 572 526 25.6 12.4 25.6 12.4 D B "' 92 0.93 99 777 0 704 -0.51 5.2 1.12 679 94.8 94.8 F 62.9 F 85.7% 15 t i <f f.. Stop Stop 63 68 655 0.93 0.93 0.93 68 73 704 ICU Level of Service E 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 001379 Future Without Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veMl) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline .,> ~ ¥ Stop 328 106 0.93 0.93 353 114 467 177 353 105 114 0 0.03 0.12 6.2 6.7 0.80 0.33 571 518 29.8 12.9 29.8 12.9 D 8 '\ 96 0.93 105 825 0 747 -0.51 5.3 1.22 665 133.2 133.2 F 85.8 F 90.3% 15 t + 4' t. Stop Stop 67 72 695 0.93 0.93 0.93 72 77 747 ICU Level of Service E 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 001380 Future With Project 3: SE 142nd Pl & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Sign Control Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Volume Total (vph) Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Delay HCM Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline .,> l ' V Stop 332 106 98 0.93 0.93 0.93 357 114 105 471 180 828 357 105 0 114 0 749 0.03 0.12 -0.51 6.2 6.7 5.4 0.81 0.33 1.23 571 516 662 30.7 13.0 137.1 30.7 13.0 137.1 0 B F 88.1 F 90.8% 15 t ! .f f. Stop Stop 69 73 697 0.93 0.93 0.93 74 78 749 ICU Level of Service E 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page 1 001381 Future With Project 5: North Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Conf1gurat'1ons Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (vehlh) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline (' V 2 Stop 0% 0.93 2 1039 1039 6.4 3.5 99 256 6 2 4 481 0.01 1 12.6 B 12.6 B ' 4 0.93 4 192 192 6.2 3.3 99 855 194 0 3 1700 0.11 0 0.0 0.0 t f. 177 Free 0% 0.93 190 None 840 8 0 1392 O.o1 0 0.1 A 0.1 0.2 56.3% 15 I" \. + 4' 3 7 774 Free 0% 0.93 0.93 0.93 3 8 832 None 194 194 4.1 2.2 99 1392 ICU Level of Service B 12/2612013 Synchro 7 -Report Page2 001382 Future With Project 7: South Site Access & 156th Ave SE Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) IC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) pO queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) Baseline • ¥ 1 Stop 0% 0.93 1 1033 1033 6.4 3.5 100 258 5 1 4 585 0.01 1 11.2 B 11.2 B \. 4 0.93 4 191 191 6.2 3.3 99 856 192 0 3 1700 0.11 0 0.0 0.0 t f+ 176 Free 0% 0.93 189 None 834 8 0 1393 0.01 0 0.1 A 0.1 0.2 56.1% 15 ~ \, ! 4 3 7 769 Free 0% 093 0.93 0.93 3 8 827 None 192 192 4.1 2.2 99 1393 ICU Level of Service B 12/26/2013 Synchro 7 -Report Page3 001383 , 1805 -136TH PLACE N.E., SUITE 201 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 PHONE (425) 284-3300 OR (425) 449-4704 · FAX (425) 449-4711 001384 PREPARED FOR AMERICAN CLASSIC HOMES February 5, 2014 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 RECEIVED F[B 2 7 2014 c;rv, OF RENTON L.4.,vi\/,flJ(-"' o,·, ·w,n ,, 1',..)..._._i\/ Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -1361 h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 001385 Important Information About Your ~·-Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems a1e a prmc1pal cause of constructwn delays, cost overruns. claims. and disputes The followmg mformal10n 1s provided to help you manage your {!Sks Geotechnical Services Are Performed ror Specffic Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client No one except you should rely an your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it And no one -not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structwre on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking Jots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always infomn your geotechnical engineer of project changes-even minor ones-,md request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not 111/ormed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was pertormed. Do not rely on a geotechnica/ engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time: by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to detemnine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Anrlings Are Prolesslonal Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurtace conditions only at those points where subsurtace tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the stte. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly-- from tllose indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated condmons. A Report's Reconnnendations Are Not Filal Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurtace conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interprelation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurtace conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient lime to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes. geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bi!ilies begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques. and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to pertorm a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet oblained your own geoen- vi ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared tor someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surtaces To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and execuled with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surtaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, th€ geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper Implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of Itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Englneer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE ru 1111 •••• •• •• urn 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106. Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone 301/565-2733 Facsimile 301/589-2017 e-mail: inlo@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in pan, by any me.ans whatsoever. is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permissioo of ASFE, and only tor purposes of scholarly resea.rch or boo/< review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to (J{ as an element of a geatechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses t!lis document wfthout being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M 001387 February 5, 2014 ES-3220 American Classic Homes 9675 -36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Attention: Mr. Justin Lagers Dear Mr. Lagers: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Ceotechnica! Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, The Enclave at Bridle Ridge, Residential Development, 14038 -156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington". In general, the site is underlain by a weathered soil zone grading to very dense sandy glacial till deposits. In our opinion, the proposed residential buildings can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils, re-compacted native soils, or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades at most locations. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with a suitable structural fill material will be necessary. Groundwater seepage was observed at three of the test pit locations. The groundwater seepage can be characterized as a perched condition and was observed at an average of approximately three feet in depth. Seepage should be expected during grading activities, particularly during winter, spring and early summer months. Recommendations for foundation design, site preparation, drainage, and other pertinent recommendations are provided in this study. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC nJ~i~~1~ eologist 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-47001388 Table of Contents ES-3220 INTRODUCTION _ ........ _. _ ......... _ ......... __ ......... _ ................... __ .. General ............................. _ ....................................... . Project Description ...................................................... . SITE CONDITIONS ............................................. __ ................. .. Su~~-·-·······································--····················-····· Subsurface .................................. __ ........ _ ........... _ ......... . Fill .................................................................... . Topsoil .............................................................. . Native Soil ................. _ ...................................... .. Geologic Setting ............... _ ........... _ ..................... . Groundwater ............................................................... .. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ . General ....................................................................... . Site Preparation and General Earthwork .......... _ ............... . Wet Season Grading ............. __ ............................. . In-situ Soils ................... _ ............... _ ......... __ ............... ___ .. . Imported Soils ............ _ ............ __ ........... __ ...................... . Structural Fill ............................................................... . Foundations ............................................................... . Seismic Design Considerations._ ................................... . Slab-On-Grade Floors ................... __ .............................. . Retaining Walls ........................................................... . Drainage .................................................................................. . Excavations and Slopes ......................................................... . Utility Trench Backfill ................. ___ ..................... _ .......... . Pavement Sections ..................................................... .. LIMITATIONS ..................................... _ ....................... _ ......... . Additional Services ..................................................... .. Earth Solutions NW, LLC PAGE 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 001389 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Table of Contents Cont'd ES-3220 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Footing Drain Detail Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Laboratory Testing Results Earth Solutions NVV. LLC 001390 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 14038 -156th AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-3220 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed residential development to be constructed south of the intersection between 156th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 5th Place in Renton, Washington. The site is located on the east side of 156th Avenue Southeast; and is comprised of a large residential parcel currently developed with single-family residential structure and outbuildings. A large portion of the site is occupied by now un-used pastures; and livestock paddocks. The purpose of this study was to explore subsurface conditions across the site and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Excavation, logging and sampling of six test pits on the site; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the test pits; • Engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents/maps were reviewed as part of our report preparation: • Proposed Site Plan for 156th Avenue Assemblage, Sheet SP1, dated January 7, 2014, provided by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers; • Geologic Map of Washington, Northwest Quadrant, Dragovich, Logan, et al, 2002, and; • Washington State USDA Soil Conservation Survey (SCS). Project Description We understand the site will be developed with 31 residential lots, access roads, a drainage tract located within the southern portion of the site, and associated improvements. The remainder of the site will be developed with general landscaping and paved driveways. Given the topographic change across the site, grading activities will likely involve cuts and fills on the order of ten feet or less to establish the final design grades. 001391 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 ES-3220 Page 2 Building construction is anticipated to consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing and slab- on-grade floors. Perimeter foundation loading is expected to range from approximately one to two kips per foot. Slab-on-grade loading is expected to be on the order of 150 psf. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to confirm that the geotechnical recommendations included in this report have been incorporated into the project plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is located on the east side of 156th Avenue Southeast south of the intersection with Southeast 5th Place in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the property is illustrated on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map) included in this study. The site is irregular in shape and consists of a single residential parcel. The site is currently developed with single-family residence and out buildings. The majority, however, of each parcel is occupied by green space. The existing site topography descends from the north towards the south; with elevation change on the order of 20 feet. Vegetation on the subject site consisted primarily of field grass, cedar and fir trees, and blackberries during our fieldwork (January 2014). Subsurface ESNW representatives observed, logged and sampled six test pits excavated with a trackhoe and operator provided by the client across the accessible portions of the site. The approximate locations of the test pits are depicted on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Fill Fill was not encountered at any of the test pit locations. There is the potential for limited amounts of fill surrounding the existing residential structure; and along road alignments and existing utility trenches. If fill is encountered it may be suitable for support of foundations; however a representative of ESNW should be retained during the construction phases of the site development to evaluate the suitability of any on-site soils for use as structural fill or bearing of foundations. Topsoil Topsoil was encountered at all test pit locations ranging in thickness of six to ten inches below existing grade. Topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill nor should it be mixed with material to be used as structural fill. Topsoil or otherwise unsuitable material can be used in landscaping areas if desired. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 001392 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 Native Soil ES-3220 Page 3 Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense weathered glacial deposits transitioning to very dense unweathered glacial till were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of eight feet below existing grades. The glacial till soil consisted of silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification, SM); and soil relative density generally increased in depth, from loose in the weathered zone to very dense within the unweathered glacial till. The weathered glacial till was generally observed extending to an average depth of three feet; where it transitioned to an unweathered dense condition. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource identifies glacial till (Qgt) deposits across the site and surrounding areas. The referenced SGS soil survey identifies Alderwood series soils across the entirety of the site. Alderwood soils formed in glacial till and typically present a slight to moderate erosion hazard and slow to medium runoff; and are comprised of gravelly ashy sandy loam transitioning to very gravelly sandy loam at depth. ESNW did not observe the presence of volcanic ash in any of the test locations; but the presence of gravelly loam and sandy loam was observed at all of the test pit locations. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with glacial till deposits. Groundwater Perched groundwater was observed at several of the test pits during the fieldwork (January 2014). The groundwater was observed at an average depth of three feet. Based on our experience, groundwater seepage on till sites will typically be perched at variable depths within the substrata of glacial till soil near the contact between weathered and unweathered material; therefore, seepage should be expected in all grading activities at this site, particularly during the winter, spring and early summer months. Our fieldwork occurred during an atypically dry winter period; as such we anticipate groundwater volumes to normally exhibit higher volumes than what was observed during the fieldwork The seepage was present at the base of the weathered native soil and where soil conditions became dense. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. Earth Solutions NvV; LLC 001393 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 General DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ES-3220 Page4 In our opinion, construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed residential buildings can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils, re-compacted native soils, or structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on dense native soil or structural fill. Competent soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with a suitable structural fill material will be necessary. Recommendations for foundation design, site preparation, drainage, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this study. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of American Classic Homes and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Site preparation activities will involve removal of existing structures, site clearing and stripping, and implementation of temporary erosion control measures. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with site preparation activities include building pad subgrade preparation, stormwater pond construction, underground utility installations, and preparation of pavement subgrade areas. Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least 12 inches of quarry spalls can be considered in order to minimize off-site soil tracking and to provide a stable access entrance surface. Erosion control measures should consist of silt fencing placed along the down gradient side of the site. Soil stockpiles should be covered or otherwise protected to reduce soil erosion. Temporary sedimentation ponds or other approaches for controlling surface water runoff should be in place prior to beginning earthwork activities. Topsoil and organic-rich soil was encountered generally within the upper six to ten inches at the test pit locations. Topsoil and organic-rich soil is not suitable for foundation support, nor is it suitable for use as structural fill. Topsoil or organic-rich soil can be used in non-structural areas if desired. Over-stripping of the site, however, should be avoided. A representative of ESNW should observe the initial stripping operations, to provide recommendations for stripping depths based on the soil conditions exposed during stripping. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 001394 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 ES-3220 Page 5 Subgrade conditions expected to be exposed throughout the proposed building and pavement areas will likely be comprised of silty sand deposits. After the completion of site stripping and rough grading activities ESNW recommends a proofroll utilizing a fully loaded solo dump truck in order to determine the suitability of the exposed native soils for support of foundations and roadways. ESNW should be retained during this phase of earthwork to observe the proofrol/ and other earthwork activities. The soils exposed throughout subgrade areas should be compacted to structural fill specifications prior to constructing the foundation, slab, and pavement elements. The subgrade throughout pavement areas should be compacted as necessary and exhibit a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to the proofrol/ing with a loaded solo dump truck. Structural fill soils placed throughout foundation, slab, and pavement areas should be placed over a firm base. Loose or otherwise unsuitable areas of native soil exposed at subgrade elevations should be compacted to structural fill requirements or overexcavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill material. Where structural fill soils are used to construct foundation subgrade areas, the soil should be compacted to the requirements of structural fill described in the following section. Foundation subgrade areas should be protected from disturbance, construction traffic, and excessive moisture. Where instability develops below structural fill areas, use of a woven geotextile below the structural fill areas may be required. A representative of ESNW should observe structural fill placement in foundation, slab, and pavement areas. Wet Season Grading Perched groundwater was present at a number of the test pits near the contact between the weathered soil and underlying unweathered glacial till soil. This condition coupled with the moderate to high moisture sensitivity of the soil will make grading during periods of rain moderately difficult. Mass grading should take place during the late summer months when conditions are more favorable. If grading takes place during the wetter winter or spring months, a contingency in the project budget should be included to allow for export of native soil and import of structural fill as described below. In-situ Soils The soils encountered throughout the majority of the test sites have a moderate sensitivity to moisture and were generally in a moist to wet condition at the time of the exploration (January 2014). In this respect, the in-situ soils may not be suitable for use as structural fill if the soil moisture content is more than 2 to 3 percent above the optimum level at the time of construction. In general, soils encountered during the site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction. Conversely, soils that are below the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning through the addition of water prior to use as structural fill. If the in-situ soils are determined to not be suitable for use as structural fill, then use of a suitable imported soil may be necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 001395 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 Imported Soils ES-3220 Page 6 Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557). Soil placed in utility trenches, pavement areas and in the upper 12 inches of slab-on-grade areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Additionally, more stringent compaction specifications may be required for utility trench backfill zones, depending on the responsible utility district or jurisdiction. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soils, re-compacted native soils, or structural fill. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, competent native soils suitable for support of foundations should be encountered at depths of between two to four feet below existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill, may be necessary. Provided foundations will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of new foundations: • Allowable soil bearing capacity • Passive earth pressure • Coefficient of friction 2,500 psf 300 pcf ( equivalent fluid) 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor-of-safety of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and differential settlement of about one-half inch is anticipated. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 001396 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 Seismic Design Considerations ES-3220 Page 7 The 2012 IBC recognizes the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for seismic site class definitions. In accordance with Table 20.1-1 of the ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual, Site Class C should be used for design. The referenced liquefaction susceptibility map indicates the site and surrounding areas maintain very low liquefaction susceptibility. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated or loose soils suddenly lose internal strength in response to increased pore water pressures resulting from an earthquake or other intense ground shaking. In our opinion, site susceptibility to liquefaction can be characterized as low. The relative density of the native soils, as well as the absence of a uniformly established groundwater table, were the primary bases for this characterization. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors for residential buildings constructed at this site should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade. Where feasible, the existing native soils exposed at the slab-on- grade subgrade level can be compacted in place to the specifications of structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If a vapor barrier is to be utilized it should be a material specifically designed for use as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Retaining Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters can be used for retaining wall design: • Active earth pressure (yielding condition) 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) • At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 55 pcf • Traffic surcharge for passenger vehicles 70 psf (rectangular distribution) (where applicable) • Passive resistance 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) • Coefficient of friction 0.40 • Seismic surcharge (active condition) 6H* • Seismic surcharge (restrained condition) 14H* * where H equals retained height Earth Solutions NW, LLC 001397 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 ES-3220 Page 8 Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other loads should be included in the retaining wall design. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3. Drainage Perched groundwater was observed during the fieldwork (January 2014). As such, groundwater should be anticipated in site excavations. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps. ESNW should be consulted during preliminary grading to identify areas of seepage and to provide recommendations to reduce the potential for instability related to seepage effects. Final surface grades should slope away from structures at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of ten feet. In our opinion, foundation drains should be installed along building perimeter footings. A typical foundation drain detail is provided as Plate 4. Excavations and Slopes The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, the weathered native soils encountered in the upper approximately three to four feet of the test pit locations, and where groundwater seepage is exposed, are classified as Type C by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils must be sloped no steeper than 1.5H: 1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Dense to very dense native soils encountered below about three to four feet where no groundwater seepage is exposed would be classified as Type A by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils must be sloped no steeper than 0.75H:1V. The presence of perched groundwater may cause caving of the temporary slopes due to hydrostatic pressure. ESNW should observe site excavations to confirm the soil type and allowable slope inclination. If the recommended temporary slope inclination cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. A representative of ESNW should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations, and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations, as necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 001398 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 Utility Support and Trench Backfill ES-3220 Page 9 In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations should generally be suitable for support of utilities. Organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. The native soils are moisture sensitive and will therefore be difficult to use as structural trench backfill if the moisture content of the soil is high. Moisture conditioning of the soils will likely be necessary prior to use as structural backfill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable City of Renton specifications. Seepage should be anticipated within utility trench excavations. Caving of the trench sidewalls due to hydrostatic pressure should be anticipated by the contractor. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted as recommended in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas of unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions will require remedial measures such as overexcavation, cement treatment, placement of a geotextile and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. For lightly loaded pavement areas subjected primarily to passenger vehicles, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: • Two inches of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Two inches of HMA placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). For relatively high volume, heavily loaded pavements subjected to moderate to high, loaded truck traffic, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: • Three inches of hot-mix asphalt (HMA) placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Three inches of HMA placed over four and one half inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The HMA, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All soil base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Final pavement design recommendations can be provided once final traffic loading has been determined. Earth Solutions ~. LLC 001399 American Classic Homes February 5, 2014 ES-3220 Page 10 Given the presence of shallow perched groundwater, in our opinion, additional drainage measures should be considered for pavement subgrade areas. Such drainage measures could include the installation of drainlines along the sides of crowned roadways and along the centerline for roadways with inverted crowns. If areas of seepage are exposed in roadway excavations, drains should be installed in these areas to allow removal of the water. Specific recommendations and details for roadway drainage can be provided upon request. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW. LLC 001400 ,,_ \;.""' ~~ ::c I\ ·,';Jri, !; c'. "-" ~ ·~ § PL l28TH~ •. ..f' ~ Ct: Q: SE ST § Reference: King County, Washington Map657 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition :;, MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS PARK RENTON NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the infonnation resulting from btack & white reproductions of this plate. SE " MAPLE VALLEY SE , 3E )[ JtHK " ~ 'ti-'-,l. > I' s MCGARVEY PARK OPEN SPACE Drwn. GLS Vicinity Map The Enclave at Bridal Ridge Renton, Washington Date 02/03/2014 Proj. No. Checked SHA Date Feb. 2014 Plate • 3220 1 001401 I TP-2 -•-I u..J <J.i TP-3 I w.J I :J I ~ ~ ~ '° !D I TP-1 -•-I TP-61 -•-I LEGEND TP-1-f-Approximate Location of ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-3220,Jan.2014 1 Subject Site ---_, Proposed Lot Number -•-I NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only lo illuslrale the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of ' existing and I or proposed s~e features. The information illustrated ' is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any StJbsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. ·-·---------· ------------. I -•-I TP-4 ITP-5 -•-I 0 240 1" = 120' r-----------...;;Sc;;,ale in Feet Drwn. GLS Test Pit Location Plan The Enclave at Bridal Ridge Renton, Washington Date 02/03/2014 Proj. No. 3220 Checked SHA Date Feb. 2014 Plate 2 001402 .. NOTES: • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: ooo 0 o '::> 0 0 Free Draining Structural Backfill 0 1 inch Drain Rock 18" Min. 1 Structural Fill SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOTTO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Earth Solutions NWuc RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL The Enclave at Bridal Ridge Renton, Washington ·-, Drwn. GLS Checked SHA Date 02/03/2014 Proj. No. 3:~ I Date Feb. 2014 Plate ~ 0014 Slope ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -... . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ :> 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround w~h 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material . 1" Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL The Enclave at Bridal Ridge Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 02/03/2014 Proj No. 3220 Checked SHA Date Feb. 2014 Plate 4 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-3220 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating a total of six test pits excavated with a track-hoe across accessible portions of the property. The subsurface explorations were completed in January of 2014. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Logs of the test pits are provided in this Appendix. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of eight feet below existing grades. Earth Solutions NW, LLC 001405 Earth Solutions NWLLc SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS LETIER TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMAUERTHAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTlE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS (LITTI..E OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH MORE THAN SO% FINES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SILTS ANO CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS AMO\INT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN SO UQUIOLIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL. SAND MIXTURES, LIITLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- CLA Y MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANOS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORL Y-GRAOED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANO, LITTLE OR NO ANES SIL TY SANDS, SAND • SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANOS, SANO -CLA. Y "'1XTVRES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANOS, ROCK FLOUR, SIL 1Y OR CLAYEY FINE SANOS OR CLAYEY SIL TS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PI.ASTICITY, GRAVELLY ClA YS. SANDY ClA YS, SIL TY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS ANO ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SIL TS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANO OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY. ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. 001406 • Earth Solutions r,f,N TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes -~·-~ PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge ---~-- PROJECT NUMBER 3220 . PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington .• DA TE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUNO WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8": field grass AFTER EXCAVATION - w Q. ,2 I ~ ffi 0 IC!) Ii: .,-wCD TESTS u a.o MA TERI AL DESCRIPTION w-_J::; <ri ~_J Cl ll. ::, :j ::; z C!) < rn 0 iTPSL -0.5 TOPSOIL C Brown silty SANO with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) . I-. I -seepage, moderate to heavy -becomes unweathered and very dense ' MC= 16.00% SM _..L l C i C C . 8.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.0 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. -- """" I..,"" I • Earth Solutions NW ~ 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425--4-49-4704 Fax: 425--4-49-4711 CLIENT American Classic_ Homes PROJECT NAME The Endave at ~ridal Ridge --------- PROJECT NUMBER 3220 -PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Wash!!lmQn_ --~= DATE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEV A TION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT ENO OF EXCAVATION NOTES DeQth ofT OQSOil & Sod 6" AFTER EXCAVATION w n. 0 >-a'. u.i :z: >-w :l:e1 ~ii? w"' TESTS <..i 11. 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-_J::, u.i ~_J Cl n. ::, :i ::, z Cl ;Ji 0 TPS L0-_·c_ 0.5 TOPSOIL C Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (Weathered TilQ -becomes very dense and unweathered -- SM -- .___L ' MC= 11.90% . 7.0 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. ----I..,.,..,. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 1805 -136th Place N.E., Sutte 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes __ PROJECT NAME The Enclave at BridaJ.Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE ST AR TED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES De~th ofT o~soil & Sod 1 O": field grass AFTER EXCAVATION w 0.. u I ~ ffi <Ii :i: (!) Ii: S' wCD 0 o..o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-_,:; (/J ~_, 0 0.. ::, ::; ::i:z (!) <( (/J 0 trPS L ,, ,, ~ 0.5 TOPSOIL Brown silty SANO with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) L - l I -light seepage SM -becomes very dense and unweathered _2_ I I , --' L -7.0 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 3.0 feet during excavation. Bottom oftest pttat 7.0feet --.... ---..... - le I "' i w Cl • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1805 -136th Place N.E., Su~e 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Brid?tl 13,Ldae PROJECT NUMBER 3220 __ PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington ___ ,. -. DATE STARTED 1/17114 COMPLETED 1117/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE --- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES De2th of T 02soil & Sod 6" AFTER EXCAVATION - w "-(.) J: >-a: <Ji 1-W 'i: (!) te w"' TESTS t.i a_o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-...I::;; ui ~..I 0 a_::, ::i ::.z (!) <( V) 0 rws ,, ''. ~ 0.5 TOPSOIL Brown silty SANO with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) -- ' -- -becomes very dense and unweathered - SM 5 ~ r - r -MC= 10.50% a -' a.a Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. ------·-·- • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425--449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washing!on DA TE STARTED 1/17/14 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION - NOTES De~th ofTo~soil & Sod 8": field grass AFTER EXCAVATION - w Q. u :r:: >-a: en f-W ~8 fug w<D TESTS cj MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _,:::; en ~_, 0 Q.::, :j ~z (!) (/) 0 h°PSL w ~ 0.5 TOPSOIL L . ' Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered TIii) ' SM L - -becomes very dense and unweathered L - L-..L 5.0 -increased sand and gravel content ~ Brown gray silty GRAVEL, very dense, moist 0 0 0 ' GM D b&, 0 0 MC= 11.10% ,~ 7.0 Fines= 16.10% Test pit tenninated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. --"' ... "' ... --....... • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 1805 • 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425--449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridal Ridge PROJECT NUMBER 3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washi~ton DATE STARTED 1/17114 COMPLETED 1/17/14 GROUND ELEVATION "····--TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client Provided GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES De2th of To2soil & Sod 6": blackbem,: bushes AFTER EXCAVATION w C. u :,: ~ ffi CJ) 'i: C, li: 2 w"' TESTS rj c.o MATERIAL OESCRIPTION w-..J:; <n ~..J D C.:::, ~z :::, C, CJ) 0 tfps L~ ::_ 0.5 TOPSOIL ' Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) ' ( -moderate perched seepage -- . . L --becomes very dense and unweathered SM '-~ MC= 8.40% . I I 8.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.5 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. - ---....... ---.. ·- Appendix 8 Grain Size Distribution ES-3220 Earth Solutions NW. LLC 001413 • Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805-136th Place N.E., Surte 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT American Classic Homes PROJECT NAME The Enclave at Bridle _Ridge PROJECT NUMBER ES-3220 PROJECT LOCATION Renton U.S. STEVE OPENtNG IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER • 4 3 2 _!Ii 1 3/.4 112318 3 4 • 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 100 I ' I I I I I I I I 95 \ - 90 ' \ 85 80 \ 75 \ 70 65 f-~ :,:: (!) 60 ~ ) >-55 'l's <D Cl'. w 50 z ~ ii: f-45 z ', w u 40 Cl'. w .\ ll. 35 \ 30 25 \ \ 20 15 ,0 I 5 0 100 ,o , 0.1 o.o, 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY I coarse fine coarse medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc Cu 0 TP-5 7.0ft_ Gray Silty GRAVEL, GM Specimen Identification 0100 060 030 010 %Gravel %Sar:id %Silt %Clay· .0 TP-5 7.0ft_ 37.5 5.501 0_205 42.2 41.7 16.1 001414 EMAIL ONLY Report Distribution ES-3220 American Classic Homes 9675 -36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Attention: Mr. Justin Lagers Earth Solutions NW, LLC 001415 ;;-,· tiit.· ..,,::. • '_ . -'" c· • I'•< ~-~: ~ ·, t!, '' ,' ..=t·,' '' !<:"'' ::1!;''..:, ·.,: rrit~:r . i?i'· :,.-,<" t:;t\• if;.·,. -- ~--:--'. ;._., .. 1 ... ,1~/ tvf{i~b\:·~ ~t AT EARTH SOLUTIONS NW OUR MISSION ls To m HONOR OUR COMMITMENTS m PROVIDE INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT CREATE VALUE m RECOGNIZE THAT OUR POWER AND EFFECTIVENESS LIES WITH OUR PEOPLE m TREAT All FAIRLY AND HONESTLY m DEDICATE OURSELVES TO BRINGING OUT THE BEST IN EVERYONE m MAINTAIN AN ATMOSPHERE OF PROFESSIONAL FRIENDLY CUSTOMER _RELATIONS m CONTINUE TO SEEK OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING AND GROWTH m MAINTAIN A CLEAN, WELL ORGANIZED WORK ENVIRONMENT m IMPLEMENT CONSISTENT, REL,IABLE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES m BE A RESOURCE To THE COMMUNITY 001416 D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156th Avenue SE Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 3611i Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by lfiktBI D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 yth Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date February 19, 2014 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 C/TY OF RENTON ,::ii ANt\,'i,\JG D!\/J"•(·, V,J1\J' 001418 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview .......................................................................................................... 1 Predeveloped Site Conditions ...................................................................................... 1 Developed Site Conditions ........................................................................................... 1 Natural Drainage System Functions ............................................................................. 1 SECTION 11 .................................................................................................................... 10 Conditions and Requirements Summary .................................................................... 10 SECTION lll ................................................................................................................... 12 Off-Site Analysis ......................................................................................................... 12 SECTION IV .................................................................................................................. 13 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design .................................... 13 Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) .............................................................................. 13 Pre-developed Hourly Time Step Modeling Input: .................................................. 14 Pre-developed Hourly Time Step Modeling Output: ................................................ 14 Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) ......................................................................... 16 Developed Site Area Hydrology .............................................................................. 16 Developed Hourly Time Step Modeling Output: ...................................................... 17 BYPASS Hourly Time Step Modeling Input: ........................................................... 18 BYPASS Hourly Time Step Modeling Output: ......................................................... 18 Performance Standards (Part C) ................................................................................ 20 Flow Control System (Part D) ..................................................................................... 20 Flow Control BMP Selection ................................................................................... 20 Flow Control Facility Design Output.. ...................................................................... 21 Water Quality Treatment System (Part E) .................................................................. 27 SECTION V ........................................................................................ .' .......................... 29 Conveyance System Analysis and Design ................................................................. 29 SECTION VI .................................................................................................................. 31 Special Reports and Studies ...................................................................................... 31 SECTION VII ................................................................................................................. 32 Other Permits, Variances and Adjustments ................................................................ 32 ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical lnfonnation Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page i of ii 8'01fil."1'9 SECTION VIII ................................................................................................................ 33 ESC Plan Analysis and Design (Part A) .................................................................... 33 SWPPS Plan Design (Part B) ..................................................................................... 34 SECTION IX .................................................................................................................. 35 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant .......................... 35 Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet .......................................................................... 36 SECTION X ................................................................................................................... 38 Operations and Maintenance Manual ........................................................................ 38 List of Figures Figure 1 TIR Worksheet. .................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics ...................................... 7 Figure 4 Soils ............................. : ..................................................................................... 8 Figure 5 Predevelopment Area Map .............................................................................. 15 Figure 6 Post Development Area Map ........................................................................... 19 Figure 7 Detention & Water Quality Facility Details ....................................................... 28 ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page ti of ii 0011it20 SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project is the subdivision of two existing parcels zoned R4 (8.8 ac. total) into 31 single-family residential lots, per the City of Renton's (City) subdivision process. The Tax Parcel Numbers are 1423059122 and 1423059023. The Project location (Site) fronts on the east side of 1561h Avenue SE (156 1h). The Project will meet the drainage requirements of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual), as adopted by the City. PREDEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS Total existing Site area is approximately 383,129 s.f. (8.795 ac). Total proposed Project area is 390,841 s.f. (8.972 ac), which includes 7,712 s.f. (0.177 ac) for the right-of-way frontage improvements on 1561h Avenue SE. The Parcels are currently developed with one single-family residence, out buildings and a gravel driveway. The remainder of the Site is pasture, scotch broom, and scattered trees. The 8.807 acre parcel is situated on a slope that discharges runoff into one Threshold Discharge Area (TOA). However, the Site appears to have two Natural Discharge Areas (NOA). See the Level One Downstream Analysis for more information. For the purpose of hydrologic calculations, the entire Site is modeled as till forest. DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS The applicant is seeking approval to create 31 lots with lot sizes ranging from approximately 8,050 s.f. to 12,566 s.f. All existing improvements will be demolished or removed during plat construction. The 31 single-family residences combined with their driveways will create approximately 124,000 s.f. (2.847 ac) of impervious area. The proposed 53-foot right of way will be improved with 26 feet of pavement, vertical curb, gutter, 8-foot planter strip and 5-foot sidewalk. The half street frontage improvements on 1561 h will consist of 22 feet of pavement (6' new), vertical curb, gutter, 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk. The improvements from right-of ways will add approximately 63,825 s.f. (1.465 ac) of impervious surface. The Project will result in a total of 4.788 ac of new impervious surfaces. The remainder of the developed Site (4.154 ac) will consist of landscaping and lawns. The Project is required to provide Basic Water Quality treatment and Level 2 Flow Control, per the 2009 KCSWDM (Manual). All surface water runoff from impervious surfaces will be collected and conveyed to a storm detention/water quality pond located in Tract "A". NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM FUNCTIONS The Site topography slopes from the northeast corner of the Site to the southwest. The vegetation consists of pasture, scotch broom, and scattered trees. Site runoff travels southwesterly and sheet flows off the Site to the conveyance system in 1561h. A review of the SGS soils map for the area (see Figure 4, Soils) indicates Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 6 to 15 percent slopes (AgC). Per the Manual, this soil type is classified as "Till" material. The SGS Soil series descriptions follow Figure 4. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 1 City of Renton 001421 In evaluating the upstream area, we reviewed King County iMAP aerial topography and imagery and conducted field reconnaissance to evaluate conditions and potential problems. The upstream area for the Site is approximately 3.35 acres, entering the Site in from the northern and eastern property lines. The upstream area appears to be forested and generating negligible runoff. The potential need for a bypass system will be assessed at final engineering. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical lnfonnation Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page2 001i22 FIGURE 1 TIR WORKSHEET King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner: PNW Holdings LLC Address/Phone: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Project Engineer: Maher A. Joudi, P.E. Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name: The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Location: Township: Range: Section: 23 North 05 East 14 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Address/Phone: 620 7th Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS APPLICATION ~ Subdivision D Short Subdivision [8l Clearing and Grading D Commercial D Other: D DFWHPA LJ Shoreline Management 0 COE404 0 Rockery D DOE Dam Safety O Structural Vault D FEMA Floodplain O Other: D COE Wetlands . Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community: Newcastle Drainage Basin Lower Cedar River The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 3 ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report oib~i~0! Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 0River: El Floodplain Wetland D Stream: D Seeps/Springs D Critical Stream Reach D High Groundwater Table D Depressions/Swales D Groundwater Recharge D Lake: D other: D Steep Slopes Part 7 SOILS Soil Type: Slopes: Erosion Potential: Erosive Velocities: Alderwood 6-15% Slight Slow (AgC) [gjAdditional Sheets Attached: SCS Map and Soil Description, Figure 4 Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT [gJ Level 1 Downstream Analysis None _____________ _ [gJ Geotechnical Engineering Study D Environmentally Sensitive Areas D Level 2 Off-Site Stormwater Analysis [gJ Level I Traffic Impact Analysis D Structural Report D Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION (g]Sedimentation Facilities [8]Stabilized Construction Entrance [8]Perimeter Runoff Control [g]Clearing and Grading Restrictions (g]Cover Practices (g]Construction Sequence D Other ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION (g]Stabilize Exposed Surface (g]Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities [gjClean and Remove All Silt and Debris (g]Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities 0Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas D other The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM D Grass Lined D Tank D Infiltration Method of Analysis: Channel D D Vault Depression KCRTS 0 Pipe System D Energy Dissipater D Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigatio D Open Channel D Wetland D Waiver n of Eliminated Site D Dry Pond D Stream D Regional Storage 0 Wet Pond Detention NIA Brief Description of System Operation: Runoff from impervious surfaces will be collected and conveyed to the detention facility. From there it will be discharged to the conveyance system in 156th Avenue SE. Facility Related Site Limitations: Reference Facility Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Cast in Place Vault 0 Retaining Wall D Rockery> 4' High D Structural on Steep Slope D other: Limitation Part12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS 0 Drainage Easement D Access Easement D Native Growth Protection Easement 0 Tracts D other: Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil en ineer under my supervision have visited the Site. Actual Site conditions as observed ere incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowl1~1qe..~ information provided here is accurate. I ' ©2014 0. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report Signed/Date The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page5 atili~ 111 l1 ~ ,t ~ ~ --- s;:a:1-Q:loP... FIGURE 2 VICINITY MAP L_.._i --:~ ~ I;! ~ ~ Q 5 ~ _SE iut-1_0 sr \.,. st•~nsr '·· llf ~ t -~ § ~ st:1-iuusr l1 t i ' ----. -·---<.z~- ~,,, ,_ ~---..::::/~-;.-. :-_J: The information included on this map has been complied by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the infonnation contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page6 cf8~1A1! FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page? d014~7 @ NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 40 80 1 INCH = 80 FT. 120 DRAFTED 8~ OHH DESJGN£D 8~ ltP PRO.ECT ENGINEER: MAJ DAJE· 02.IJ.14 PRO.ECT NO: 13,i7 I DRA'MNG: '----------------------':::•H::;r.;®;;'~"::;'.:,'·;_;:;o.R::;.~s:,:TR::;o::;:N•::.:;:co;:N:;:s:,:uc;:;TI:;::NG:.;:EN::;c:::1";:";::,•s::,:::":;c . .J OCf.1421 I FIGURE 4 SOILS o~--,;,,~==.,~-----,.,~=====ca!w"""' o,---,,,.,c=~,,-00,.....----,;m=-~~-:,x,"" ~~1:Vk:t!Ho,(!'lt:r Ullreltt:ni~w:;s&J ~l.b;:Ul>l'Ir.11'!1Ql'l'hGSB1 ©2014 0. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers lnc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat AgC-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 180 to 220 days Map Unit Composition Alderwood and similar soils: 95 percent Minor components: 5 percent Description of Alderwood Setting Landform: Moraines, till plains Parent material: Basal till with some volcanic ash Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches lo dense material Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat}: Vel}' low to moderately low (0. 00 to 0. 06 in/hr} Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Ve,ylow (about 2.5 inches} Interpretive groups Land capability (nonirrigated}: 4s Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Gravelly sandy loam 12 to 27 inches: Ve,y gravelly sandy loam 27 to 60 inches: Vel}' gravelly sandy loam Minor Components Norma Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Bellingham Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Seattle Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Tukwila Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions Shalcar Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Depressions ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 9 oio14:fo SECTION II CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The Project must comply with the following Core and Special Requirements: • C.R. #1 -Discharge at the Natural Location: Runoff will discharge at the natural location. • C.R. #2 -Offsite Analysis: Analysis is included in Section Ill. The Analysis describes the Site's runoff patterns in detail. • C.R. #3 -The Project is located in the Level 2 Flow Control area. A detention pond will provide flow control as required. The Project is required to match durations for 50% of the two-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. Also match developed peak discharge rates to predeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2-year and 10-year and 100-year return periods (KCSWDM, Sec. 1.2.) Furthermore, the Project must meet the Flow Control BMP requirements as specified in Section 1.2.3.3 of the Manual. The project may utilize splash blocks for basic dispersion, pervious pavement, or other BMP's found in Appendix C of the Manual for a portion of the impervious area on each lot. • C.R. #4 -Conveyance System: New pipe systems and ditches/channels are required to be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain (at minimum) the 25-year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas. Pipe system structures and ditches/channels may overtop for runoff events that exceed the 25-year design capacity, provided the overflow from a 100-year runoff event does not create or aggravate a "severe flooding problem" or "severe erosion pmblem" as defined in C.R. #2. Any overflow occurring onsite for runoff events up to and including the 100- year event must discharge at the natural location for the project Site. In residential subdivisions, such overflow must be contained within an onsite drainage easement, tract, covenant or public right-of-way. The proposed conveyance system was analyzed_ using the KCB~ program, and is capable of con'{€Yin~ the 100~year~peak___ storm without overtopping any structures or -channel~ This analysis wrll4:re---~ performed at time of construction plan preparation. ____.,,) • C.R. #5 -Erosion and Sediment Control: I he Proiect provides the nine minimum ESC measures. • C.R. #6 -Maintenance and Operations: Maintenance of the proposed storm drainage facilities will be the responsibility of the City. An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be included in Section X at the time of construction plan preparation. • C.R. #7 -Financial Guarantees: Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant must post a drainage facilities restoration and Site stabilization financial guarantee. For any constructed or modified drainage facilities to be maintained and operated by the City, the Applicant must: 1) Post a drainage defect and maintenance financial guarantee for a period of two years, and 2) Maintain the drainage facilities during the ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridre Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 10 6b°1l!l two-year period following posting of the drainage defect and maintenance financial guarantee. • C.R. #8 -The Project is located in the Basic Water Quality Treatment area. The combined detention/wetpond facility will accommodate this requirement. • S.R. #1 -Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements: Not applicable for this Project. • S.R. #2 -Floodplain/Floodway Delineation: Not applicable for this Project. • S.R. #3 -Flood Protection Facilities: Not applicable for this Project. • S. R. #4 -Source Control: Not applicable for this Project. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 11 aa~111~ SECTION Ill OFF-SITE ANALYSIS An offsite Level One Downstream Analysis was prepared by D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. and is included in this Section. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 12 001i33 LEVEL ONE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS for THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE Preliminary Plat 14038 156'" Avenue SE, Renton, Washington DRS Project No. 13117 Renton File No. LUA XXXXXX Owner/Applicant PNW Holdings LLC 9675 SE 35th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Report Prepared by m:0 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7th Avenue NE Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date February 20, 2014 001434 LEVEL ONE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TABLE OF CONTENTS TASK 1 DEFINE AND MAP THE STUDY AREA ......................................................... 2 TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 6 TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION ..................................................................................... 16 Upstream Tributary Area ............................................................................................ 16 General Onsite and Offsite Drainage Description ...................................................... 16 TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS ... 17 Drainage System Description .................................................................................... 17 Downstream Path TDA .............................................................................................. 17 TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS ......................... 19 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................. 21 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 26 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Site Map ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. King County iMap Topography ......................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Streams and 100-Year Floodplains and Flo'odway ........................................... 7 Figure 5. King County iMap Wetlands .............................................................................. 8 Figure 6. King County iMap Erosion Hazard Areasqs ..................................................... 9 Figure 7. King County iMap Landslide Hazard Areas .................................................... 1 O Figure 8. King County iMap Seismic Hazard Areas ....................................................... 11 Figure 9. FEMA-Flood Insurance Rate Map ................................................................ 12 Figure 10. King County iMap Drainage Complaints ....................................................... 13 Figure 11. USDA King County Soils Survey Map .......................................................... 14 Figure 12. Downstream Table ........................................................................................ 22 Figure 13. Downstream Map .......................................................................................... 25 ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge DISCLAIMER: THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF PNW HOLDINGS, LLC FOR THE 8.807 ACRE PARCELS KNOWN AS A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, TAX PARCEL NUMBERS 1423059122, 1423059023 (SITE). D. R. STRONG CONSUL TING ENGINEERS INC. (DRS) HAS PREPARED THIS REPORT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF DRS, THE OWNER, AND THEIR AGENTS, FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AS DESCRIBED HEREIN. USE OR RELIANCE ON THIS REPORT, OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS FOR ANY REVISIONS OF THIS PROJECT, OR ANY OTHER PROJECT, OR BY OTHERS NOT DESCRIBED ABOVE, IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION BY DRS. TASK 1 DEFINE AND MAP THE STUDY AREA This Offsite Analysis was prepared in accordance with Core Requirement #2, Section 1.2.2 of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Manual). The Site is located at 140381561h Avenue SE in Renton, Washington. See Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 for maps of the study area. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge $1.lJTH'r'l.. ~ ,+ . <" "" /JI <I i \ ~1~PL ~ 1,/ ,t "-' j -~ -~ ' ·,.:: ·. Cel!.u P.iY '.!r _ ! I I ~ i 0 ~ FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP 0 /J '"""' "- l::!;;-m,jSf Site SE STA ST i)j ~ ~ i Sioi"lr~,!;T SE !"'2~0.s.f A ~f. y\'2~ Sf,lftt ST_ /if:l ,,~0-'\ Sc f..l'.R~ S'T ·, I ' / ~ t ~ II ,: ~ • ~ ::ili 1-t.m1sr > _;j. !I \I\ ! ~ ~ \ .----- ,;, .;,4' 4" -·:;;.-. _i -' The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, last revenues or Jost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. ©2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis FIGURE 2. SITE MAP The Enclave at Bridle Ridge "" ·a "' -. , , l ,{' ,. ,, i I' I' '' '11 '' ! I ' ' ! , '! Ii '' -.. -, -. ---- ----~ ' ---@ NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 40 80 120 1 INCH = 80 FT. D<IAPt.3117.dwg 2/20/2014 8:00:05 AM PST . @ 2014, D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. "' ili \\! <5 il'i I ' C, C, 11! ~ ~~ ! I I "'~ 0: Ci <.> i ~ m I:; DESIGNED BY; Pf?o..£CT ENGINEER: lllJ DA TE: Q2. 19.2014 PRO.£CT NO.: 13117 DRA'MNC; f SHEET: 1 001439 I FIGURE 3. KING COUNTY IMAP TOPOGRAPHY Ill Highffghlad Fealure -, '-County Boundary X Mountain Peaks ConlOUnl (511 dark) ;V 100;!D'.t:,«m ;./ OIJ,c, ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis Legend Highways D Lakoli and Large Riv-er-s Stnoets /~/ , Streams Hi;trw.ir -LO<OI Parcels The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TASK2 RESOURCE REVIEW • Adopted Basin Plans: Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Pollution Action Plan was adopted in July 1998. • Floodplain/Floodway (FEMA) Map: No floodplains exist on site, See Figure 9. • Other Offsite Analysis Reports: None available at this time. • Sensitive Areas Folio Maps: See Figures 4-8 for documentation of the distance downstream from the proposed project to the nearest critical areas. Included, are . sections of the King County Sensitive Areas Folio which indicate the following: • Figure 4 Streams and 100-Year Floodplains and Floodway: There is a Class 1 and Class 3 Stream within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. A 100-yearfloodplain is within one mile of the Site. • Figure 5 Wetlands: There are no mapped Wetlands within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. • Figure 6 Erosion Hazard: There are mapped Erosion Hazard Areas within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. • Figure 7 Landslide Hazard: There are mapped Landslide Hazard Areas within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. • Figure 8 Seismic Hazard: There are mapped Seismic Hazard Areas within one mile of the Site along the downstream path. • DNRP Drainage Complaints and Studies: As shown in Figure 10, there are drainage complaints within 1 mile of the Site along the downstream path. • Road Drainage Problems: None noted. • USDA King County Soils Survey: See Figure 11. • Wetlands Inventory: The wetland inventory revealed no additional wetlands within the downstream path. • Migrating River Studies: None are applicable to the site. • Washington State Department of Ecology's latest published Clean Water Act Section 303d list of polluted waters: None listed along the downstream path. • King County Designated Water Quality Problems: None at this time. • Adopted Stormwater Compliance Plans: City of Renton Storm Water Management Plan; King County 2013 Stormwater Management Plan • Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports: Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report (April 1993) ©2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Page 6 00111 i4i4>!1 FIGURE 4. STREAMS AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAY Ill Hig.hlighbld feature -, Coun!y Boundary ;I I - X Mountain Pea.ks // Hi9hwaya # Shots ;v' --0 Lo<aO ,~'<I ' .Pilf'Cats ~ D ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineera Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis ~!Qf.),;r 'it;.',1,H-t,;r • , • 1 • § ~ , i " ~ i ;.f"'~'r ~ ' , • Legend SAO St, .. 111 c""' , C:'11n. 2 Plill'Dl'h,'l,QI ems 2 Sdmori·• Clm!!l.l u~ l..1~9$ ai:id UJQQ Rivers $tn,am1 Floodway 140 You Floo<lplaln Sha,ed RuUof The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ) • • • ' < i • f i ~ .,.,• ~-~ t .. • • ~-• • " ,, < ! !:!;~,,Pi_ • i ' ~ • ' l • i %1"flo+51" • ~ " ~:>.,TltLr ' s • ' FIGURE 5. KING COUNTY IMAP WETLANDS • j ~,;' :!li.1.Jlfojl'I. " .,, ' .. • ; • ' § ! ~ ! I ~ Sl.~ri,"!. ' ! ' • I t;l;U...~j\. • • ' ' • • i i ' • llflau;i?'_ ! ' ~ .,.~ ,. -tt 't-,."t \ '• :, i :c _ C.•rl,-ir n'i1<<•r. -. Ill Highlighted feature -, County Boondal'{ ·-" Mountain Peaks Highway5 D Stmolll ; .. ·"' ·-rn (cont) ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis ,. 1<"¢0 ,:r ··~-. ' < ' ' ~ ··,·. , .¥~ --...... # /~-2'-. Legend M"""' '-""' Parcels ' • ' ~ • ~ ' ,_--sl! ,..,r.," • l i <ll<,!11,~ ! ' • • < • • l...ilke-s and Large Rivers Streams SAO Wetland • l '. ; ~ I • , " ;; • The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • f ' J .. <1-""~1"f" ....... Pl!'L ' • • • ' • i ' i: J__ si;~,91 • • ' l • ! ~' ' ' I j ~ 1 " ' • ~,.,....li"r ; Sll.1,orn,i'T oot+i"d FIGURE 6. KING COUNTY IMAP EROSION HAZARD AREAS ff • ' ~ < j .<fli:JJ;f><l"E. • ' " • • I ~ 1 f ' ~ !.i!it~ ..... ' f.li.'-~IQ"\. ' • ' ' ' -~"I. ' ! * ,, ... ,• ~~--·~. ,/::..,......__.· ' ' ' § ,, j.·t' ,. , , ' ::::.-, ··-:·--:-;,·· ~=:-.:..:....,,• ' ' 1C.,:;fa;:fl.,v~.- I ! .... / fig!/ I IIJ Highlighted f«ature -I County lkx,t\dary ,_ x Mountaln P9ah Highways Streets Hivh~ (cont) i . ' ) • ; Legend Lo<al Parcels • ' ~ 0 Lalces and Large Rivers /"/ Streams SAO Erosion ~'£411,:tU " ;/ ' ~ • ! ' • t f ,, .. • ~~ '! • "-\.O!nl",. • • \ ;; " • , • .. t~- ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ' I • ' j i Mi.:rr,.il1' " • ~ • ' ( , i • • J SS1..m.sr .UJ-.:!1",n • ' ~ • ' f , FIGURE 7. KING COUNTY IMAP LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS • ! ~~..._ .. /i' ""'"""' ~ 1 I ~14..,.,.,.,_ • " :. :,i. i ; " ~ • i < § i ~ Highlighted Featura -, I_ Count\' Boundary X Mountain Peaks Highways D Streets ;v' H ... _ rn {<:ont) ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis w t !:c •.:.i1i,,sr ·s • Legend .......... '""" Parc~I• Lakes and Large Fovers straams .$AO Landslide The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ' ' i • • i •] ...._, ···J ' . '! " ' --~ -..._J' ' FIGURE 8. KING COUNTY IMAP SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS ~ -I I_ X < ' l • ' I ..,.."!Ir.,., • < i :.l'i1""<:ll>'_ • t ,• ~ liighli.ghted Featun County Boundary Mountain P&aks Highwaya Slrettt& "-(cont) SE. 1~ZMl SJ \ • ' • • \ \ D // ~ ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis ••~sr 'ic l.,tl'l 51 !.£'""-T'!I•-' • • ' ., I ~ ! § Legend ..,,,..., l- Parcels lakH Ind Large Rivsn: Straama SAO Seismic The Enclave at Bridle Ridge • ! ' ' • ~ J • < • 1 (.C·-~ " ' i FIGURE 9. FEMA-FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP LJ 23 ~ZONE AE ~At ... NOU: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED 7N TOWNS>UP 23 NORTH ANO RANGE S EAST. E~PJ D D LEGEND ZONll AE 11,,.., r1,.,1 .....,"""'' do"1'!'>""'·,!. -ZONE AH n.,c1 ,\1,t" d 1 •, 1 M .,...,_,II,· '"'"" ,~· ;,•a'""'· J....,. ,1.,oJ "'"''~""' ... ,.,..,, .... .-1_ ZONI. AO H,,, ~1 ,Jiµt~ "' ! "" l .,..., -~ .... , ... ,;,.,., ,,~, '"' ,1,,pq ,...,. ...... ~1•,lll'' d.·rct,,. ,1o<,., .... ,1 r.~ ,,.~,~ ,,t -"'"'" ,:," n,~"'°!L •<!•~,;.., ..,., .i.,,,..,,.,..~J 20Nf. Af1 fo ~ p,,,,.,..,( !f,,.,, ~in-• .,,.. L',,I ~, ............... 1 l)n.'"'l•;n ~""'" """~ """"'"1.,-,,: ·~· t,,,.,. ....... _ 'W<m••d 20Nf V (,....,;J fl,,.~ .,irl, ,,-1;,,h ~~"1 '-"~ ..,1;...i,,,,.;.,,.; .. .i,1,,,.,,,.,.ri..,.,,,..""-a. ?ONE VE 1.,~ol i.,~1 -~ .,.,l,dr, "'"¥<I .... ~ e .,.-ti,,,w:1....,,, d,,.1,.;,..._,ri,,,,.a,1""""""L fLO()[)W,\Y ARE,>,S IN ZOM ,\E OTHER flOOD AR£,",S ZONE< _.,...,..,,('l<JH-j""'l'•><l:O<N>•~·lui} . ...,... il..,.;,.;li,.,.,~~,ihU..o 1 !,,.,-, "'"'''~ <l!.ii<la,r,-.., • .., :r,,.. - I """"" ,,.11,-, ~"<l ,,..,.,, P'!•"•:ll,d In· Or.,-.. 1,,,,,. ,~r .... ...,, i.,,l OTIIE:R ARE.AS ZONE lC ZONf 0 ,0.,11,,..i.t.,.m;n«icnh,,.....-:;~ 11(,,,<ipl,oir> ,.,.,... "' "hkii 11i ... 1 t,.,,...J,. .,.. u""""m,in<.'<I ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Pl.,O.CE FIGURE 10. KING COUNTY IMAP DRAINAGE COMPLAINTS ,, :ll:)~10'1. • " Si:IUIID ... ~ ' ' ,. ! . ~ ,., :·, . .-., ----.-/ -<~~~=:,,. • ; ' ' i • ' ./·-~-·-..... , Ill Solc.ctorJ Parc.<11• -1 Couoey -IY I_ :x Moul'ltaJn P-aak'!I l!lgnwoys j'/ fn.:.,,_a,.d A,oa $t, .. ts {<<>•II • • f • ' ~ :I;'""''"'-... j '• \ / Legend H~h~ Arli!Hihl .__ F'.amlt: ' • , • Sl<l~!.f • • < < ey ~ ' ~ ~ ·........... <' 0 l.akll'S and La:rgs Rr·,~r11 _;V' Stream1 Or<ln,jjt Cornpfoln" 51'" l-1.4/>< ST • ¥ i af:":qlt,~ t ; ' • • t ' I ; .. • \ l ' g I ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge ; ' ' i i -~ ~-tr ,.,, • • • 1 ' ! SClaol;TJ,"1_ i j j s;:; 14111•~r • ~!6Cl<s:r Q • • • ' i • ' §- p¥1i OOtl FIGURE 11. USDA KING COUNTY SOILS SURVEY MAP o • ---•.,s===,.,-----.. .,======w"""' ---=------===="" D ?iJ, 100 ::m XO ~~1: 'hebl'Ealll O...re=*"~ 'NGSM ~It's: IJT!,,I !ue 100: ~ ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Br:dle Ridge AgC-Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting • Elevation: 50 to 800 feet • Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches • Mean annual air temperature: .48 to 52 degrees F • Frost-free period: 180 to 220 days Map Unit Composition • Alderwood and similar soils: 95 percent • Minor components: 5 percent Description of Alderwood Setting • Landform: Moraines, till plains • Parent material: Basal till with some volcanic ash • Properties and qualities • Slope: 6 to 15 percent • Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to dense material • Drainage class: Moderately well drained • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat}: Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr} • Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches • Frequency offloading: None • Frequency of ponding: None • Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.5 inches} Interpretive groups • Land capability (nonirrigated}: 4s Typical profile • O to 12 inches: Gravelly sandy loam • 12 to 27 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam • 27 to 60 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam Minor Components Norma • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions Bellingham • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions Seattle • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions Tukwila • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions Shalcar • Percent of map unit: 1 percent • Landform: Depressions ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TASK3 FIELD INSPECTION UPSTREAM TRI BUT ARY AREA In evaluating the upstream area, we reviewed King County iMAP aerial topography and imagery and conducted field reconnaissance and have concluded that upstream tributary area for the Site is negligible. The areas north and east of the Site produce southwesterly flowing runoff that may enter the Site. This runoff flows over densely vegetated areas and is considered negligible. GENERAL ONSITE AND OFFSITE DRAINAGE DESCRIPTION The 8.81 acre parcel is encompassed within one Threshold Discharge Area (TOA) with two natural discharge areas (NOA 1, NOA 2). Runoff is conveyed as sheet flow southwest across the property through dense vegetation and pasture and is directed towards the southwest corner of the. Site. From there a concrete pipe inlet conveys water west to a catch basin at the southwest corner of the Site on the east side of 155th Avenue SE. Runoff continues south in the conveyance system then flow is directed west as pipe flow at the intersection of 155th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. Runoff continues west across 154th Place SE and outlets to Stewart Creek, a Class 3 stream. This creek outlets to the Cedar River which eventually outlets to Lake Washington approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the Site. The Site's second natural discharge point (NOP) is approximately 237' east of NOP 1. Runoff exits the Site as sheet flow and converges with NOA 1 at Point B. Runoff from the developed Site will be collected and conveyed by a typical catch basin/ pipe network to a detention pond in the southwest corner of the Site. The pond will discharge to the conveyance system in 155th Avenue SE. ©2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge P~e16 00"11i115'1 I TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The downstream analysis is further illustrated and detailed in the Downstream Map and Downstream Table located in Appendix A. The downstream area is located within the Cedar River basin; more specifically the Lower Cedar River sub basin. The downstream area was evaluated by reviewing available resources, and by conducting a field reconnaissance on January 16, 2014 under overcast/foggy conditions. Located within the TDA are two Natural Discharge Areas (NDA), NDA 1 and NDA 2. NDA 1 exits the Site approximately 230' east of the southwestern property corner. Runoff continues as sheet flow for approximately 230' over native vegetation and pasture until it enters a 12-inch concrete pipe inlet where it continues as pipe flow into a catch basin in 156th Avenue SE. NDA 2 exits the Site approximately 150' west of the southeastern property corner. Runoff sheet flows west along the southern property line over native vegetation and pasture and converges with NDA 1 at the 12-inch concrete pipe at the southwest corner of the Site. Downstream Path NDA 1 Point "A1" is the natural discharge point of NDA 1. Runoff is conveyed west across the southern property line as sheet flow and directed towards a concrete pipe inlet at the southwest corner of the Site (±0). From Point "A1" to Point "B1", runoff heads west as sheet flow to a 12-inch diameter concrete pipe (±0'-223'). Point "B1 ·, concrete pipe inlet at the southwest corner of the Site (±223'). From Point "B1" to Point "C1", runoff heads west as concentrated flow to a 12-inch diameter concrete pipe (±223'-230'). Point "C1", runoff enters a Type 1 catch basin located on the east side of 155th Avenue SE (±230'). From Point "C1" to Point "D1", runoff heads south as pipe flow via an 18-inch diameter plastic pipe. Trickle flow observed (±230'-475'). Point "D1", runoff enters a Type 1 catch basin on the east side of 155th Avenue SE (±475'). From Point "D1" to Point "E1", runoff heads west as pipe flow via an 18-inch plastic pipe. Trickle flow was observed (±475'-507'). Point "E1", runoff enters a Type 1 catch basin located on the west side of 155th Avenue SE (±507'). From Point "E1" to Point "F1", runoff heads south as pipe flow via an 18-inch diameter plastic pipe. Trickle flow was observed (±507'-691 '). ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Pa..ie 17 OOdl11tH Point "F1 ", runoff enters a Type 1 catch basin located on the west side of 156th Avenue SE (±691'). Runoff continues south as pipe flow via an 18-inch diameter plastic pipe for approximately 192' where it enters either a buried catch basin or tees into another drainage pipe heading west at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street Field investigation found no catch basin at this intersection, but according to City of Renton's GIS maps, stormwater runoff is directed west at this intersection. Runoff proceeds west as pipe flow for approximately 665' where it reaches the east side of 154th Place SE It continues as pipe flow for approximately 55' across 154th Place SE Then it heads southwest as pipe flow for approximately 157' where it outlets to Stewart Creek. Runoff continues approximately 2,470' south down this stream until it outlets to Cedar River, which eventually outlets to Lake Washington approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the Site. Downstream Path NDA 2 Point "A2'', is the natural discharge point of NOA 2 (±0'). From Point "A2" to Point "81", runoff heads west as sheet flow and converges with NOA 1 at Point "81" (±0'-471'). ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge TASKS MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS A review of the King County Water and Land Resources Division -Drainage Services Section Documented Drainage Complaints within one mile of the downstream flow paths revealed six complaints within the last ten years. Drainage investigation reports attached in Appendix B (see table on page 20). Project runoff from the TOA will be collected and released per the Manual's requirements to accommodate Level 2, Conservation Flow Control and Basic Water Quality requirements. During construction, standard sediment and erosion control methods will be utilized. This will include the use of a stabilized construction entrance, perimeter silt fencing, and other necessary measures to minimize soil erosion during construction. The project should not create any problems as specified in Section 1.2.2.1 of the Manual and therefore is not required to provide Drainage Problem Impact Mitigation subject to the requirements of Section 1.2.2.2. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Complaint Parcel Summary Recurring number 2006-0069 2323059123 Ditch design No flaw causes water to flow upstream and back up, flooding pasture and outbuildings 2008-0507 2323059123 F alien tree 2' No down of Madsen creek bypass drainage culverts catching and stopping debris. Will dam up and cause more flooding 2008-0700 2323059123 Over topping of Not since bypass channel 12/2006 and flooding analysis onto property 2009-0071 2323059205 Flooding due to No an improperly installed culvert. 2009-0653 2323059133 Old water tank No in river emitting some fumes that is killing the vegetation above 2011-1008 · 232305HYDR Illegal dumping No of two television ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis sets at SE Jones Rd and 254'" Pl The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Type Required Mitigation 1 None, property is on opposite side of river NIA None, property is on opposite side of river 1 None, property is on opposite side of river 1 None NIA None NIA None APPENDIX A. OFFSITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE & DOWNSTREAM MAP ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis The Enclave at Bridle Ridge FIGURE 12 .. DOWNSTREAM TABLE Basin: Cedar River TDA 1, NDA 1 Sybbasin Name: Lower Cedar River S_ubbasin Nu_rnber:_NJA Symbol See map A1 A1-B1 81 81-C1 C1 C1-D1 D1 2 ~1-E1 .Iii,, Cl! Drainage Drainage Component Slope Component Type, Description Name. and Size Type: sheet flow, swale, Stream, drainage basin, vegetation, cover, channel, pipe, depth, type of sensitive area, volume Pond; Size: diameter Surface area NATURAL 223' EAST OF SOUTHWEST DISCHARGE POINT PROPERTY CORNER WESTERLY SHEET NATIVE VEGETATION FLOW PIPE INLET 12' 0 CONCRETE WESTERLY PIPE 12' 0 CONCRETE FLOW CATCH BASIN -INLET (E) -OUTLET(S) SOUTHERLY PIPE 18' 0 PLASTIC FLOW CATCH BASIN -INLET (N) -OUTLET CW) WESTERLY PIPE 18' 0 PLASTIC FLOW ©2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis % Distance Existing Potential Observations of field inspector From site Problems Problems resource reviewer, or resident Discharae Constrictions, under capacity, ponding, tributary area, likelihood of problem, 1/4 mi=1,320 ft overtopplng, flooding, habitat or organism overflow pathways, potential impacts. destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, sedimentation, Incision, other erosion ±0' NONE NONE OBSERVED ANTICIPATED NONE NONE NO FLOW OBSERVED OBSERVED ANTICIPATED ±223' NONE NONE OBSERVED ANTICIPATED NONE NONE NO FLOW OBSERVED OBSERVED ANTICIPATED ±230' NONE NONE OBSERVED ANTICIPATED NONE NONE TRICKLE FLOW OBSERVED OBSERVED ANTICIPATED . ±475' NONE NONE OBSERVED ANTICIPATED NONE NONE TRICKLE FLOW OBSERVED OBSERVED ANTICIPATED 1561h Ave Assemblage Page 22 City of Renton Cl Cl ... .Iii, UI co E1 E1-F1 F1 CATCH BASIN -INLET (E) -OUTLET (S) SOUTHERLY PIPE 18" 0 PLASTIC FLOW CATCH BASIN -INLET (N) -OUTLET (S) ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. level One Downstream Analysis ±507' NONE OBSERVED NONE OBSERVED ±691' NONE OBSERVED 15Slh Ave Assemblage NONE ANTICIPATED NONE TRICKLE FLOW OBSERVED ANTICIPATED NONE DOWNSTREAM PATH INACCESSIBLE ANTICIPATED BEYOND THIS POINT BECAUSE OF BURIED CATCH BASINS OR SOUTHERNLY PIPE TEES WITH WESTERLY PIPE ANO DIRECTS RUNOFF WEST ALONG DIRT ROAD Page 23 City of Renton Basin: CedarBiver TOA 1, NDA2 Subbasin Name: LowEer Cedar River Subbasin Number: N/A Symbol See map A2 A2-B1 0 0 .,I, Joo (II co Bl Drainage Drainage Component Slope Component Type, Description Name and Size Type: sheet flow, swale, Stream, drainage basin, vegetation, cover, channel, pipe, depth, type of sensitive area, volume Pond: Size: diameter Surface area NATURAL 150' WEST OF SOUTHEAST DISCHARGE POINT PROPERTY CORNER WESTERLY SHEET NATIVE VEGETATION . FLOW PIPE INLET NOA 2 CONVERGES WITH NOA 1 AT POINT Bl ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulllng Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis % Distance Existing Potential Observations of field inspector From site Problems Problems resource reviewer, or resident Discharae Constrictions, under capacity, ponding, tributary area, likelihood of problem. 1/4 mi•1,320 ft overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism overflow pathways, potential impacts. destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, sedimentation, incision, other erosion ±0' NONE NONE OBSERVED ANTICIPATED ±471' NONE NONE OBSERVED ANTICIPATED 156&. Ave Assemblage Page 24 City of Renton FIGURE 13. DOWNSTREAM MAP ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis 156" Avenue Assemblage Preliminary Plat ! I ' ! I ! i i I ! i i : I ' ' I 1 j ! ------------------------___ _J -- SE 142ND STREET / ! ______ j _,,.--7 1---------;/ / : ,, I I, I : : I I I ,I! ;1, /i I ' ' , : i 1· r' , I , \ \ i i i ·, \ ' ' ' \ ',"1 \ i ' ' \J ~ ~ §- " 2=: 'I-- lC) - ' ! l !, ! ! i i i l \:: \ ., ffi l\! '" I!~ ili ~ !E 0;:; fl ~s :~ ! i ~ c:i (.) I. ; ~ 0 ~ @ \ \, NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE a 100 200 300 1 INCH = 200 FT, ORH1ED B't.' C£N 0£5ICN£D 8!':' C£N PRO.ECT ENQNEER: ltlAJ Dli"TE:: 02.20.2014 PRO.ECT ~ 13117 iull\3DSMAPIJ117.elwg r!/2012014 7 1561<10 AM PST ORA!W'NQ 1 I '@ 201,4., D.R. Sffi()',IG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. SHEET: 1 '------.. 001461 APPENDIX B. DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORTS ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. level One Downstream Analysis 156th Avenue Assemblage Preliminary Plat 0 ~ ~ ~ ! <t ::Elllrtl ;:,,_ • ! <,' Site lit ,~ C ,.., SE ,19n; ?I_ ~ q, ll ~ ~ ~ /JI ~ ; !El~ntl\.. l! a! C ! o! • ~ l/ ;;; ~ _Soc !~.«:N_O S ~ " i ! ,.;.,f)-'r';, .i <t Ii ·-----. st:.·,-\'l' ,J ~ ~ ' j ~ µ};;r.JP.~ ti! :SE HHH st Ii ,y: t4T11?f. ~ ~ ~ ' • <"l ~ 7. \ \! " ~ ~ < ... ,ii. \ i 2009-0653 -·,..... =----.....:::.../_,.' ~ __ J ©2014 D, R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Level One Downstream Analysis 156th Avenue Assemblage Preliminary Plat King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT FIELD INVESTIGATION FILE NO.: 2011-1008 ADDRESS:SE Jones Roadand 254"' Place, Renton, 98058 NAME: Jennifer Vanderhoof ·· - PHONE: 206.263.6533 DATE OF INVESTIGATION: --'-11_-__ 10'--'-2=-'0'-'-1-'-1 ___ _ INVESTIGATED BY: Virgil Pacampara I went to the site on 11/10/2011 at 1:00 PM and investigated an illegal dumping. The complaint was about dumping of two large television sets at the end of the roadway, right in front of a road block sign that says 'No Dumping". I saw the two television sets at the edge of a tum-around area/culdesac of 149"' Ave. SE. I spoke to Mr. Billy Emerson, the property owner of house# 1506 149" Ave. SE. about the alleged illegal dumping. He told me that the dumping appeared to have happened during late night, and noticed it the following day. That he installed the 'No Dumping Sign' to eliminate the illegal dumping on the site, but it appears that people still dumped stuff on the stte. It appeared that the spot of the dumping is located within the road right of way of King County. I gave him our business card to call us incase it happens again. He gave his and his wife's phone numbers (his 206.661.3432; Patti-360-990-6617 ) for the records. I went to the other site as indicated on the complaint reports/e-mail. The second site is the location of a regional facility (DR0535). The site is along the paved walking trail that is parallel and north side of 1-169 (between 149"' Ave. SE and 150"' Lane SE.). I did not see any illegal dumping on the site particularly along the north end of cross culvert (concrete box culvert) and on the swale. I spoke to Sandra of KC Roads emergency number (206.296.8100) on afternoon of 11/18/2011, and reported the result of the investigation. Sandra told me that the KC-Roads will take care of the complaints and will remove the televisions on the site. NTS This Is the first site wh,re the two television was allegedly dumped Illegally along the road right of way. A "No Dumping" sign was Installed by Mr. Emerson to eliminate Illegal dumping It still re-occuring. This Is the second site. I did not see any illegal dumping on the site. The site Is a reglonal facllity. 001464 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT FIELD INVESTIGATION FILE NO.: 2009-0071 ADDRESS: 10046 21" Ave. SW NAME: Stuart Soules __ ... PHONE: 206.624,0740 DATE OF INVESTIGATION: ~_1_12_1_12_00_9 ____ _ INVESTIGATED BY: Ted Chrisite ./ y ... I arrived at the site of 15013 SE Jones Road 7:30 am to investigate a flooding co_9lpfaint reported by Mr. Stuart Soules of the same address. I spoke with him via telephone. He stated that his property was high enough to only flood ~driveway but his neighbor's yard 15005 was flooded up to floor level 90 the house. He stated that he and his neighbor share a culvert which does not allow for down slope drainage as it was installed in a reverse manner with lhe fiow going up slope. He request my speaking with the occupant of 15059 SE Jones Rd. as he said she knew the history of the immediate area going back 50 years. I subsequently met with the occupant of this address, who identified herself as Uu Swenson. Ms. Swenson reitterated the statement of Mr. Soules, staling, when the new Elliot Bridge and Stewart Creek work was done, the constructors failed to put the levee back that the Army Corps had put in years ago along the north shore of the river. During this most recent storm event the river had rose up and flowed around a cotton tree (as Identified) around her house and neighboring properties. Ms. Swenson stated that she is awaiting a FEMA buy out for her property and that neighboring properties have been bought and demolished. She stated that she is waiting for a better offer. According to IMAP records the area Is in a Flood Way. The most recent flooding events indicated the water running consistent with this Flood Way indication of IMAP. This information is in this file. \ \ • I ( \ ! .,; 0: 0 ru C 0 ~ w ! <fl t ' ( (stated) former ACE D~yk~e=------~,- v~h,.1~59 p~ ~ ( "()Photos Photon () . "'' Cottonwood ~-_/ SWNart Creek Tree \ '·· ~-~ " L ' / I \ \ \: Photo 2 1, Elliot Bridge O hotQ011i41;5ace SE Photo 3 . . .... .... ·- KING COUNTY WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DMSION DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT INVESTIGATION REQUEST \pifoaiI#~;1 TANK IN RIVER RECEIVED BY: __ w~kp_ Date: __ 0_7.c..../1_4/~0~9_ OK'd by: ---File No 2009-0653 tfB~c;;~Jy!;ig,frqm;:Jt'ltY••f[IfiS(;t,}l~l:It'/UJ:);{]t'"'1i\i;';[{i?I;)'3'ti!iiti;t~'{Ef'C!C}: '':• :·''"i:],r,:::··.·······.·.T•'I?•:2':~·-~t"'·•'· NAME: BILLIE EMERSON PHONE: 206.661.3432 Other: Address: 15016 149 1H AVE SE City RENTON State -=Zi~.p--98~0-5~8- i;'J;i~!ltfnJo11/Jfq!;ltirofifeJJ/ff§'fijpt;i!f,~f,g~]''.;[frnf1i~tf:f?ri,!t:ffffi;:fiij;]:"/Ef,:! I,£~,;JuI,jii:fm,~,}'i'"tifffa\9r:;:wlI\1JI':11,i;rfrJlt:rsilii\':f' Access Permission Granted O Call First (Would Like To Be Called and/or Present) D REMARKS: TANK IN RIVER IS EMMITIING SOME SORT OF FUMES.AND IS KILLING VEGETATION ABOVE. . TANK APPEARS TO BE SOME SORT OF OLD WATER TANK. Plat name: Lot No: Block No: Other agenc,-ie-s~in_v_o~lv-ed-c-:-_--:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-=-~-No field investigation required 0 ',.,,,,,;i'•,,•·,f,;e,~:,,iii•~l·)(,S'ifE,,'JJc%h?0f§\,'',,,,,;;,~,](q:ij!_i;Tgjf;ip,ii:ep;ey,c'p111.~~·!l.r,;p_g~dMM,srA,;~,',f;',;;g~~.;ii!'.,s'f~'f;'lli:i1'/2,:;~ili,i,'l,]l,;e~;:§,;t''1<s%' · % NW S 23 T 23 R 5 · Parcel # 2323059133 Kroll: 816W TBros: 656J4 MD 1 2 -3-1 Basin ~R ·council Dist 9 Charge#: ______ _ ~re~e-a«s.ezz~~~::~~t2~~,5~_!z:-'.::~):7::~~~-::~-~=-~~!~~~~::-~:~l1L~-~~:s:.:~;::;~'"~~:~~,:.~ez~~hi:~·,. ii~1''f.ll_~1:.:'.~-TT..;;:;~.:~1~~~,&~'.-~;-:0'.Fl~~~-' Citizen notified on: phone letter D in person D email OR: No further action · Turned to: on by recommended because: D Lead agency has been notified: D Problem has been corrected. D No problem has been O Prior investigation · Identified. · addresses problem. SEE FILE# 0 Private problem -NDAP will not consider because: D Water odginates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. D Location is outside WLRD Service Area. D Other (Specify): ---- 001466 0 0 """' .Iii,, 0, .... i~,. oatei:1i1.4/2069·: · ~ King County MAP 656 + • T SE l65lh St 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Keith Dougherty January 13, 2009 TO: File FROM: Keith Dougherty RE: 2008-0700 Brent Cawley BACKGROUND: FACILITY: DR0535 -Madsen Creek Overflow Channel Site Visit Photographs December 5, 2008 The facility is located in Renton north of SE Renton Maple Valley Road between 149th Ave SE and 154th Place SE. There was no letter of formal acceptance of the facility, but it appears it was required from a lawsuit judgment in 1974. The facility file states that Brent Cawley would like a hydraulic evaluation performed to determine if realigning the outlet culverts to be almost parallel to the flow of the Cedar River would increase the capacity of the bypass channel and prevent it from overtopping on to his property. His property is located just east of the overflow channel along the Cedar River (parcel 2323059123) Mr. Cawley has complained of trouble in the past with the facility. He stated that during the big storm of 2006, he had a significant amount of water flowing through his yard towards the Elliot Bridge Levy. He had also stated that he had dropped a leaf at the end of the pipes that convey water from the overflow channel to the Cedar River. According the Mr. Cawley, the leaf flowed backwards up the pipe rather than downstream in the river. He also dropped a leaf at the inlet of the pipe and said it did not move. Mr. Cawley has some engineering background and suggested to Rick Lowthian that the behavior of the leaf may possibly be due to a Venturi effect created by the river and the angle of the pipes inletting to the Cedar River. He would like an analysis done to determine if changing the angle of the pipes outlet to the river would reduce the head within the channel. His belief is that there is a drop in pressure at the outlet of the pipes and that because of this drop, water is being pushed up the pipe, or it is not allowing water to flow freely out of the pipes into the Cedar River. He thinks that changing the direction of the pipes (angling them more downstream, parallel to the river versus nearly perpendicular) may allow the water to flow freely from the pipes to the river and may even provide a suction action that would draw water out of the pipes. He believes the change would increase the capacity of the overflow channel and potentially prevent water from overflowing on to his property from the overflow channel. INVESTIGATION: 001469 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Keith Dougherty Site Visit Photographs December 5, 2008 Initially I was asked to review the Venturi effect to determine how it applies to the overflow channel entering the Cedar River. The Venturi effect is used to determine the change in pressure as an incompressible liquid flows through a constriction (usually in a pipe). Most often the Venturi effect appears to be applied to pressurized pipes with bend angles constricting the flow within system. The similarity could be made to the inlet pipes of the overflow channel acting as a constriction to the flow of the Cedar River. While the pipes of the inlet channel may act as a constriction to the flow of the river, it would seem reasonable that the effects of the pipes would be minor considering the size of the river versus the size of the pipes and how far the pipes extend into the river. Currently, I do not have access to any models to simulate the Venturi effect. As such, my investigation utilizes the stormwater models and information available to me. A quick document search on the properties near the channel showed no easements or tracts that define the drainage channel. It was observed on the Quarter Section map however that nearly the entire channel lies within the 100-yr flood plain. Mr. Cawley's property is also within the Cedar River flood-way. The areas adjacent to the Cedar River at this location are protected from flooding by the Elliot Bridge Levy. Investigation of the DR facility file found that this channel has a lengthy past. It was originally constructed in the mid seventies as a result of a lawsuit in 1974 regarding increased runoff from the Fairfield development. At that time it appears that easements were obtained from at least 2 property owners by King County to maintain the channel. There have been several complaints/lawsuits following the original ruling as it appears this channel has had many instances of flooding. More issues arose when WSDOT widened highway 169. At that time, they replaced the three 36-inch culverts across Hwy 169 with a single 8-foot by 6-foot box culvert. Based on simple calculations, it would appear that the box culvert has more capacity than the three 36-inch pipes. The additional capacity would indicate the potential for increased flows to a channel that already has a history of problems. I did not find any documents of a redesign of the channel at the time of the culvert replacement. Brian Sleight and I visited the site on December 5, 2008. Mr. Cawley met us at on site and showed us the pipes of concern. He stated that he had seen the pipes running within 6-inches of full. He also explained that during the large 2006 storm that a significant amount of water was running through his yard. He stated that King County maintenance/roads came out and added some fill to the berm on the east side of the channel to reduce some of the water flowing through his property. He also believes that the west side of the channel is higher than the east side and would like them to be equal 001470 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 (if not higher on the east side to prevent flows onto his property). Brian Sleight and I surveyed numerous points on the site. For more information about the survey, please se<:i the attached exhibit and summary table. 0 The analysis of the data involves several tasks. The primary task is the hydraulic analysis A>n the pipes and the different pipe discharge angles. Additional tasks include: W • Determining if the east bank is lower than the west bank. Comparing the elevations of Mr. Cawley's property to the elevations of the channel and riverbank. Determining the Cedar River influence versus the Madsen Creek influence on flooding conditions. The hydraulic analysis was performed using the King County Backwater Program (KCBW) which models storm flows through channels and pipes. Background data was taken from several sources including the Madsen Creek Flood Plain Study performed for the Renton Assembly of God development and the WSDOT expansi_on of Highway 169. Additional numbers had to be determined or assumed before the hydraulic modeling could be performed. These numbers included: the tailwater elevation (96.0ft) which was based on descriptions/observations made by Mr. Cawley. The slope of the channel (between 0.23-0.44%), the slope of the pipes (approximately 1.0%) based on survey data, the Cedar River flow volume (-4800cfs) from Cedar River report and velocity of the flows entering the pipes from upstream (7.89ft/sec) based on the cross-section if the channel, the flows into the channel from upstream (261 cfs) from the Madsen Creek Flood Plain Study. Additionally, a range of flows was used to understand where flooding may occur at different levels. For the analysis, a range of 50-450cfs was used as a range of the channel running full with no tailwater elevation (-50cfs) and the two 6ft pipes flowing at near capacity (-450cfs). Lastly, several angles were used to simulate the changes in alignment as Mr. Cawley requested. Four bend angles of 0, 30, 60 and 90 degrees were compared to determine how a change in pipe alignment would affect the water level within the pipes/channel. Note also that all elevations are relative elevations from the survey data, not actual elevations based upon a NA VD datum. RESULTS: 0 The modeling of the conveyance in KCBW shows that there is not a significant change in water levels by changing the discharge angle of the pipes. Assuming a conservative scenario where 26 lcfs is coming into the two 6ft pipes, there would be approximately I30+cfs per pipe. The difference in elevation from O degrees to 90 degrees is only about 0.2ft (-2.5inches). A more severe case where all 26lcfs was modeled flowing through a 001471 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 single 6ft pipe shows a change in head ofless than 0.69ft (-8inches). As mentioned before, the range of flows up to 450cfs was modeled which is much higher than expected. That data shows that a single 6ft pipe with 450cfs of flow would be in overflow conditions, but it would still only change the water level approximately 1.5ft. These results indicated that there would not be a significant gain to the water level if the pipes were realigned. A A comparison of the survey points from the west bank and east bank shows varying V results. For roughly the southern 400ft of the channel, the west bank is lower than the east bank. For approximately the northern 400ft of the channel, the west bank is higher than the east bank. This is the area more closely located near the Cawley residence. Other than a low spot in the channel's bank near Mr. Cawley's driveway, both banks along the northern 400ft generally have less than I-foot difference in elevation. A The elevations of the overflow channel's east bank and the elevation of points near the W Cawley home, driveway and well-house then compared. The elevations of the east bank are generally higher than the elevations of the Cawley property indicating that water will flow towards their property if it overflows the east bank. The low point of the east bank (97.62ft) is lower than the house foundation (98.25ft) and the well house base (97.77ft) but it was higher than the driveway spot shot (97.54). The approximate low point on the Elliot Bridge Levy at Mr. Cawley's property was also found to be at 97.49ft. This is slightly lower (-1.5inches) than the low point along the east bank. Aside from comparing the low points of the east bank and the levy, the other elevation shots taken along the levy are generally lower than the elevations along the east bank of the channel. This would indicate that water is more likely to come from the levy overflowing before the east bank of the overflow channel. This is consistent with conversations with Mr. Cawley in January of 2009. I called Mr. Cawley on January 21, 2009 to find out ifhe had any flooding issues due to the storms over the week of 1/5-1/9. Mr. Cawley indicated during the phone call that he had significant flooding (within 4-inches of this floor) but most ofit was coming from the river's berm at the north side of his property, not the overflow channel. He also indicated that if there was water coming from the Fairmont development, that the channel would not have been able to handle the flows. However, other than the low spot elevation, the levy elevation is lower than and very near the elevation (within one inch) of the house foundation. It should also be noted that the elevation of the Cawley foundation is between l-2ft above the tailwater of the river when it is running at the high levels reported by Mr. Cawley. 0 Lastly a comparison was performed to determine the influence of the Madsen Creek overflow versus the Cedar River impact on the water level in the channel. Again, data for 001472 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 the culverts as well as the channel were analyzed in the KCBW program. The low elevation taken at the bottom of the channel (while dry) was at 92.34ft. During the storms in January, Mr. Cawley indicated that water was overflowing from the Elliot Bridge Levy at the north of his property, which has a low elevation of97.49ft. That means the tailwater elevation in the channel at that time would also be at least 97.49ft indicating that the river's influence on the water level may vary as much as 5.15ft or more. Using the 97.49ft as a tailwater elevation is a conservative scenario to model the channel/culverts to determine the influence of the 26lcfs coming from the Madsen overflow. That modeling shows that the water level in the overflow channel would only rise to 98.33ft which is a difference of0.84ft. The results indicate that the Cedar River's tailwater elevation has a more significant impact on the water level than the flow entering the overflow channel and the capacity of the channel or the culverts. DISCUSSION: Several factors were considered when analyzing the flooding issues at Mr. Cawley' s property. The main task was to perform a hydraulic analysis to determine if changing the pipes angles inletting to the Cedar River would improve their performance and decrease flooding from the overflow channel onto Mr. Cawley's property. Other factors considered were the overflow channel's east and west bank elevations relative to each other, the elevation of Mr. Cawley' s property relative to the channel and the river elevations, and the effect of the river versus the inflow to the channel on flooding conditions. The results of the hydraulic analysis on changing the pipe angles indicates that only a slight improvement (0.2ft or 2.5inches) may result by altering the pipe alignments as they inlet to the Cedar River. The elevations of the east and west banks vary based on location. Over the southern half of the channel, the west bank is lower than the east bank. But the northern portion of the channel, closer to Mr. Cawley's home and driveway, does show that the eastern bank is lower thank the western bank. At the low point in the east bank, it is almost 2ft lower than the west bank. The relative elevation of Mr. Cawley's property to the overflow channel and the Elliot Bridge Levy does indicate that his property will receive water that overflows either the east bank of the channel or the levy. The elevation of the Cedar River when it is running at a high level indicates that flooding in the areas around the river would not be unusual during times of high flows in the river. Additionally, the Cawley property lies within the 001473 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Site Visit Photographs Keith Dougherty December 5, 2008 100-yr flood plain and the Cedar River flood-way, which is an indication that flooding during large storm events is not uncommon and may be an ongoing issue. Lastly, the impact of the Cedar River's water level seems to be a more significant influence on water overtopping the east bank of the channel rather than the upstream flows from the Madsen Creek overflow. That would lead to the conclusion that the flooding is less likely a capacity issue and more likely a result of a high tail water condition from the river. In short, it appears that the issues are more likely related to the water level in the Cedar River and the elevations of the overflow channel and Elliot Bridge Levy and less dependant on the angle of the pipes inletting to the river. Reviewing the data shows that at an elevation of98.5ft, flows that exceed the expected maximum 261cfs from the Madsen Creek overflow can be conveyed without flooding through the channel. The approximate amount of material needed to bring the low areas of the east bank up to 98.5ft is about 22 cubic-yards of fill. This would likely cost less than $1,000 based on the NDAP Construction spreadsheet. This would seem to be a more suitable and cost effective solution versus changing the pipe alignment and performing work along the Cedar River. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend raising the low areas along the overflow channel's east bank to the relative elevation of 98.5ft according to our survey data. This would be a more effective solution because the results show that flooding is more likely a result of the Cedar River water level and the elevations of the banks rather than an issue caused by the angle of the inlet pipes. It is also a more cost effective solution and could be implemented more quickly and with less impact to the Cedar River. 001474 2008-0700 Brent Cawley Keith Dougherty Site Visit Photographs December 5, 2008 Aerial view of the channel and Brent Cawley's property. The Cawley property is outlined above in red. The channel runs the full length from the highway to the Cedar River is outlined in blue. 001475 KiNG COUNTY w ATER AND LAND RESOURCES DIVISION- DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT INVESTIGATION REQUEST RECENEDBY: wkp Date: 09/09/08 OK'd by: File No. 2008-0507 ----~------------- NAME: BRENT CAWLEY PHONE#: 425. 761.4170 Other#: 425.965.5885 Address: 15247 150TH LANE SE City RENTON State __ Zip 98058 ~Mil:~l~~1ffiiWlt&~fl'et~ati;~E~:'l~ffl'B5fl:Dtf11¥fJ.f~lilltB•11mrii:l~lt',1rille111mr.;wit~:1 Access Permission Granted D REMARKS ·, Call First (Would Like To Be Called and/or Present) [gJ As of Sept 6th 2008 a freshly fallen tree has blocked the river Just 2 feet down stream of the Madsen creek bypass drainage culverts. This end of the tree is already catching/ stopping debris coming down the river, and will eventually dam up and cause further back up of the Madsen creek by-pass during the rainy season. The Madsen creek by-pass already does not have enough flow capacity to handle the volume of water required during the rainy season. The current inadequate design has already repeatedly flooded my property causing damage. Any further impedance will only increase flood damage on my property that runs adjacent to Madsen creek by-pass_ Please have somebody remove the tree in question. Plat name: Lot No: Block No: Other agencies involved: · ----------------No field investigation required 0 -----c_:-_ --~--,,~ .• ------- Yi NW S MD I 2 23 T 23 5 Parcel# 816W Th.Bros: ,-. 3 ,,, Basm LCR Council Dist 9 Charge#: ------ Citizen notified on -------m person OR: No further action recommended because: Turned to: on by -------------0 Lead agency has been notified: 0 Problem has been corrected. 0No problem has been identified. 0 Private problem -NDAP will not consider because: 0 Water originates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. D Location is outside WLRD Service Area 0 Other (Specify): 0 Prior investigation addresses problem: SEE FILE# 656J4 email ----- ,~\JYA;Wfi:t:~~~lmfi'L-l --'2=+-'/ 1~0+/_1 _1 ~~-~~~~: ~J_c._J/_l_c __ I I 001476 RECEIVED BY: Received from: NAME: ---"....::..:::-""":.L..!."'--'-'--""'""""=-""'9¥+4"" ADDRESS :----'----'""-""-'--'---"--'__,_'-'--'~-;c..µ;.-""-'"'-""""""= LOCATION OF PROBLEM, IF D!FFERENt: > RDP REsPONSE: ~/"" /<7,'t!- DISPOSITION: · Turned to _ Lead agency has been notified: · · · Problem has been corrected .. _ Private problem -NDAP willnot c·.o .11Sid,ef. __ ';\later DATE CLOSED: /. / {(/l/(' B:y: SECTION IV FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY (PART A) KCRTS was used to model the peak runoff from the Site. Per Table 3.2.2.b of the Manual the soil type is modeled as "Till" for the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam SCS classification as shown in Figure 4. Soils. The entire Site is modeled as "Forest." Results of the KCRTS analysis are included in this section. Area Breakdown Till Forest 390,841 s.f. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical lnfonnation Report 8.972 acres The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 13 00147°8 PRE-DEVELOPED HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING INPUT: f} I.and U~e Summary l=i,· :i:i r ., . · Till fi1ri:st , • . , .. 'hUP11sture · <0.00 ar;r'cs • 0.00 acres · ,. Ouiw~sh FoJest . O.~.o acres Oulwash Pasture . . O.OD~ctes .... O:oo ac,~s Wetland ·. Ii.DO a.c·re~ · lmpervi Ol!S ' . 0 .. 00 acres · ·--......... · ... ,,-.......... ~ . . . . .. . [To~~!7acresl .siale fat1.~r : 1.00 . . Hou!IY Reduced .. , · .. / : · .. ······ ... · ;ime Se.ries,:/""p-re-d~e-v'-'-. -'-'-'-'-~-'-'---'--'-'-'-'--"~I~> i .. Co_m~.ute Time .Scric,s .. · J .· · , Modify Usi:tlnput / I . . File fCJr Cl)qJP\lted Time Series [.TSF] . > . PRE-DEVELOPED HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING OUTPUT: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac . i ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.566 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.154 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.419 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.015 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.249 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.435 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.366 5 11/24/06 4:00 0. 724 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.724 1 100.00 0.990 0.566 2 25.00 0.960 0.435 3 10.00 0.900 0.419 4 0.366 5 0.249 6 0.154 7 0.015 8 0. 671 5.00 0.800 3.00 0.667 2.00 1. 30 1.10 50.00 0.500 0.231 0 .091 0.980 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 14 001 1479 FIGURE 5 PREDEVELOPMENT AREA MAP ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 15 aa~1A1ii I ~ I I lli .; "' • i I iii ~ ~ L~ ~ Qi::: ij ! ~ I': :5 II ., ., . ~ 'RES FORESTED ~~ I . ~ c:, 0 ~ 2 I ~ I ~ 1,·rt-(!ffj) Ii ~ --------~ ~ ' 0 I' ...... ~ ONS/TE AREA a ij ... ... ... ... ~ I I . ... ... ... ... "' .... :MENT) PERVIOUS (TILL FOREST) = ... ... ... ... ... ... I , ... ... ... ... ... .. I 8.795 AC "' "' "' "' "' "' ' "' "' "' "' ... "'TAGE IMPROVEMENTS I ... ... "' "' ... "' ' ... "' ... ... "' "' PERVIOUS I (TILL FOREST) BYPASS "' "' "' "' "' ... P8ED,VEL.OPE;,, ... ... I 0.050 AC 0.02 AC "' "' ... ... "' "' .. ... ... ... ... ... ~ I, ... ... ... .. .. ... ... ... ... "' "' .. s I- I "' "' "' "' "' ... ct: l5 I "' "' "' "' "' "' LU ~lb I . .. ... ... ... ... ... ~ :::i] 0:: -~"'--"'--"' __ ... --± ... ~ ~~ I I "' ... "' "' ... .. 0:: j.::: a» "t: .. ... .. "' .. "' Q~ .... I ... ... ... ... ... "' 'I':'( ~ct 1 ... ... ... ... "' ... 0~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ ~~ I ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ UJ ..... Qi) ... ... ... ... "' "' ti! ;? I I ... ... .. ... ... "' ai 0.: iS ... ... ... ... ... ... I:! I ... .. ... ... ... .. ~ I ... ... ... ... ... ... 71: I ... ... "' ... ... ... ~ ... ... "' ... "' ... I "' ... "' "' "' ... "' "' "' ... "' "' @ I "' "' "' ... "' ... I ... "' ... ... "' ... ' I "' ... ... ... "' "' "' ... ... ... "' ... NORTH I .. ... "' "' "' ... GRAPHIC SCALE .. .. · ... "' "' 0 40 80 120 ' DRAF1m Bn QHH D£$1~£D 8)'! ltP 1 INCH " 80 FT. PRO.ECT ENGINEER: t,IAJ OATe 02.U.t.f. -· I PRO.ECT ND.: 1::11'7 "noge_Basins.dwg 2/13/2014 3:48:35 PM PST 1.48:1 I IGHT@ 2014, D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY (PART BJ DEVELOPED SITE AREA HYDROLOGY KCRTS was used to model the developed peak runoff from the Site. The soil types are unchanged from the pre-developed conditions. The portions of the Site within the proposed clearing limits tributary to the proposed detention vault were modeled as "Till Grass" and Impervious as appropriate. Results of the KCRTS analysis are included in this section. Area Breakdown · Predeveloped Till Forest 390840.7 Developed ROW Lots collected Tract A collected . Frontage Imp Per bypass imp Imp Per Imp Per Imp Per bypass imp bypass per ©2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report 79419 63825 15130 464 271536 124000 147536 32174 16087 16087 7712 4652 2215 249 596 8.972 1.823 1.465 0.347 0.011 6.234 2.847 3.387. 0.739 0.369 0.369 0.177 0.107. 0.051 0.006 0.014 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 16 Bb'iiaw2 Developed Hourly Time Step Modeling Input: (#, La~d Use Summal)I, ·.Area.-.-'--- Till Forest O.llO acres" . TUI Past1.(rc .. ·. . ·: ',, , f .. . 0.00 acres ' .· .·. r:1l Grass . ·4:HJ~crcs; ···· Outwash F~ rest 0.00 a:res ' . Ou.lwash p~~lure •.• O.Oil acres ; . ·-. · . Oujwash Gra~~ 0.00 acre~ , . , W,etlarid • • p.OO a~re~ ' ·. · .. ,imper,v'.ous r·To:~:r:; .·., ,· '.· ·. ··.·; va 0 .94a~' ' Stale Factor: . 1,00 · H!!.urly , fled°uced I = I r,,, ii:&£ .·• ~ Tim~ Serif~: lrdin l>>j · · · Comp,tJtf: Ti!lle Se~ies j . DEVELOPED HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING OUTPUT: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdin,tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1. 53 6 2/09/01 2:00 1.21 8 1/05/02 16: 00 1.85 2 2/27/03 7:00 1.27 7 8/26/04 2:00 1. 54 5 10/28/04 16:00 1. 62 4 1/18/06 16: 00 1.85 3 10/26/06 0:00 3.14 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting ~ngineers Inc. Technical Information Report --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 3 .14 1 100.00 0.990 1. 85 2 25.00 0. 960 1. 85 3 10.00 0.900 1. 62 4 5.00 0.800 1.54 5 3.00 0.667 1. 53 6 2.00 0.500 1. 27 7 1.30 0.231 1.21 8 1.10 0.091 2. 71 50.00 0.980 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 17 6'o01lJeJ BYPASS HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING INPUT: t) Laiu:J Use Summa,y ··Area:··~-c'--,:' , ... Till Forest • • 0.00 acres .· . Till Pasture 0,..00 acres , nllcira~s · o.in acr~s .• · · •outwash F~re~t . o:oo acres ; Outwash Paswre o'.oci ~cres : , · · Outwasti Grass ll.OQ a~r~s ', ' ; w~uaiid . · o,oo a~res lll]pe"'ious , . ).02 acres · [Total-~ .. ·· ... ··~~~·· ~.i:illt: Fln:tor; . · · 1.00 .. ·, HourJy · He.duced · · .. c::i . ? J!rrie S~ries:j,:.hc...ypc...a_s~s-~~~--'-'-c._c._-~--,, > >J · · Compute Time Seri.~,\ ' .. ' . -···. .. . ,. , ,. J Modify \,Iser lnp!,!I Retrieve runoff ti.Jes .an.d compute Jime Seri~s ·· BYPASS HOURLY TIME STEP MODELING OUTPUT: Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:bypass.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.005 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.004 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.006 2 12/08/02 18:00 0.004 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.005 6 10/28/04 16:00 0.005 4 1/18/06 16:00 0. 006 3 10/26/06 0:00 0.011 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0. 011 1 100.00 0.990 0.006 2 25.00 0.960 0.006 3 10.00 0.900 0.005 4 5.00 0.800 0.005 5 3.00 0.667 0.005 6 2.00 0.500 0.004 7 1. 30 0.231 0.004 8 1.10 0.091 0.009 50.00 0.980 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat FIGURE 6 POST DEVELOPMENT AREA MAP .©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 19 001'.a·as ' -. ; ACRES IMPERVIOUS 'RV/GUS ACRES IMPERVIOUS · PERVIOUS '.RES IMPERVIOUS .37 ACRES PERV!OUS \SS 0.02 ACRES IMPERVIOUS l'fl~f-~~j--f----t~~--il-PERVIOUS . AREA (TO POND PERVJOUS (TILL GRASS) 4.15 AC YPASS AREA ; PERVJOUS (TILL GRASS) 0.01 AC @ NOR.TH GRAPHIC SCALE 0 40 80 120 1 INCH= 80 FT. DRAFTeD BY.' QHH DESIGNED 8~ ltP PRO.ECT ENGINEER: MM DATE: 02.1.l14 ~CT NO.: 1.J117 ...._ _______________ .;;,d;.:_;.;Co::Ood;,;;it1;.;,·oo;.;s.d;;;w;.;g ;,;;;2,;;;/1;;.3/.;;2;;01;;;4 ;;;4;., 1.;;,4,;;;01;;;:P;:;,M;.:P:;,;;S;JT I =.~ 4 . 1 S -11GHT@ 2014, O.R. SlRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. . ~ --llill I PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (PART C) The Project is required to adhere to Level 2 Flow Control criteria. The Level 2 performance criteria requires that the developed condition's durations must match the predeveloped durations ranging from 50% of the two-year peak flow up to the full 50- year peak flow and also match developed peak discharge rates to predeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2-year and 10-year return periods (KCSWDM, Sec. 1.2). The Basic Water Quality Treatment goal is to remove 80% of TSS for flows or volumes up to and including the WQ design flow or volume. Conveyance criteria for the Project require that all new pipes be designed to convey and contain (at minimum) the 25-year peak flow. The conveyance system design will be analyzed at time of final engineering. FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM (PART D) The Site will utilize a detention pond meeting the Level 2 Flow Control Criteria. The King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) software was used to size the detention facility. The detention pond design information is included in this section. FLOW CONTROL BMP SELECTION Subdivision projects are required to mitigate for impervious surface equal to a minimum of 10% of each lot area by use of Flow Control Best Management Practices (BMP's). The project must analyze the feasibility of infiltration and dispersion of roof runoff. The project may utilize splash blocks meeting the requirements for basic dispersion. The project may also utilize pervious pavement or other BMP's as found in Appendix C of the Manual. Evaluation and inclusion of a BMP will be accomplished at final engineering. ©2014 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 20 6b1ift FLOW CONTROL FACILITY DESIGN OUTPUT Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Side Slope: Pond Bottom Length: Pond Bottom Width: Pond Bottom Area: Top Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Pond 3.00 H:lV 152.32 ft 76.16 ft 11600. sq. ft 22960. sq. ft 0.527 acres 6. 00 ft 371.00 ft 96867. cu. ft 2.224 ac-ft 6.00 ft 18.00 inches 2 Orifice# Height (ft) 0.00 4.10 Diameter (in) 1.50 2.65 Full Head Discharge (CFS) 0.149 0. 262 Pipe Diameter (in) 1 2 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None 6.0 Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) 0.00 371.00 0. 0.02 371. 02 232. 0.03 371.03 34 9. 0.05 371.05 582. 0.06 371.06 699. 0.08 371.08 932. 0.09 371. 09 1050. 0.11 371.11 1284. 0.13 371.13 1520. 0.23 371.23 2704. 0.33 371.33 3903. 0.43 371.43 5116. 0.52 371.52 6219. 0.63 371. 63 7583. 0.73 371. 73 8838. 0.83 371.83 10107. 0.93 371. 93 11390. 1.03 372. 03 12688. 1.13 372.13 14001. 1. 23 372. 23 15327. 1. 33 372. 33 16669. 1. 43 372. 43 18025. 1. 53 372.53 19395. 1. 63 372. 63 2 07 81. 1. 73 372.73 22182. 1. 83 372. 83 23597. 1. 93 372. 93 25027. 2.03 373.03 26473. 2.13 373.13 27934. 2.23 373.23 29410. 2.33 373.33 30901. 2.43 373. 43 32408. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.005 0.008 0.00 0.008 0. 011 0.00 0. 013 o. 013 0.00 0.016 0.015 0.00 0. 021 0.017 0.00 0.024 0.019 0.00 0.029 0. 020 0.00 0.035 0.022 0.00 0.062 0.029 0.00 0.090 0.035 0.00 0.117 0.040 0.00 0 .143 0.044 0.00 0.174 0.048 0.00 0.203 0.052 0.00 0.232 0.055 0.00 0. 261 0.059 0.00 0.291 0.062 0.00 0.321 0.065 0.00 0.352 0.068 0.00 0.383 0.070 0.00 0.414 0.073 0.00 0.445 0.075 0.00 0.477 0.078 0.00 0.509 0.080 0.00 0.542 0.082 0.00 0.575 0.085 0.00 0.608 0.087 0.00 0. 641 0.089 0.00 0.675 0. 091 0.00 0.709 0.093 0.00 0.744 0.095 0.00 The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Surf Area (sq. ft) 11600. 11627. 11641. 11669. 11682. 11710. 11724. 11751. 1177 9. 11917. 12056. 12196. 12323. 12478. 12620. 12763. 12 90 6. 13050. 13195. 13341. 13487. 13634. 13782. 13930. 14079. 14229. 14380. 14531. 14683. 14836. 14989. 15144. Page 21 0011.a·ss 2. 52 373.52 33777. 0.775 0. 097 0.00 15283. 2. 62 373. 62 35313. 0. 811 0.099 0.00 15439. 2 .72 373. 72 3 68 64. 0.846 0.101 0. 00 15595. 2.82 373.82 38432. 0.882 0 .103 0.00 15752. 2. 92 373.92 40015. 0.919 0.104 0.00 15910. 3.02 374.02 41614. 0.955 0.106 0.00 16068. 3.12 374.12 43229. o. 992 0.108 0.00 16227. 3.22 374.22 44859. 1.030 0.110 0.00 16387. 3.32 374.32 46506. 1. 068 0.111 0.00 16548. 3.42 374.42 48169. 1.106 0.113 0.00 16709. 3.52 374. 52 49848. 1.144 0.115 0.00 16871. 3. 62 374.62 51543. 1.183 0.116 0.00 17034. 3.72 374.72 53255. 1. 223 0.118 0.00 17198. 3.82 374.82 54983. 1. 262 0.119 0.00 17362. 3. 92 374.92 56727. 1.302 0.121 0.00 17527. 4.02 375.02 58488. 1. 343 0.122 0.00 17693. 4.10 375.10 59909. 1. 375 0.124 0.00 17826. 4 .13 375.13 60444. 1. 388 0.126 0.00 17876. 4.16 375.16 60981. 1. 400 0.131 o.oo 1792 6. 4.18 37 5 .18 61340. 1. 408 0.141 0.00 17959. 4.21 375.21 61880. 1. 421 0.154 0.00 18009. 4.24 375.24 62421. 1. 433 0.169 0.00 18060. 4.27 375.27 62963. 1. 445 0.188 o.oo 18110. 4.29 375.29 63326. 1. 454 0.210 0.00 18143. 4.32 375.32 63871. 1. 466 0.216 0.00 18194. 4.35 375.35 64418. 1. 4 79 0. 222 o.oo 18244. 4.45 375.45 66250. 1. 521 0.241 0.00 18413. 4.55 375.55 68100. 1. 563 0.258 0.00 18583. 4.65 375.65 69967. 1. 606 0.273 0.00 18753. 4.75 375.75 71851. 1. 649 0.286 0.00 18924. 4.85 375.85 7 3752. 1. 693 0.299 0.00 19095. 4. 95 375.95 75670. 1. 737 0 .311 0.00 19268. 5.05 376.05 77605. 1. 782 0.323 0.00 19441. 5.15 376.15 79558. 1. 826 0.334 0.00 19615. 5.25 376.25 81528. 1.872 0.344 0.00 197 8 9. 5.35 376.35 83516. 1. 917 0. 354 0.00 19964. 5. 45 376.45 85521. 1. 963 0. 364 0.00 20140. 5.55 376.55 87544. 2.010 0.373 0.00 20317. 5. 65 376.65 89585. 2.057 0.382 0.00 20494. 5.75 376.75 91643. 2.104 0. 391 0.00 20673. 5.85 376.85 93719. 2.151 0.399 0.00 20851. 5.95 376.95 95813. 2.200 0.408 0.00 21031. 6.00 377.00 96867. 2.224 0.412 0.00 21121. 6.10 377.10 98988. 2.272 0.882 0.00 21302. 6.20 377.20 101127. 2.322 1. 730 0.00 21483. 6.30 377.30 103285. 2.371 2.840 0.00 21665. 6.40 377. 40 105460. 2.421 4.140 0.00 21848. 6.50 377.50 107654. 2.471 5.620 0.00 22031. 6.60 377.60 109867. 2.522 7.050 0.00 22216. 6.70 377.70 112098. 2.573 7.580 0.00 22401. 6.80 377.80 114347. 2.625 8.080 0. 00 22586. 6.90 377. 90 116615. 2. 677 8.550 0.00 22773. 7. 00 378. 00 118902. 2.730 9.000 0.00 22960. 7.10 378.10 121207. 2.783 9.420 0.00 23148. 7.20 378.20 123531. 2.836 9.820 0.00 23336. 7.30 378.30 125874. 2.890 10.210 0.00 23526. 7.40 378.40 128236. 2.944 10.580 0.00 23716. 7.50 378.50 130617. 2.999 10.940 0.00 23906. 7.60 378.60 133018. 3.054 11.290 0.00 24098. 7.70 378.70 135437. 3 .109 11. 630 0.00 24290. 7.80 378.80 13787 6. 3.165 11. 950 0. 00 24483. 7.90 378.90 140333. 3.222 12.270 0.00 24 67 6. 8.00 379.00 142811. 3.278 12. 58 0 0.00 24871. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle .Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 22 Technical Information Report City of Renton 001489 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 3.14 1. 86 6.21 377. 21 101372. 2.327 2 1. 53 0.57 6.03 377.03 97593. 2.240 3 1. 85 0.35 5.35 376.35 83464. 1.916 4 1. 85 0.35 5.30 376.30 82547. 1.895 5 1. 62 0.26 4.58 375.58 68641. 1.576 6 1.01 0.15 4.21 375.21 61829. 1.419 7 1.21 0.12 3.64 374.64 51903. 1.192 8 1. 27 0.10 2.51 373.51 33552. 0.770 Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow Outflow Inflow Inflow Target Cale 1 1. 86 0.01 ******** ***"*** 1. 86 2 0.57 0.01 ******** 0.57 0.57 3 0.35 0.01 ******** ******* 0.36 4 0.35 0.01 ******** ******'Ir 0.35 5 0. 26 0.01 ******** ******* 0.26 6 0.15 o.oo ******** ******* 0.15 7 0.12 0.00 ******** ******* 0 .12 8 0.10 0.00 ******** ******* 0.10 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:rdin.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 3.14 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 1. 86 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 6.21 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 3!7. 21 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 101372. Cu-Ft 2.327 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 1.86 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.573 2 2/09/01 20:00 0.116 7 1/07/02 4:00 0.354 3 3/06/03 22:00 0. 097 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.153 6 1/08/05 3:00 0. 262 5 1/19/06 1:00 0.349 4 11/24/06 9:00 1. 86 1 1/09/08 10:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical lnfom1ation Report -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 1. 86 6.21 1 100.00 0.990 0.573 6.03 2 25.00 0. 960 0.354 5.35 3 10.00 0.900 0.349 5.30 4 5.00 0.800 0. 262 4.58 5 3.00 0.667 0.153 4.21 6 2.00 0.500 0.116 3. 64 7 1. 30 0.231 0.097 2.50 8 1.10 0.091 1. 43 6.16 50.00 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 23 City of Renton 001490 0. 574 2 2/09/01 20:00 1. 86 l 100.00 0.990 0 .117 7 1/07/02 5:00 0.574 2 25.00 0. 960 0.355 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.355 3 10.00 0.900 0.097 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.350 4 5.00 0.800 0.153 6 1/08/05 3:00 0. 263 5 3.00 0. 667 0.263 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.153 6 2.00 0.500 0. 350 4 11/24/06 9:00 0.117 7 1. 30 0.231 1. 86 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.097 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1. 43 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.008 33068 53.927 53. 927 46.073 0. 4 61E+OO 0.024 6522 10.636 64.563 35.437 0.354E+OO 0.040 5683 9.268 73.831 26.169 0.262E+OO 0.056 5192 8.467 82.298 17.702 0.177E+00 0.073 4403 7.180 89.478 10.522 0.105E+OO 0.089 2526 4 .119 93.598 6.402 0.640E-01 0.105 1875 3.058 96.655 3.345 0.334E-01 0.121 1405 2. 291 98.947 1. 053 0.105E-01 0.137 262 0.427 99.374 0. 626 0.626E-02 0.153 38 0. 062 99.436 0.564 0.564E-02 0.169 23 0.038 99.473 0.527 0.527E-02 0.185 17 0.028 99.501 0.499 0.499E-02 0.201 10 0.016 99.517 0.483 0.483E-02 0:218 29 0.047 99.565 0.435 0.435E-02 0.234 40 0.065 99.630 0.370 0.370E-02 0.250 37 0.060 99.690 0.310 0.310E-02 0.266 35 0.057 99.747 0.253 0.253E-02 0.282 25 0.041 99.788 0.212 0.212E-02 0. 2 98 21 0.034 99.822 0.178 0.178E-02 0.314 17 0.028 99.850 0.150 0.150E-02 0.330 15 0.024 9 9. 87 4 0.126 0.126E-02 0.346 23 0.038 9 9. 912 0.088 0.881E-03 0.362 17 0.028 99.940 0.060 0.603E-03 0.379 8 0. 013 99.953 0.047 0.473E-03 0.395 16 0.026 99.979 0. 021 0.212E-03 0. 411 8 0. 013 9 9. 992 0.008 0.815E-04 0.427 2 0.003 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.443 0 0.000 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.459 1 0.002 99. 997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.475 o 0.000 99. 997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.491 0 0.000 99. 997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.507 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.523 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.540 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.556 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.572 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.008 33117 54.007 54.007 45;993 0.460E+OO 0.024 6433 10.491 64.498 35.502 0.355E+OO 0.040 5813 9.480 73.977 2 6. 023 0.260E+OO 0.057 5090 8.301 82.278 17. 722 0.177E+00 0.073 4390 7.159 89.437 10.563 0.106E+OO 0. 089 2562 4.178 93.615 6.385 0. 638E-01 0.105 1870 3.050 9 6. 665 3.335 0.333E-01 0.121 1422 2.319 98.984 1. 016 0.102E-01 0.137 240 0.391 99.375 0.625 0.625E-02 0 .154 37 0.060 99.436 0.564 0.564E-02 ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 24 Technical Information Report City of Renton 001491 0.170 24 0.039 99.475 0. 525 0.525E-02 0.186 16 0.026 99.501 0. 499 0.499E-02 0. 202 10 0.016 99. 517 0. 483 0.483E-02 0. 218 30 0.049 99.566 0. 434 0.434E-02 0.234 36 0.059 99.625 0.375 0.375E-02 0.250 39 0.064 99.689 0. 311 0. 311E-02 0.267 36 0.059 99.747 0.253 0.253E-02 0.283 24 0.039 99.786 0.214 0.214E-02 0.299 21 0.034 99.821 0 .179 0.179E-02 0.315 18 0. 02.9 99. 850 0.150 0.150E-02 0.331 15 0.024 99.874 0.126 0.126E-02 0.347 22 0.036 99.910 0.090 0.897E-03 0.363 17 0.028 99.938 0.062 0. 620E-03 0.380 9 0.015 99. 953 0. 047 0.473E-03 0.396 15 0.024 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 0.412 9 0.015 99. 992 0.008 0.815E-04 0.428 2 0.003 99.995 0.005 0. 489E-04 0.444 0 0.000 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 0.460 1 0.002 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.477 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0. 326E-04 0.493 0 0.000 99. 997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.509 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.525 0 0.000 99.997 0.003 0. 32 6E-04 0.541 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.557 0 0.000 99. 998 0.002 0.163E-04 0. 573 o 0.000 99.998 0. 002 0.163E-04 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: dsout. tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change Probability Base New %Change 0.124 0.95E-02 0.74E-02 -21. 8 I 0.95E-02 0.124 0.122 -2. o 0.158 0.63E-02 0.55E-02 -11. 9 I 0.63E-02 0.158 0.136 -14 .1 0.192 0.49E-02 0. 4 9E-02 -1. 3 I 0.49E-02 0.192 0.188 -2.2 0.226 0.37E-02 0.40E-02 8. 4 I 0.37E-02 0. 226 0.234 3.6 0.260 0.28E-02 0.28E-02 -0.6 I 0.28E-02 0.260 0.260 -0.1 o. 294 0.22E-02 0.18E-02 -16.9 I 0.22E-02 0.294 0.279 -5 .1 0.328 O.lSE-02 0.13E-02 -12.2 I 0.15E-02 0.328 0.318 -3.0 0.362 O.lOE-02 0.62E-03 -38.7 I 0.lOE-02 0.362 0.343 -5.3 0.396 0. 62E-03 0.23E-03 -63.2 I 0.62E-03 0. 396 0.364 -8.0 0.430 0.34E-D3 0. 4 9E-04 -85.7 I 0.34E-03 0.430 0.390 -9.4 0. 464 0.21E-03 0.33E-04 -84.6 I o. 2rn-03 0. 464 0.398 -14. 3 0. 498 0.16E-03 0.33E-04 -80.0 I 0.16E-03 o. 498 0.404 -18.8 0.532 0.98E-04 0.16E-04 -83.3 I 0.98E-04 0.532 0. 411 -22.8 0.566 0.16E-04 0.16E-04 0.0 I 0.16E-04 0.566 0.574 1. 5 Maximum positive excursion= 0.015 cfs ( 7.6%) occurring at 0.195 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.210 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.133 cfs (-24.3%) occurring at 0.547 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.414 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical lnfonnation Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 25 001492 PEAK PLOT Return Period ~-----------------------'~--------'~----'-'~---'°~---'°~--~ 10 1 <> rdoulp'<;s h1 Sita-Tac 10' '" ~ £ • "' • ~ g 10·1 • dsoulpk:s PREDEV p~s ' • • R 0 • • • • • • 00 10''-'---~---~--~----~--~----~--~-~-------~--~------~ 1 2 ' 10 20 DURATION ANALYSIS " 0 ~ 0 ~ " R ~ ~ £ t ~ '1 il 0 N 0 00 " 0 0 0 10 -s 10• ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report 30 40 50 " 70 00 90 Cumulaliw Probability -E.weedence The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat 95 .. " rdout.dur ~ dsaut.dur • TARGET.dur 10' Page 26 010149°3 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT SYSTEM (PART E) The Project is located in the Basic Water Quality Treatment area. The treatment goal is 80% removal of total suspend solids for a typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff. A combined detention/water quality pond will accommodate this requirement. Rainfall (R) of the mean annual storm= Area of impervious surface (Ai) = Area of till soil covered wtth till grass (Atg) = Area of till soil covered with till forest (Alf) = Area of outwash soil covered wtth grass or forest (Ao)= Volume factor (f) = 0.47in. 208,554 s.f. 180,968 s.f. 0 s.f. o·s.1. 3 NIA Calculations Units Volume ofrunoff from mean annual storm (Vr) = 9123.507 c.f. Mnimum Wetpool volume required (Vb)= 27,371 c.f. The provided water quality volume is 35,071 c.f. From KCSWDM Fig. 6.4.1.A From KCSWDMSec. 64.1.1 Notes =(0.9Ai + 0.25Atg + 0.10Atf + 0.01Ao)' R/12 =f • Vr ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 27 00149°4 FIGURE 7 DETENTION & WATER QUALITY FACILITY DETAILS This will be provided at time of final engineering. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical lnfonnation Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 28 City ofRenton 001495 SECTION V CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Per C.R. #4 of the KCSWDM, the conveyance system must be analyzed and designed for existing tributary and developed onsite runoff from the proposed project. Pipe systems shall be designed to convey the 100-year design storm. The Rational Method will be used to calculate the Q-Ratio for each pipe node. Analysis will be performed at final engineering. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 29 City of Renton 001496 BACKWATER ANALYSIS A backwater analysis will be provided at time of final engineering. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle ~idge Preliminary Plat Page 30 City of Renton 001497 SECTION VI SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The following report and studies have been provided with this submittal. 1. Traffic Impact Analysis -TraffEx, Inc., December 27, 2013 2. Critical Areas Study -Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., February 3, 2014 3. Geotechnical Engineering Study -Earth Solutions NW LLC, February 5, 2014 4. Arborist Report-GreenForest, Inc., February 18, 2014 ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 31 City ofR.enton 001498 I SECTION VII OTHER PERMITS, VARIANCES AND ADJUSTMENTS Boundary Line Adjustment -City of Renton ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 32 City of Renton 001499 SECTION VIII ESC PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN (PART A) The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Design meets the nine minimum requirements: 1. Clearing Limits -Areas to remain undisturbed shall be delineated with a high- visibility plastic fence prior to any Site clearing or grading. 2. Cover Measures -Disturbed Site areas shall be covered with mulch and seeded, as appropriate, for temporary or permanent measures. 3. Perimeter protection -Perimeter protection shall consist of a silt fence down slope of any disturbed areas or stockpiles. 4. Traffic Area Stabilization -A stabilized construction entrance will be located at the point of ingress/egress. 5. Sediment Retention -Surface water collected from disturbed areas of the Site shall be routed through a sediment vault or sediment traps prior to release from the Site. The sediment vault or traps will be installed prior to grading of any contributing area. 6. Surface Water Control -Interceptor berms or swales shall be installed to control and intercept all surface water from disturbed areas. Surface water controls shall be installed concurrently with and/or immediately following rough grading. 7. Dewatering Control -Will be provided as needed. 8. Dust Control -Dust control shall be provided by spraying exposed soils with water until wet. This is required when exposed soils are dry to the point that wind transport is possible which would impact roadways, drainage ways, surface waters, or neighboring residences. 9. Flow Control -Runoff collected in the sediment vault will discharge to the permanent detention pond outfall system. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. T echnjcal lnfonnation Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 33 City of Renton 001500 SWPPS PLAN DESIGN (PART B) Construction activities that could contribute pollutants to surface and storm water include the following, with applicable BMP's listed for each item: 1. Storage and use of chemicals: Utilize source control, and soil erosion and sedimentation control practices, such as using only recommended amounts of chemical materials applied in the proper manner; neutralizing concrete wash water, and disposing of excess concrete material only in areas prepared for concrete placement, or return to batch plant; disposing of wash-up waters from water-based paints in sanitary sewer; disposing of wastes from oil-based paints, solvents, thinners, and mineral spirits only through a licensed waste management firm, or treatment, storage, and disposal (TSO) facility. 2. Material delivery and storage: Locate temporary storage areas away from vehicular traffic, near the construction entrance, and away from storm drains. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) should be supplied for all materials stored, and chemicals kept in their original labeled containers. Maintenance, fueling, and repair of heavy equipment and vehicles shall be conducted using spill prevention and control measures. Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any spill incident. Provide cover, containment, and protection from vandalism for all chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials. 3. Building demolition: Protect stormwater drainage system from sediment-laden runoff and loose particles. To the extent possible, use dikes, berms, or other methods to protect overland discharge paths from runoff. Street gutter, sidewalks, driveways, and other paved surfaces in the immediate area of demolition must be swept daily to collect and properly dispose of loose debris and garbage. Spray the minimum amount of water to help control windblown fine particles such as concrete, dust, and paint chips. Avoid excessive spraying so that runoff from the Site does not occur, yet dust control is achieved. Oils must never be used for dust control. 4. Sawcutting: Slurry and cuttings shall be vacuumed during the activity to prevent migration offsite and must not remain on permanent concrete or asphalt paving overnight. Collected slurry and cuttings shall be disposed of in a manner that does not violate ground water or surface water quality standards. The complete CSWPPP will be submitted at the time of final engineering. ©2014 0. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical lnfonnation Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 34 City of Renton 001501 SECTION IX BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 1. Bond Quantity Worksheet -will be submitted at final engineering 2. The Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet is included in this section 3. Declaration of Covenant-will be provided prior to final engineering approval. ©2014 0. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 35 City of Renton 001502 STORMWATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET Development. __ __,_T.,_,_h=-e-=E'-"n:.:::cc:.:la'-'vc::ec.::a::.::tc...:B:..:r.:..:id::..:l:.e..:.R..,i==-dg.._e=--Date February 13. 2014 Location 14038 1561h Avenue SE, Renton, Washington ENGINEER Name Maher A. Joudi, P.E. Firm D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. Address 620 7"' Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 827-3063 Developed Site: 6.981 acres Number of lots 31 Number of detention facilities on Site: ___ vaults __ 1,__ pond ___ tanks DEVELOPER Name Firm PNW Holdings LLC Address 9675 SE 361 " Street, #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone {206) 588-1147 Number of infiltration facilities on Site: ___ vaults ___ vaults tanks --- Flow control provided in regional facility (give location), ____ -,-----,-------=---,---- No flow control required __ Exemption number Downstream Drainage B . asrns Immediate Major Basin Basin Lower Cedar River Cedar River Number & type of water quality facilities on Site: biofiltration swale (regular/wet/ or continuous inflow?) ___ sand filter (basic or large?) ___ sand filter, linear (basic or large?) combined detention/WO vault --- --'-'X'--combined detention/wetpond ___ compost filter ___ filter strip ___ flow dispersion ___ farm management plan ___ landscape management plan ___ CONTECH Stormfilter ___ sand filter vault (basic or large?) ___ storrnwater wetland ___ wetvault (basic or large?) ___ Wetvault ___ pre-settling pond ___ flow-splitter catchbasin ___ oil/water separator (baffle or coalescing plate?) ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information R~port The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 36 City of Renton 001503 catch basin inserts: --- Manufacturer ___________________ _ ___ pre-settling structure: Manufacturer ___________________ _ DESIGN INFORMATION INDIVIDUAL BASIN Water Quality design flow Water Quality treated volume Drainage basin(s) Onsite area (includes frontaael 8.942 Offsite area Tvoe of Storage Facilitv Pond Live Storaqe Volume (rec uiredl 96,867 Predev Runoff Rate 2-vear 0.249 10-vear 0.435 100-year 0.724 Develooed Runoff Rate 2-vear 0.153 (includes bvoass) 10-vear 0.354 100-vear 1.860 Tvoe of Restrictor Froo-Tee Size of orifice/restriction No. 1 1.50 No. 2 2.65 ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Technical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 37 City of Renton 001504 SECTION X OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Excerpts from the 2009 KCSWDM will be provided at final engineering. ©2014 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Tec~nical Information Report The Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat Page 38 010150°5 D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS ' I ' ! ~ ~ z p ;; ~ D I I I , 1 I ,! m m j?6z t~ ,.;,; !> ~~· ·~ ~~~ ~~i'l em ' ~ :,1, i lj!!! Ii . ' ' ---,, . - I; !1i! j ~ 1!11. l1[i '[ ' THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE xxx~xxxx h L L L L L L '-- ! I : ' ! : I ''. I , I • I <1' : ~ I'' I '' 11 "' . ' ' I I 'i I I I''' I I I ' ' ti I 1· ' " ' ' i ' , , I q 11 II I 1' ;: I!] : 11 ii\ I : !\ I \ i ! I'd Tl'" I 1a1;• tiil'l I•!! ii ~ !j 1!;1:' ;l11 I!'! \' ,J l rrl 1.11 1·,;, ·•1 1'1 I' 111,1.11 d ! . 1 I' . ' xxx-xxxx ' I ,.J ' :m ·~ • I xxxx-xxx l .! ••• I lij ;' '\ ii, ., 3~0I~ 310l~8 l V 31Wl:JN3 31-ll • ' ! ! I Ji !!iili f ! i I 001509 X X X X * X X l g i : ' • • ' i \ oj ~I UI . .a. ! 0 0 ii" "' ~ '!/ g "' '" I I l---- 1 }-- ' " -.. ....._ -,,"~' ,_,_,., .. , f"'';:; THE ttJcu:vEv.NAf BRi6t1 kfJJGE _L_,, ~ ~~o· .L~ ···-. .. ···., ·--~· _.Q-' K ,, ~.l ~_...._ ~· Ir:,, --'.' i..,_..,.~.L. ----31 30·-·-· 1!!: .. '"• 21 ~·· .. 29 ... , 22 ~~~~ ..::~===:.. -~:.,-I ND. ~ ...... ,, ~- ···23 ..... -irr IDol'[I""" I ,.:S, l --~ ~ ---- CITY OF RENTON ~ ....... --°""" TR£r ~ttCN CAI.CUI.A 1/(WS S51E~-! ===-...::=~~= ---........... --...... --~~a,;,•., _....___ - _____ ... _Ir" __ --- ITTiC """" ~~-=,,_,... JI( gi ......... - I'--/--\Q'\0'-........ ~,) ~'/ 0 0 ;:-:==..-:-- RECEIVED FEB 2 7 20'14 C.!7 " :·,a, •;.·L-r"TON I • ~-I I.. , '4 @ IJ/ /'-i :r,;1,·.!' ; );,::~;1(),'J NOR.TH all4"t1C"""'-' ~ '"""'".," THE ENCL.A\/[ AT BRIDLE RIDGE: PRELIMINARY PLAT TllE1:! CUT1tf3 AND~ CLEAflffl PUM ! { o I Cl' ..a. j c.n . ... , ... ~I THEENCLAVEASHf BRiDLE RfbGE X I X X XI i P~ rii--,. 11 I I -• P:?+? i • i " i j 1 1 ti 1 1 .. -1 , 1 • 1 1 1 -Ei @;; ill.& I ; 1 a ,~ " . -~ . 0 • • ffi ~ .. .. . . ' ' .... . . <( • ~ : < • 14 .. d .. .. I ru: 1$:::: I t. I ~ z ~, 1111 111 " ii I I! Ill 111 j I I I el ,. 1 ,, ~ ~a:~ ___ ..__ -··-~--·-~ = i±====i ,~-~ • I . iEF=l I!;! : ~ "- i 11 ' ~ ~ -.. .. ,DU'o:1--,. I -i ~ G- '.t:-=a' lll"Tilil i I I " ]! Dt'Q.t()fil mtts N01F ~~-.-=.~& ~'r.=t!"'==.~~ mrr rABLE NOrc ,. _____ ,.,_ ....... --.. ,..,. ~ CITY OF RENTON -1n111 ........... --- RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2014 CITY Gr kENTON ~-'1 A1-1r,:,,.! .. -!-_,;,_11 <)!\: TI-IE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PREUMINi'IRY PLAT TR<ETMI.E I I-I i ,1 -.~ ~ !1 Ii I II n I~ ' Ii ~! 11 ~· Ii I ff I { 5i! .. I' I 1• I• ' . I ~i ~ I I ~' I I K' ~ ~ I I ·-,'~ --) --.. ' xxxx-xxx ~OJ!:! 3lal~S .lV 3AV1~N3 3Hl I I ·I ·., '1 ~ ' U., u w rv r I J' I-i ' @.O'.,,; 0 !, -z ;z: 0 L I I w ~ ~ w~, ~~ m,-f,, ~~~ ~i !~I I ! ' f I I J1 nil 1 I• i I ........ --------·- I <[ ~ a ,! i ~ 001512 ! I ~, U'I . ..a.I w X ~ X I X X X L l l'J ~ ~ I ".I 0 "' "' >--< ~ ~ CJ z w w i!c Sc /tf ScCTION 14, TOIMISH/P 2:J N, RANGE: 5 £, W.&I. ---.:J.'[' , .:.· ~-: " ··t::/ ,..,_~/j/1 ENCLA,1,(,~.~-~ ~R!pl~R'RGE ,,,I~: l I iJ"·' . :i,:, .• , '"" •"•.:: ;·' ~--,e:o :· J ' ~ .Y .,:,( " :,Z, .;,.,!}," ,/ lil1···j·:\17 ·1 ;~ . : ;-: . .-,,.., "1! I 1 i r":,,.,. ,,,,''.';/';''•-, .,,.,,~·',ff\ '""'"~1~l!f'i ,, . '.::~_·::'.'.':i~·-'\;-· - . 't-'. .._,~, , .. ,.,._l ~-: I r.:it~-1, ·-1· ;;I :·: \ f: i ---·-Jfl ,,.'"'-,iJ 1(-f j'J : i ~~--l z) . Ill,:•. I ... -.::J·-r: I : . ): i __ 1 I,:;: -'"-:: , ,{t: -::=IT,! ',, -.•. i ;1i' '"-J J, ~?~~:fi} ; : .. i:}ff !!%~n' ["· 0l::fk1fl/ ,, "h''''1,-,. ~~¥(:,, ·;/ i ·s, -30 29~. ,., .?.1 22 ..... , M..,. ' :· ,,! ,r_ ·"' ,,-~, ... '"'."f;,. ~'.'!;.,T /::· onnom sw ... r 5fffI f-<ECE!VE[) FE.B 2 7 ZDH CITY ....-, F;; NlON f-'L 1\i ', .:';'-J ,,,·,,_ .''\. '' \ @ NORTH --· . ~ [[[()RSH':~ ---·--~-~ ~ • Dln: I -1-,., --~ Ii..;_,; I ~ CITY OF RENTON _....,....~ ..... l)os,I. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRELIMINARY PL.AT """""'COHT1IC1 PUN ORS PRO.(CT NO. 13117 I : I I 1' j t.l I -·.,,)-;-, •• c_-•• ::; .• ,: ..• ,1'.,C:.:.-.·.-;) !! L_ __ _ • --Jj.-':;;.:,-cc:," xxxx-xxx ~Ol~ 3101~8 l V 3/\ V1:JN3 3Hi -~ 0 l.LJ > -l.LJ u l.LJ 0::. = '" t; '0 j!; <:": ' -'!i ~ ;~~.sn ~I ;~~r~ :-~ ~~::} ___ ~/-:,_:_. ··, .. ,-..•... -J.--·-~--·· --• ............,. .. r-·· _._..,,_L_ /:,,:.- I F:- tj !1 ~~~ Q~i ~ ~~ 5 m,-~i, ,! !<~ I dg z~ w g w ~ l "-z I oo ~~ t uo: I, f • ~ i ~ii • r i' ! ~ • .......... ------......~- 001514 I ! I ~t Ulj ..a. UI § I X X X I ~ ti~ f ".J C> ir w ~ ~ z w w '° frlf4 lf.JcL',J:vEAS1if sRJol'E !?fiJo'E I ~ -' - 1 -. !----' -f--: I--i~---: --~ i----~ -' -'.ti- \-:--!--------'------1------C------: ~!-~r=--<-~1---1 ' ----I --' i i i . ;J/~:.--; ___ j_ ~--1 , --~ ·-·-·-----... -·L--_ _i -I _v----i ! i Ill ------~, I I I -----< I I ·r-----'.···· -:. .. .. ~ -·-____ ,___ ----;-----;---·-· --r-----':. - i : ----·+-·-r : i : . : : 11 I' I ' I ~----: I I I ! i ' I !~~,-:;c,'/ ---:, ! ' ! 1~-__j---: . I ' ~ I I I . I I ! J I : ,..,-I I I : II ' ! 1 1 ii! , ___ ____.. .... I r r , i : ' I -------! ---111116 .L---<:--· .. _, , _ .... -·· --···, .... _ ... : ---·-·-·--!-----: ~II , I 1 : I ! I ! -I -1 . r--L f • I I ' ' ' ; ' : I ' : ---"--- ;-·- ) ) ) i ,---.-----1 ---·----·-:-!---,----·-, --·-:·-------:---,----1---i·--;---·r-1 I I ! ' I I ' '1 I I' ' I : I I ----;-f----------'-----1--------··-·:···-·-------I --•--- 1--~--'--! i I I -~--,, I ' . L__ 156TH ~ VE $£ I D , , , -r-~ , -~ f ~ ~ , l l ~ l , ~ I ------... -- ,, ,,. ___ _/., ··---·~ .--JID"~· ----- .!£~_ .. _-,., .. fAiT HAlf l56Uf AYE i'@ l?EC::EIVED FEB 2 7 ZOi4 CITY /_[,!TON i-'1 f,1,:i ·;·-J , 1·_,''> I:." ,r,: ~~""""-E ·~~:- t...i;_; ,u:,, •• ., ---ii ~~~ -.. --~ !;El CITY OF ~"" RENTON lHE: E:NCLAVE AT BRIDLE: RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT ~===---'t_~-=:.:.-\ Ill). """"'lilll~-i:i.,t. AOAD PAOFlf IKJ CROSS SECT10N DETAl er \t)OTt\lPPfli--,.. 1£::..~1 -DRS PRO.l:CT NO. 1J117 • xxxx-xxx 0 w ST > C) . ~ LL) ~ ( \ CD v w Ll.J LL {Y ' I;; ,,_: } '..J i • r I I I • • f I i b Ml i I ..... ~ ..... --... --... 1-·- 001516 xxxx-xxx : ' ·, i ---___ ! I ! 350I~ 310l~8 lV 3/\Vl0N3 3H1 0 LU "' .' = ./ c•._1 ' . ... , . ... ( ,_·: '.) r I • ; -....... ----'""--"''"""-001517 ~~i'" Nl'1d :!NJSJN\11 "' '5 J'.?c'.1121 J1c112Jf1 '.fl? ::JJ\V1JNJ J{J. ' '---' = • -J11 S?Nld10H lv\Nd ~ SNOlsv.a, a I : I ,, -., Ii , I N N !11 ,, ~ I 'i ! ~ i I * ~ fl ',,1,, • ' ! -~ ! ~:.Oiillfil I i i -~ ., ::9 c ·' ' . . . j ;>' ·~ ~ g " ' I ! ~-m i ' !11 • s !. I ~ I E l~ I ·"" / /' ~ 1 --L-,-.-· . . . ,.--i:= --- ~,; -~ j--~ ·-· ·-· 1-· I \ I 00151 I ., ( 81T .. UI .. MAfCHL.IN~ -5ff 5rfff l-:> ,.... ---I I ---~.,... --~ I .-----·.-;---' ,-~-~-~-~ \ / : : : ·-.. ( : ··· .. i : \., ; ; : : I i l I J 'l· : ', : '20 ,: 2 11 :r··, l't,, \ I /•.... I I I I I I ··., I I \ . l ' 92'< S.S .•..•. ,-··,·<l.o. 1 ' ' 22 ' ' ··--23 ' ' 2'4 '' I • , •.... I 1 -,-""e: I l I I I I ,I L1(,'~~'l'E11ffff,f('~ 1 ,-050,_!!:F. I l 8,050 S.F 1 1 8.05()"•5,F. I I \ 'l IMf1tltOAfT1/,fr.flfll,f: : .t .l : : • <. \ \ s.ssJ s.\. i'· :(.(ffiffl.l:'.1Yf. I I : \ I ' '·,, I : \ : ·------------' L I I ·-, I :"1 \\('.)Ml.,IW',(.lf'!'IVftr.f/,~ I I I ----------------• "----------..'.·--.---~ 1~~~~11.1/frtWM: I ___ \ ___ \ \ 'co ~,;, ' :\ .\ -\-~ ' ' ' ' : ~~ ' "' ' ~ ' ' ' ' Is 9,SJi S.F. ;" ------1 . _J '~ ·--..~..(::_______ J I '\ ' "",-.._~a I l 8' \ I ~0:...._.:--:.:------1-.1____ 1 F --~! t:·,-,:----·--: : : / 1 -.. : ·· ... }Kl'vi>rH"L~"".l'fh I f(lf,t't,,,'MJ.l;r-Af!Wl;Cf \ ~-I j 8050S.. ' /~,~,--;___ ' ; 9 251 S.F. , , I ' 1 • I ' I I ' I I I \ I , I , I I > I ' ' ' ' ' ' \ ----- ' ' " 'l \ 11 l1,p50!5F. ,, :\ _______ ···-... , -- ~ .... :.,ll, -1.: 15 ' .-·' I I I I ·. ,: 8.5; 5.F. ! 1 1 1 8,3((8 S.F. \I i .. <~ 1/:t ·iji, ~>< \ ,r/,lt(,~!Y+J : 14 ' ' ' _, '·'9,288 S.F. ' (\ '', ' ', --~.--------- \ --------------\ : (• ; ' ,J, ' ·, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ) : ) 13 ; \ i'8f S!'C110N' '70 sfr. '. ir' / .'I 1-15· k, LA'.;D.1£f~r \ ; ,, -./~'--::.-=.-::.-::.-=.-=.-::.-=.-::.-::.~-::.~-::.-::.~-\. f""l ·-('' i=,,I ~t'~~::-~ ~ t .. _.., ,_ '"'V";ut;:~£.iur.rn. =EB r:E.B 2 'i Z D 11! err--: _;,,·ON >-,,-'l.\i ' ·--L ' . "·. I ·-' ·-, I ·-' · .. , \ ,- ' ' ' ' ' ' \ 0 ~ ~ ~ ';Ut.f I" ... 20'·0" '.tf[;fSIZ!: 22i!>4 ~ ~ --.,Q.JJi ~ D \':Ii u"'--' --' -' --' D~ '"' l':>i ~ 1,,3 ~,. ... _ ~ i<l~ G =~ I>~ s: <~ ~d z \.D ~ 5!-IH2,f0 ' 1~--'bJ; --r-___ l,__ ----L___ ~. ,' ·-1 g ·1 ' . ~ II , ',-,~ ~.t, I ·,. O· 0 -UI N ' ' ' ' ' -3tF II : 2'9 : -_,1-~~~~~==~.-----,~.-1 --~----31 i : 9,S..!9 S.F. : ' ' \ _-Jas-j- J . .----,... -------__ ! ' ' ' ' ' ' ·t--- ' 8,050 S.F. 1 _____ --------- I I , I \ ' ,, I 1 I 8,050 S.F. ·-.., I I I ' ! J .. --i---------····-, 't I I -,. ' I ~-------'• ••• ___ ; <---------------, ' . ' ' ' : ---, r-------------I I : : I I I I I ' ., \ : i : ! ' 20 I I I I T·---.. I I 21 ' ' I 9764..._$.F .c-··r·-.,.),Q_, I I ~J~~~e'lff;, rr,c:E i : -,.,"'_-eso .. s.r. I : m'"JUtPAffl;f:{l'H"i.t:' I .• L .l 22 8,050 S.F. ' ' ' ' ' ' C(t,r.llll!l::~ : I !-t_.:.::-~-~---~ ~-;;;-~-_.;-J L _ -.;;;.,-.._--' ' ' ·1 ' ~ . 1 ~-J / >-- / I ' '- e:190-.s,r :-.... _ ·-\._: ' -, __ _ ' ' ' ' ' 28 S.G.~O SF ,., ' ' ' ' '•, I . ' ···-( ' ' ,, ' ' ' ' ~--'~'".. -----.:::. ·-I ',,..,_ I ···~.. I I ·,. I I ···j~ , 23 8,o5(Y$..f. :·-------~--------~r: ----·¥-.-· --~·,._-~·::.r~. J. < I ", I I I I , ·•• I ·: · .. _ 27 \ \ \ ·-, '·.\ I '·. • • .._' 1 26· 1'• I 8,liBJ •. S.F. 1 1 \' \ ',,, 11 1 J ) ,i/,f68 $.F. '•,I I I 1 ', 'I. l. I '• \ •: I ! r, I I• L __ ~:::-.. ____ ., ______ j_ i __ \.----~\-----J: ', ,--~~---------l-! ',,, \-: ' ' ' t. ' ' 1'• \ '. I i 24 \,1' 10' \IV!ltLIW'.1'.Jft !;'l.'m,.L re, re m.-!Ult-Ar 1WZ a ~awm.r;rr,1.1 i··~----~-----~, \. \i j ' ·1 I ' I"• i ~ }s ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : . 8,68J s'.-,;. i\ ··;.;.mL \\ \ JJ MA-fC~l-l-l-Nf--:--5ff :tlfff t=-2 --' : -I>;' 9,5Ji; S.F. ' . ' ..... ~ !='EB 2 'I 20i4 C~JT\l <Jr ;~ ~"J,)"!"QN ~I/. ,.;,·'J\J ' ~ ' ·: ' ' ' ' ' ' L ____ _ • 9-fff51Zl: 22''>-l u "" -' --1 -' <;:::, \I'\ s:u'. ! l.,s \£,, CL :z = :l 'l\l ~ '0 "" C's IC >:cc. 3,: <~ :z --1 "-\._) ::z "-' ~ 1:...,..., ~ --.n -~· ~-? i :'IUD,f? • a ~ 5 1-"l "l 11-'1-1-'1-'1-'1-'1-'1--~ 11-~ 11-=1 i;: __ <NNNN,S,N NNNN\l'\>O _"¢" I +------\ Uj ·c;-j- > - C'C ,:-.. LI..J ""' ( \ ::n ~ ....... uJ UJ CL Q' r ... -·· .----------.{ 00152 C) C) """ (JI N \ \ • \ ' ' ' '·,{ 9 ·.' .,, '· ' : --..... ~8,052 5.F. : 1, ... ' ' ' ' ' ---·"==---' ' --r-... ' ·-!::..-..,_ ' ' <.'.:_·:,,. ________ J ......... ' ' ' ', ' ··, .. : , .. 10 8.05fr·!i.F 11 ", 8,051 S.F. ---- ,--------. r-...l..:----------~-'- 1 '· i.. i I I •• l •••••• l?i4:".t' ,\ •·. ~L......' ·- 'r. .. I .-:JQ ... F ,-.. 12 '\\' ' ·,,, :'.::...- '1Ql479 S.F. 1 . ' \ \ ' ··. i ······ .. ~": ' ' '------~ PHU'tE(M ;ff i I 1\1'1'./'1. Wi ~7--------~1o1:ram,J!l'ff.:U iAJJxR'f ':ff H" --111'.ah"'.'.UCM.'ft --I ::;rORMWA11'R POND -:(}fMAflC 5frnON -NOR1l1 !-,k")ffO 5C/tt f!~:E.<tfWl"l:f E\.E~N<:iflC.'U L.JtV<{.)f'!;P<JN ftti!a'Nlf.Wf'b, 'f(CM. 'i' .-::;-~"'"· j\ fYl'tACLOf 1 1' ~' '""'''""" ' --l,'#Vljff';f:-':f.f. G';;:1 ~ ~--·----,' ""'"·""M-" ·-..,', ,/ '.~ . _,:/!·) . < S' 5fORMw11n:iiroNr -:(:ff MMe :xcflON -fA5r t..or fO 50iE fOO.~CJ\t.~ I ''\ I f'l.'fffnYLU / ......--I; wmwArrrrrw :U(l\t,:l( 1 ~ I .'.f"'.m~Mr."l'~ / ~_ci_. ""'_'' ,,, . ff )~rl'l'f'ffl~'Hlr,.'tf L .~\fl ---~IW'G'f'!'IVN l"<E<.=:tlVE =!fi'I.IJ>6M~.<.a----- r!.t '"fr j ~ fJ.l-~(JIJ()I.VKf5, ".ll:0/l.$ 5fORMWAffR POND -5Cff1MT1C 5!'C110N -EA5f 'vrfO '.::(It~ ~EB F[B 2 7 ZOi4 CITY ,,.. '.-\,,;,: P~/\i, o m • ~ti"• 20 ·0" ~ m-r~~22t,4 E1 i II ., ~ _. >...Qbl ul~ --' --' --' I::, :z l..f\ s.:::iL3 'Ci (£:,. "- ~ (\j~ ~~ >"' <"' __,.~ "-.) z ~ it -tll-z.l..~ -~ --l-0 '.11',r "' ,r "' gl """l UI. NI w X E I X X X ! t'J I ~ ~ iii !;; ~ ~ w C' rHEfffJcu.vi!Ar i1Ri6LE RIDGE fEIJ I : 11 • .i..-11 111111"~ ,, """" • ~1 o,iij.._--,..-.,..,°' -·=Jr~- )----------iii · ·~ ti~~i-M~ I 1 11' Ii ~ ~ 'lf-.L_-------1 f-----______.._, """""""' """""""'""""""" ----------a __ ,_ ~. ' 111 ! ' ' -""looitl..,,. • I ,' I ,, I ,' I I I I 'i ~ ~ .. -== -- I .: . .': .• I Jim CITY OF ~ RENTON --- IJQ1r· ,...__..,_ ..... ___ -..........,..,, __ """---,,,--_ i'<EC.':EIVED FEB272014 @ NORTH CITY ,-,f: ",,:,,irol'U-~' .,, , ..... " t·. ~-! ' ~ -,y..,,_ ~::"!"!'n. - P1 /\i,,''·.;· .,,-. I \;·,/1,J(),\J THE ENCLA\IE AT BRIDLE RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT NEXHICR«XlD Dl!TAL IMP ORS PRO.ECT NO. 13117 SE 1/4 SECnoN 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, WM. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE i!I q ~t1 !:> ~-~ ---,--'~-L 1~~-lc=--r1--"';,.;,_~-~"'~' ::~"·~~ ' ' ~1 ~I !i <{ ~ > <{ ~ () ,' ~ '" :: ' ' I '' F "' co, ~-; «- 1:1 [g, -j~ ,. :_,i_• K .z.. ,_: 3 I ,1 I 'I ,.,, ;/ ,l~~>"J·,-· .. ,,., 1/ TRAf:_T.c,"la"_ /'~F 4 / I -·/-1 _zt.;.,· __ J . )·-, --~'" --. --~---1--"~,,<"' -,.:!~ - -~\,,~~I ""·"~''"" ,, /.-,_,a -----r Hf'JD j _ _ __ :m :~---_ -~~ROAQ~ I -.-.. , -,1 "--;v---,--.... --T-.. -,,--1---,,. --,~.,--,,, 1 (~. ;~-::.."" I t I 'T·\ ,[, , =-.:, -, --j --i -• -I -: i,~--~c· ~ _ .JR. ~ .£~. ~ .£~. { ,.!/,. f .~~. : 'i' , -+;,e;\_s,, '1 I ·1 I \ ' ' I -----I I ' i---;;c;,:;,.,' 'X i q i 0, : S'< > ; \-~ 6 '""" '{,:_ ti 1 t """ 'f ~---____::i..:;:_~ ' I s ~ ~"-' -·' " ' :, . ., ... ---t -J i --J I - I~ 20 :j. 21 22 ,;j 23 24 ·;J --_-""' 11: w" -' ,,., --1 ,,. ' ' "' ' ~ ,. -I -I / -----I I ,,{..5 ~o.to-__ I_ r i.:.""L.__ i -~ --L l>l"'--..1.. --~ -_l_,a. _y I -~ 9 ,, J --1 ff' I: ' ! , / i / NDPL I S~ 142 _ ~ lfl:ii.c,-.;;;.;,.;;:-~ l I .,, ~,1,._.,....,.,~~ II'""~·~~ ... ~ , __ !" ·r-- 1 -:5--~ -j, ~-·--T-~,r-r '" ~1r-::.-.. 1 -... i\ , -----1~--,J--:;:. i f : ,"j • I /:I : '::1 ;.j , I· __ '.'.'.:_" R9,1Q 8_ ,,,., ~ .. ,.,:,- I' ~-·---~~ 'i k ,, ~It ~-Jt I i .. n , ,J.~. t', -,Z!,. .Zf. -_:~ ' , 'J J . :t. r'c..:_,'-'~ : __ / -,___ •1• :i: I! -; 1 I ' ' . -• 1, , • 1 1 ' : I . I " & , -----''--"""'-'-'----j ~ ' • __.;i,;;., ----..L ' !'" j s ""-" I --,-,=---~ t~ I ' I ' I' . ./.1,. ,} ,~ _.,,,,.,.,,,__.-.,.,\ t.--=:-~~=;:~-~-~-=>::-- I 1, '• r,~q,r,;:: .. ·""''''' l{~t.. )?. ~R~,'J'<." ·~ ,.;._:,,,r·: .. 71- 1r,:~,;iidtiJ ~ -DR f!./RO/','G i' CGW.S-VL TiNG l:NGi'IEER:S ~------::;-;!t::...,-;;_.::,:::, ... ~-:;:;,;;;:: - =: .... =~= ,... '"''_ ..... .l5 ~OT,O E'.5'0,,fCT CONTACTS· '""''"""' /"'""" "'" •v,,-, .... , ,,c "''' ,.-~.,. >'"ll' •,•,T '" ,":.;;;,/'.";',''"""''"''''"" c,-.•,.--··-~'·' .,er,,, '_.. .. ,.,....,,,..-.... -...... ,-,;,""' ''"'"""''' ~ :6.52~:{f::.',,.,""";;~;!Cf'~ WC ~:!~~:.:~~;&:,.;;;!' ~,' SH(£T tNDfX: ____ _ " , .,, '" """'"""' "\<' u;, c, ,,y., ·='""''u,• C• jC,,>e C,flC,,C""'''""'"~"-•"""""'t;O ,; : ; ;~ ~-:=rJ, ,om "'-' .;RWW? '"" -, ""'" """""""'-o,.'"''-''"' , '°'"' -:r,·,r,,.,,ro"~"'-'"·" ~; :-; :~ ~~;1-:~:;~-i~~~'.~i "9 ·o •Y •o '""" ""<"',<, '"'""'"'""" ·~·,c"" ~.,. .,s,·•-,, .,~,,. •·. "''" '""'"'""~' 'r---- j I 1·' /i ' ,,,,·c,. ~ ""''"'""•""'' ,,-,~Ji '.:[..:"trfI::;;, -,,~ ... PCC:.<,,S <• >"",& ,~,.--, °" ~ARC[. R PARC£!.. KfY MAP !@J,~g~;~;~,~-;.,"'~?"-;-- ~·~; .,:-".,.,_ ;R ® _J7 ';'''~'" ;· ~: . -::-ii --,'_-' ~ . _L , ~! :,,J.,.,.'t:Y -]_,. """_'«1'_"""' -~ ,,-:-~;' '~ - ,~.----:-~' t .,ifP/IOJIT.rSJ,r:I '-t I ,-·· , _ _,, . I ,,···""~$ --,, _; f' ,_ •" ' -~,-·~,'"' I :1-1 -~- _ _l, ,<.P:'.C.'£__ ---,-:..._-I! ~,e--'/ .,.::-:;.,,;;:; v, ... ;·;< 'IIC/NJTy MAP --~,:"<' @ eB!},/§._(:T 1/yFOf?MA "TICN: r;,~ .,.,, •• , ,...,,. '"<' '''" ""·~'"'"' ,.-,,.c,'""·"""-"'• -=~·,· ""'•'"'''"""'-"-"''••'"' -~""'-''"'''"'°"'"'''"'""''·' ·'"""'"""'"'"""''"""'"'' v~o., c·r>~· NOr-.l>-< ~s-:-- ··~" '"' ,.,. .. ~ ~ , ....... ~'9"'"'""" s•,'<p '-"''"<''-' n,• '1 ,,, o• I",. ''-"'' .,,_.. .. ~-,,,, ~NQ__ ____________ _ • ,:.,_. ""'"·-· " , _ _, ,,._.,,,, -"""'""'"' !,) '""·'""'"" ,.,,,, @ ~~"''' ..,,..., ,,....._, ,,.., "«<~•' NQJLF.QU.E;RT!f/C-1!J.Qfi Q£ .Iii)fil,'F.'f..JHE&MillJ.m -~·"·,:';"-;::t. ~:r::·~:-:--:,::: ::;,:;,,; ..... , . .._ .... ,,...,,.,,._ -~-' -\,~; ·' " +.-,.i;'f;,, NORTH "'"'' iolff'"' I \i, ... '~,i ORAP~.cs.:,c, ~ ,, .... .,, .. o•- \t'f~;''-;.';?.1_/ /I J-.'/a?,/,i THE ENCLAVE AT 8~1DLI: RGE{:FIV PRFLIMlt-.ARY ?LAT PREUJl,~AAv p·_4~ ~LA~ ORS P~OJl:.Ci NO. 131i7 X X X X I X X X w y £ w ,,: I Cl' cc ~ "' "' ~ ' u z w ~ T SE 1/4 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, W:M. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE I I I'""', "~'F'" .· "1"i . ....,.. ~-;~" .,-.o_,,.o:·1~S--.-,, : t"'" s,,c/ .. ~-;-::~~''";:" ' ... ,,, : --•",:;/:·:;·, . _,_, .,~,· ,.,, ~·y:· "•1 I·, ~7f··,C '";;Sc, "'" '"""";, •. , . I' ,.·,,!"' j, ·. ( •' . )] ~:~, ... :;"..'. .. · . l]ft~.c~~·t .~ j l ' · ' -· 0 ,. · ·• · " V · ·. ·w· '1.1 1 , " -c!"G·, },,, .. c"'·i..,'.'t.·c '' ~ (ii, O?zy, ''·'~'f.,1-'' (6 . • 'I I '· ""'· • '",<> ,, :;,Jl,·t,c:i-o,,,, ·. '''. ' ,,, ' '"""'£ "•·.:;:,· '' ": '; .,·' \i J.-+ ·.• j /; /,, '/; ·.;, ·.~ :.~,. ti;r.'il;;'. ' ""' 9 .~ ·-;'';':,.',;'";'"' ' ·.•.''I h ,, _"!, ~,; «-. 9 '\ r I , . -~ o.,., , ,;, o,.. ,.. o. . .. 9 I · ,, , , .• ,. ,,. · s, . -"' "., ~,·· . tit ',. '•' '.trn x·:: .... , ,. ,:;;c- e;.,·.-"""' 1-'f~ ~\---""'-"'""'' --- I ;}~' ~ \..:' ~: "'"' ' '·'-::.,.; -1· I~ ----'--·-·--.:_ ---;:t~i~;:·~'.;':' ,o" ··,4-,,-. "",l;:i• _ _.·r:· . •. ".;,. f'.-i' """'"' '' ·%···le" .. :·,_:,:/~r' !L~:u':.,_> -.?'-'"".~.''"~.--,,:;~, ,, .. _ -·t \ e ~ -t __ ( -,2,#?~~:J~~;c~;:~~ -~ "_i:i---'::......-1 L-':.:'"~~~ r., ?, 8'' :,-. .::i., •. c :::il' -:., .. q ' __ ,,.-•. ,., ,.., ·-· '4r.,. ,'... .,.-.,,-.'1,11,J-·, ' o,·, Q ''.'"'~ _jh··· 9. (.)"'' ""~1i'i i.'.. .. , WC.1. -~,.., .. "~'' ,"•;'l-'J ~,,,,, "'."~:~~i~\·~:[[t'if~i:ri I' "'"'-'""·'. '"'' ·'""" / '"""'"'!J Jl;!'l ------- ~ .1r,-"'llll,>C1' ·I :,_---::-----~3 D ,q STRCNG .· ··,.-. =--.~-.,_.~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~~}.~~ :·_~--1 :;~;;~:;;;;.: . I [].,.1 . ,(ti d . co1,~,;;~~i~.;,~ """''-'"'" l:::."';7,~"CO"I> .... ..., --~ ..... ,,~,,,. •r,- lS "0'[0 'fl ,cc.-T ...-,.,-,.,• <, "°''" 0 '"''"'' ,~ ,•uC,..•[•' ,a ,s u •.-r:.i '"·'"""'' ~" .-.,,., MA TCHI./N[. S££ l£FT I ,: I' f: i I . ·t .. -r, I ,= ,: l,;1 ':'' Ir ir .,_,::,-1 · .11; ' · "' ,,_., " .. , I ljJ, l.,=a.·ffi ~ ! I' i ! I I ii ,'1 \ \. I' ~ ~i ':.... 111' '. ·--;;: '"" ,am (' 1- lf1 . 1,, .. I' I• i•t ' .~ i I I I._ i. I /t f i1 ;> · ::;,·1~,· '' \ •,• . .,.,.,,_,. ";J,. ! _-,,,.-,., .. ,c, ,-.,~::::if;'t"~. _, _St 1-~~l~TFE.I_; ,.,,, .. ,_.,,. I .,,, "' ,,, ... , '"'" '.'' '"'.' ' '""" -~"" ,· ""'"' .,,. I'_.;,. I ~.'.;/\'-; ~~-'_;'~'."' <•;. ~:.;.,.,.-:~ ~ ® y· ,-,1 ,-~'~ •S[,oc' li:GAL O[SCR,PT!Q.\'. in ___ _N ·-~. ,c,,•v•, ... .._ "'"''"''""" ---·'·"''· -~· ,, .. ~--.... ------"fC<""''D ~'M< ,,,,,.,~ •• ,-,9· --~-;.:-~ ::·.:.-.·_; '" ,,;· __ -:·.~;, :~. , . .,_;, ·-'-"'' . .-;,.{;,'" ... ,. ,~,,.,, ,,g $1'1?\f:YOR"5 NQ[Vi ht.-::·:::.:.::;::;;; 1;,,".'io:'?'.~"',\;':'.';."';,~'':.;i;;'-:;:-,.;,,'';,';'t~~".:;',:'.;,, ,., REFERENCES . ,,,,,,._, .. ,.,.,,,,., .. , •. -~,n,.,,r. '=""'''· "·"'"'-·'"'<··· ""' ,, . .,.,~.; , .. ....,,..--.,~c,,.-,w.u-, \'f:."ITICA~ CJ\ 'U!,i· BENCHMARK; ;/;,~.:C~"~::.~;;:~·:,~,...~·, :?:~i· ~:·"".""' ·::··"" ... ,,~~ ··""'"-'"·"·-·i'S,· '"'-·"··•,~, _-,-v~'*"~'" u'< S" "'•' .:~•-,.,._.~ ,r """""'' -,,-,3, •ff 1,QF/1ZQl;TAL f,Ai'...,'M: 8ASIS QF BEARINGS._ _ :i:.·:;;,;·:'i~--~~._-.;:;,, ·r:; ,-::, ];';,"'"''' o,-,e~o )C s,;,·,-.,~ ··-,-, ill Lt RfS //?1C 1;QNS: @ NORTH ~"-'"HO:SC~·.£ i, ...., ,,-..;,, "'' NQILE09 cm nncA noN QE. J.UR~,2;: :NFORMA Tl~-~ ~"'''""''''' "''"""'"'""''' ''"''"" 11'.,i,(\\! 'Ci! ~-~1 , ME ENCAV[ A"r ORIOLE ~IQGL.i::,, P"1'i ·MINA;,Y OLAT Rt<.: ·i.;"():.lqA?f<Y MAP DRS PR::JJ£CT 'lO 13117 ~ / X X X X 'LI " g ! ~ ,c 6 Q m ' < :i "' '.) 7 .,I ~ -, C- m ~1 ' "'", -~ .. ,:.;;.,;-,,·.~;;.;;;~-;;:,,"' I ,m.,.,";':,:_~'}ci,7,~-'"-' i i--i,.L ' ' I I SE 1/4 SECnON 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, W.M. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ---~' ~ I -,,~() . -_, \,;,-_ --*'1'1'{')-· l· --.-· ' " -..:,, ···~ 'ill:•,,.,. -;~--Pi!:,;;~'; ~ ~; -_ i'9~J :: ~~@;? "9!J: :0."' 'Iiil!fA~~' --~~.--~'.~. ' - "--·" ·,, §1$'"',· , . ·\ ,,..··---".·-_.-.,. ,., _·._· ~::---~tt;~~~ ~~·, _"·r~~ ~~-'"'~~,--~"~ - ;.~., ;l'>;,_. --... -----·_-"" -'" , .. ~ l: ' "~"''~ i; . L_ ----L_-~·:~~ .:__::::- ,;;;s,··-~,i,."·,~ ~"'-,. . ~-.. ,-.-_ .. -,'l1_ ! i '----,_f:1. ));_ ... --~, ;s:fil.-_.--'r,(._, 'I ' •,. ',_ 'm_y,' -• · i -,,• ~-·a._,_ -.,., ,_ ·"'· .•. ' ·-~--&""i<l,.,-'JJI!."' . ' '"·' i ' ,-. _.,.~ -- !·• .,,} , 1 -._ 31 ,a 29 28 --Jfl«'. : . .; i~r-~d ~· .. 7 (<t;;, • I', •,iq: ;~:}1 ''' ,;"'f• _:SJ_,.~,!~ '··-~_.:, Qi., 1'.~-~ ~ I ----i I I I I_· , -<lie· • .,_i_:, ',,,_ <f' -------,,{l"'j "'11110~~~~,._~~~-~t=~i:l_ -~·.~~*: --~@ -~1 I -. , " --A . -, I ... --l' 20 21 22 23 24 25 l~1 ;·if'-~·~:· _, "'~" • E I '' ' .... ~~,--"--0= :'.\ I : • ''· -. 1 --, .,._ ----J t "'· _ ,R:;: .. ~ ~~~=;~":. ~~ ±ic;~;;,z l :'::?"l>=o- ·~,-~' --- 18 , ,"tr-16 ,s 14 _.JI-__ ·_::!rr_ > --_ ~, I ... h .. ,,. If . •, ·f* '""':--, '<_~.. 11 ,, I '~,., i#~~i~~~i"~i';J ,, ~ 11 \1. ~-:,' i'' ~I---:;--TRACT.,-. -->c -, ~]' _\ \ \-_ ,,. / iL:t< [,~,. !'1,- '"19 r sE: 142ND PL ~~'.~--:~~~~z;~~fy~·;~_ 1, \.\ -· ,1 ~,?, ~ :,-~-~' ,-~ OR ,mONG :I --;, ·=· ,-.-,' !, CONSUi T/11-'GE.NGINEERS :'.I.:~ .. i-~~,_:: -:::,:::::::~:<"<· ~·"''' .:.;.·;,", ;R ~, .. ..,. •s ""''" ® ··-...., ~ le;; "''" '''" :}!_Fr i?ETfN,101',' C.JLCULA nCNS_~--, "'"··"'"'·'' -a,_--::s -ar .~,,--,., pc~""-" ·:~,, .,.,._ . .,.-.,,.,.,,,~ <c,,,;cq,• ';f_• ~" r~y-, ,• ""'""'' ,., ... ,.,_.~ ..... , Ill. <:, q; rrs'~ Lcr;c.t,£___ '.-.\ 0 '"'-""'"~"' .... ,, ~ ~"" .• _,,.,_.~ ">.S"C'.U',!'>vC',c.,,,a,,c; c.s,,s,,, ... ~ ~,,-,,-.- ., ,,,,,. ,·ccer,-,_ co N II) 'I" 0 0 @ NORTH ;.....;;__. 'rlE ::t,::.LAV:: AT 8RIDLE ijJJ1}WtdfO-~ TR[( c0ii1~';:~~6c~}A;;f,GruiN i 1 ;!\,; c:~.~:Jti~N DR$ P'WJECi :-iO 131',7 .X X X X X X X w ('.:· C ~ ' -' ~! c <• " > < _, u z '" ,, !,. -----------, 11 1J1l -----.... , ... ,,,...,811""'"';,~,u~ -I 1' ·"""":1;;_:::,~,;.;~r-=:J T:?ffS FOR RETENTION ffl!~~ r-!~t·:;:i;._.;' j -'.\ ---~ !--.·_''''~ __ ·_-" ~. ·~~-=-1 '=-~::·c5-~ -~:. ·---f,----_~:-_-:J- , :HJ -~:i-~~+ ~ ~ ! :;.; l~}-;~:t:::;~ " ;: -------2 -- jH~iJ_ ----~ --+1-~:t~-fr=I--~-.--,"" ·,o,,v,C(.s-,.. :, • ,, __ " ~~bl~~ ;5 ;_; ! ""'. ! ~ I-¥;: ~§=--t_ff;+ :C, _ _::<'<c~----_,_ ;: ... · :'-•--'':' 1~:i-~ ·--,; . -1~ -'"_: J=-~\1) '-t:i) -• -- ;,t,~>i·'--'.'" -"·--'-~~ ~ -> ~!-= __ _ ~~11~! Se-:-,--,.o_·c~ -~-_'.! ___ _ --..,,.-~;.:.,.-,.--, __ , _cg__ Jrt~:E~ ..ec'.'.~"'i f'}}:S:l 1?.:to,"'~ : ._,--~-~I) coNsB,~,JJi~-yNffRS 11 :· . -,·· .-... .,.,,.,, ... "'""' ... .,...,,,c., _'!?~·~·::_~-~. ..,:;-.;·;;·;.,;~~:i,:':.~" SE 1/4 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, WM. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE TRt[5 ,<"OR R[Jf.'iTil)N !~3 ::Y::}2'' -: -----, -,-·--~~--, ~ iT-~:::::/:~; -.: -- tf !~1/ ,. ·<>~-"-,---,. · ... , ,_ ,·,--~,< ----::;--dl-,_,_, t~= :~i~? ,;.') <NF•' --""'' ~~'.'. -}\_-::: ~~ ~t1i,~ ~'=J±~=j ~ "1!:t ---_c±-t,I c-1:;: .,, ::i__ --,-: ·--"-I µ:~~;; C :-;-',+_ ::: -'-'.'.: 1;2'.;;S~---' '.'.--; -,- FXCcUD£0 TREES [ . .,: .. "~I -·~ .<S ~,no ~ ·_.... EXCLUDED TREES : k ex_, -t-cL+ ~-;,,,.-~ ~\_I~\~---~--"--+-· :. 0.<1'S!TE ffi'EE~'"' ~ I ~[D 'R££5 NO'F T'<Et: ~ABLE NOTl: ,y,.. -.-.... ~,.-.-,,.. ,s • ,,,.. ·v, """''~"IT' ~ "'' r:::NCu'\\/E AT BRIDLE R1DGE PRCLIMlr-..A"iY "LAT R[CEIVFf) TREE g3L:; 'c,·>,"] )•, DRS PROJECT NO. 'Jil I t,. N .,, "I"' 0 0 X X X X ! X X X ·~ C, n er:: :.,.:' ;=; "' CD ,- < ~ > "' ~ u z C- i- I I-lb,-:: ' , . --·-I . _Jli. __ "" -... "~'"'""' ' ·1-'", ... ,.'"ii . "-~f;,;~;:'t:::J I I THE ENCLIJ.'VEAT BRiDLE RIDGE I, i:: i 1 -~ .. -·---' ~.::J~ I -/ -;3,1 ·~ 1, I : i :!' 2 -.,t ' -I ' I;-' ' " 1· _., • .,-.• "' t I ','<. I ,. 1· . _,_ .. ,: ' I : I ·/ , -. ~ ~-11 --, {,_ .., :.i.~ 1:::~ "''Cl" , I ','' , --" ',, :;/ ~-: -~~1~'.~ -+. ;:_~f~Q; (~~\-~~~~~:. --;-_'" _~~~1<~::i~~-:-=·-l:. ! ,,~ --;.-----:.=.-~'--'rL.-a..:.:..:......, ___ -··..1.;l_J_-~.:._. -~J-L .. i ,_ -~ .. <.\ •.. , -.. ~ .. -~:::.;~-----.· ---~ 1:_ ----·i1<-~~ _]//· ~r~~-~-\\>_f:·_'_.1 i-):,-·A, li_'ili'<1~·S,"c,,<,3: 1.' JO ,I 2'1 ·11: -·1;·--·---·11--~--!·1-~y-··1_--- ',, ,-., .•.. [·, .... ~" ,', .'"''' I '°"'' ''.' ,,£~. ',, 27 •·I ." '... · · ,_ 1· ~-·" ' "' ' "' I "'' 11 ,,, ,, "S:/: • "'"' ' 'I ',~'t,·:.1·1i •,"" ___ 1_ ... , .•. -!--.-' j -.. 'l.,~·-.1, ,~, I\"':_,.,;·~,.''''" II,.,.,_ I; G-.-.-::.-.·~~c-=-=· 1,' . :;;,-yM,,.,'·j'' .-,•::1· I '§:)::-=-__ -,-?' I --1 ""*_,1_,.,. }Z""'-~ 1 .-~::~'-, -, ' {•·'.. .j 20 2' ! 22 '/1 (1 ir ..... 1'.;,'..J, ·.·.•.•· I ,· , .·.,t";.,i;; . t '•• i ,.-;1 I c/':', 1i1 1] f4_. :, .-'?, it:· 1 i +,@c1-,--, --i---'li-H-'11• ---=-=l-" f--· ·~ '! __'' 'i---;-"'''}il'' ,:~i-c..~~- ,:<.___ I _ _j__\ _i ~ ", ;·. \ ..,...-,,n-kJ-....j.,. l · :·:,t~~-: ~ ~ ;~f __ , ~ \(:£1:'l+-:.1 . -•---=r-r-7-~-·"..:Y · i . • - / / / I ,,5£-14zND_PL .---.----I .---, -- '0.:i':'.e,c1 ~ ' I . -~ I • i; ~~ <---,-,1.,,."~'"ROAQ_B ___ <~i'·;~_/ __ f_ ' __ -'_'·2....-' ____j_ ,._. j ~~=· ~· ~~~ ·~ ' --< --.1---:~·, l; • ~ ' "''"j-t f -~ ---__c__L~_-..lc,_·~,-0f--' '-'r' L .~ ,"'\ '~ [1 ,----I -' I -~ I,'-:"" ' ,,, ""i-i -' , ·1 , ./t . ,, I .!!. 'I " . i' ., I' . ~u: ,~~-.~:,.,,. . ''·"' ·1 ""' 1· ""' C",,., ,., ......•. !"' I '" ' " 1 ---• : -,.;-; [;"'-""-1 . -:Ji . 'ti' -.. , :~"I _; ~'--'"' = ~,-' ~ -' . ' !;;,"' _-:-, -=-___ ..'_;'1-· 1~. l . /,', ,P~~E-~~~~-;\\ '~~ -~ '. ~i~'.-_·\/~-,----~ ii~~:C-c(~:__ c~?+.T _ ----~tJ (:~~.~~-,-~:\\rt' '¢-.. L; ' c~ R',,, ,,_ ' ' c""\V:r\\ I "'"""';.!,,.;-;.,. ,., '''\" ;.-'t'>l \"'.->;.) ~ -. I r .l~ 1·--, '\11 I ~s ~u,,u :~ c ] D.R. ec=No fl'-': ~> ,;:'. ]' cc::::::;,r~~~N~.~~~~::s :_s:J "'.·~--;_ .. .,. __ "'""-:-~.,,,.:;, .• ,, ~ ® ,~ ... "" h CC) N .,, ... 0 0 eB£i..1MJJ:LA_R..1_ __ sur ','Q' I 'Mf CA/ Lll..A TIQ/', s: I '.i,"':,,,",-.• ,,_ ~","' .,-:':/'' I •' -" "''"'• •'•,'\, ,,.; ,;•,-.;'":.'. ',,' '"'"''"" .-A.J. ¥f}~ff::L ti~~~~ ,~;~i :;;;~: '•< •m,• ,..-,.,,-if"''?(~-•·~,.,u e• "'£ClCTc>-~,•: @ NORTH ''"" .,,,, THE ENCLAVE .6.1 BRIDLl:._ Rl~EIVE~ :0NcE~fu~t 1K6!\~,; ;'J~~G Pt>.N" ! 1 j .·:-" ·• ·-- CITYC-fRENlO ::RS P~OJCCT ~O. '31 \ 7 X X X ':' X X X -· i· " :'J 0 So m c < w ~ -' ~! Lu' I c ~ c , I ----! JbL., -.. ;;,;_;;;., I co1,~o,1...._~~) '~'':""c"" .. ! C,0'."'"'i';~>IO,:,>W;, t,, ;_ / I. I I ;\ I I I I , I s£ ,,42ND pc f,:t-r (f', i --------- ,ell.~-rr1;.v-1,,,.,._ .. f',J SE 1L4 !i_ECTION 74, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE ."i ;:-WM THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE kibGE I 1i I , 1 • 1 1 2 -1;: 3 I + }--::.1--:tjI_.:.__, ___ ~~ I 4 c.::....:..._::_: __ - j ', ' ~ ' I /;(. • -, ~, =,+,---,c--.c·r_----t 5 --== ~ ' i '1 ,.r -.---_ . ~ -... ~·.;::::.. ~RUAD-Au t • { •--_ 11~; wein,rre&ri 1 ..1_,_,_ ~ -:. • ._ !'r~! .. _ ~,~, ~ __ _ ~--t=='-~'-'¥ --';c'-~J=-==:J;,11=./.i.c_-::"i~\;.~ ii -•, I •j · 'f 31 ---I / C 10·--cc' .. J, ' "'\ \ •'1' 6 r 30 , 29 i 28 i -27 .: 26 \1 1'1 :~. ;:;, .. c--c --=~ I I I I I I '~·· 'I _! ---I , I --~-! I I T -I l 'I '---"'" j ['-1\. , , . 'i~ --~Iv w ;r-1--I Jj. :• I_, I -i; · ~ 20 -21 / 22-Ii' 23 _· 24 1-!, "" -_[_ I• -··--·~ _ :ll '8 --, - t. f-_,-_:;----t-=~--:i=----'~ -._ f\-. 1,\ --'·--' '!: ,---_ .,_--~=-,---\cc--_, __ J , , 1 ,~ .9 } !'''pc't~~,"-~£~1i,'.-t'~:d ~ m I ' ~ -'"'"'" f ->y_ -.J 19 18 I I = '' -I ·11 . 16 15 I -=o1!..1:.'......-~· 1 I 14 , _cc --- r· 11 I i 1 I, 1--1, I ~ '""'"= ~ ,' , , 11 ,~_ ' '"'""~""--I I ~ci I I: ,~~~!ii~~=J~1'.; 1 '.~1 ~ ~:3~~}'-~\~4~.~~-1; I ,L= ------=::::::-----~--=-j~ r'"'W'""'' '1, -----_--==--:cc---=:_-=--;;_-: I --------______ :;.", ~ -::. .. -==----· ~-~'--:"""">-:':'~--::"_"."C~-::_~i ~ :\. ~:\ siukl&· ' -] OR SCRONO . CONSUL-T/NGE/'JGINEERS ' --:;~;;-;;.:t;,:, ,_'fli-rr;,t!.::.~"'- ...soor:c .. ;,.:.·-....... ~ *' Bti!zt~~~--rf~-:~::~~ ~f'~?1 QETENnON SU~·='="<Ec•c. ---------- ~~ a, N It) 'I"' 0 0 NORTH ''""'"'' '"-"' f -- TI!E ENCLAVE AT BR,SILE R~FIVED P:.([LIMINARY PLA'.'" OP~lrSAG[ CQ!,ITROc PLAN I Cl< i 1 _.,,, DRS PRO,l[CT NO. 13117 X X X X ' X X .x cc ·::s ~ C u ii' co ,- < "' < ·' " z ~. :':! I '' ~["Gt_!;[' "' ~ ..... 4'"'·'· ~ 1':·; ... ~--···· ··.,;,.;,;;.~-::., ''' 2 '""'""'81; ~"'" ... ;L.u~~,';:;-,:,;o;;~~ ~ frlf ll!cIA·vE"'J.1 smt3ZE RfDGE -----r::=-~~ -- I, :Jif ! 1· :: j;:;t~/"-- jl ---:,1, ,Ii: y ) / 4 3 2 I - I f I I ·--.. / I ' I· -----. 1 I "t ~•"~-· ··~··CT~' ~ .. -.... J~ ,~-.: __ 1:~-S:i-}, " -.·".-. ·"c;.-.-.·1-,'..~-. ~ .. -'lr-;S .. v .. ~.,, ~ ~ . . __ , /_\; ·--fi:C: ~·· {;:-~~;~~;~~~~rf_: -. . .. " ,, t~,,-t -, 11. ----II .. 'I· --1-· I. 21 ·. 28 . · 1 I 29 J · I 31 30 26 . 'I -'I I I. ; -,1. i;,> -.. -·.• . l.', I I --i, ' . 1 · - . ' { •. , , + --· 4 · i l- 1. ~. , ·.r.: -l r , ,r I ' 11·: -I 1 1 22 J 23 ,: 24 ','I ,,: ·' ' 2d 21 I 25 ,,,· I ! : Ii ,1 I ,' ... : c1c ~-~"Jr-<~-~;:¥~~-3 ,· l,J ' ' . \l'l,..\c'.__L_ ltX--~-1]_.. :: c1-~-=-~-4'7~r'-.r.'. ·;--; 11•,,.=,--"-'--. ·~-<. Cs!/ t-~-~--=-~ -~1:-:: .. 1( --,·-· _,..._ -, 1-___: ~1--r:J-·_·,1~-_c..4-:.:.,..-( '---":-S~.--::..J,l-______,..,..,. --~---· 11 1 1-~ -. .-:1..--1'...,'.1 -+----'-1r;•J1 ---, ___ \ '\ -_ " ',/------~,--.........-="'.::"~~ -,_'------=--::-'" __ --~'.fl_..............__" r ' ,.L~7-----1r-7•c---,_ : ,--c'---1, \• 1'· -;9 '!--,a-I~;; I ,;-: .-·::·~i-14 -: /1,, ---.. -.. ,. -I . ! i .'.,[ ' MA SEE RJGHr ·--~ ~,,;.,:V .Jt l'\ )! ~(= :' ;:···j§. 7) CONS/!,_~JJ~';;'l..w,s {~0~ -~_:_:. ;_~~~ :;~;;~;,;,;,;:: "'"'rtl' ---.... ·i'1 ·1,' "'"-;-'-'-< I " Ji~ 1,5 SCT[V ,-;:-- 6 T 8 9 -----"'."~ 10 11 12 .. ,·.•.·-··~,. ~ -\• " ":<· ;R 0 J.IA TCHUNF:. ~ lf:FT (") I , It) ' ,! I .::..--- I ' I 'I"' 0 I' 0 ' t I. 1>- I ' Ii I i I \ '. i ~ i ,, ~£ 143RC!_ ST ' ' ' I I I : II h \- I ! I L __ i SE 144TH ST . I (' @ NORTH ) ,-" "-w-,,,:e,,c<T lHI:. c.~CLAVE AT 8RIOlf ~IDMCEIVErlf'u,m• PRlLIMINARY Pll>,"'" CE~ERALIZED UTILlllES PLAN ORS PROJ[CT NO. \3117 X X X X I X X X u ,, Q "' Cl ~ Q i2 m c 4. s: 4. ' '-' z w w I c "' ,,UJ."'L__ ·--" - c"' ~""""""'""'""" ·~.,,., . 811 !: ''""""';';"~~;;'.;.:•.':"":""'•" ..;.;,c ~ : ,..,.-, . .,, .. ,"7/ ~ ~ ' ;,f:! =:~ •, -"'" ~ --nRSTR.0/YG CONSUL TING ENG/1-;EERS ----:;:~~~;~;~;: SE i/4 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, W.M. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ' ~- !, H n ~s~ H~ ~:~~ i 56 ":i-i A 'v.~. SE ' --'---: U!S." HA/• f56Tl-! AVE 1f,1~ ---... =-~~ _ ____:___________ .,.,, ' l t. H " l!, ~~1: s:i~.; AS ~O''Ill ~ ,...,. ··, --.~ ® ,;;,.., *' "-! :,r f "" ' ,, ,, ::(<:; :t' ... C") 11'1 ... Q Q OR•T"•COCAlt; '..,..,;:"'C ',-.c,·. ,or- """W·'"' ~· "INC""" '~~"" ;"HE E~~LE~:~IN~irJ~~~ RIOrfFCFIVE ROA:) ~RO'l,_E AND GROSS seCTION DETAIL':0 ! '. ,-,-, DRS PRC.'FCT NO. U117 X 1 8 I' x, X 'X cs 0 " 6 ii Cc <( ~ ~ d z ~ -l ~ 'fil --1 i 11 _ ~ .. '~;~-;;~f~~:~~:--·. Jb,,"'.;~'.;)e,'C'~"::.:J ' I, .~ Ii " !ill file, ~ ~· ,,., -, ..... ~};::':~ilf .<.O.-o.00 . -_,,,,, SE 1/4 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £. W.M. THE ENCLAVE AT BRIDLE RIDGE ''"''·"""' ''·'"-'""" _,,,.,,,a.o,, l'V "1V• "'"" '" ._.,,., .. ,.,.., -,0,,(J(}''"' ------- ! ; I' j i• ' -,----------> ::.~ j, '~ 1' ,,; ?~ / :i ' 'II ,, ~: < ~a ,, ii -, ;:~ . .,.,,,-- HOAO A ,1:3 ~;::; :~ ,\ --:.:;:,;,- ,, 'I , ,, r-----------'"..c'.',;·.f.''~ ·~-----------~- -; i ' ;~ \i ''""' ' ,, ;,~ \j .. , ["I ,,~,,,_'~c:~,::~~-,~-i1, f~":~~~, ~:, l."'l" . .;;._1 , ~rii~ ,,,0~--;, ·:··-;', ~' \' CONSULT/NGENG,'NEERS :~~-J DR >;RONG ;·,, ,-,. ·-,., ,,.,...,.,,,,"CM>'><,,,_,,._ H·:Y-•"; ':--~-' ""';.,~~:,;;;,~,::.',~- , ,-... -/ ,-:-~, ; ' ~,-,, SQ.ADS ".A• & "B" ~QQQO T() 2Qf/5~"g;. ~t 00 :JC.: TO £~£ , i.s OOTcD ,_ c,_•·· :;;".':",, .. ~ ~·; ,g_,.,,,•. ~ ,. Cl li. u "' lil ~;~<! ---, ,,; Q'~ --~-- ;t -' -~ 0 Ci i ~ ~ • ~ ;; -~ ~ • N cw, .,, ... 0 0 '''" "'"" ------,.:,o " : ·--1- . ;:=•>·:; :;..;•c,; i,..,,,,,,,.__- ' ·...:~-'"' ''"""""'" ~ ·'.~;.-._,,.;' ROADPROFIL'c: A'iDCRCSSSECTiGNlcf!J\ll ·-, p= ,_ c,n or ~!~,g1,1 :9 ,••,·,·-,, __ ._,_, THE rt.~LAYE Al BRID\F RIDdifCT/VI,-he,.z P'<ELIMINARY 1-'LA-;-c_-.1 ,;_,,,f.": DRS PROJECT NC. 13117 X X X X I X X X Cl C, C, X ~ " X m ,- <( ~ > <, (j 3 I ~ ~ i ~ I • ~~ft -.,.,. ""'"' a , § --------... f!: ~ --:oi~t. t~ -------------: I "'"':...'.""'" - r _ -,l ;~ RO~ A_ 1·---~ rm.l ~·-i . ~~~ . ,;;.;,---;;;. ' ·"'c .. n=.,,,sr, , ,~~ 1rtr:·· )_:s _·s? OR STRCNG CONSUL TING ENGINEERS '"~'"' ":'.;~<>:;D~,;.~t~" ,_ ...... '""""''-""'""" Oa,.,,,-,,~..,..-,,m THE ENCL/J.'VE'i/r sRif/{[ RIDGE ' ,! H ,,, ~!8;:i ::: ? ·• >,; '' n ~ ~ "' _, ~j =·~ ..... ' • '" '". ·''''"" ",~, '~',; .:·;::.:: ;a . ' •• -----,,;o,;- ~~= .-.:$)'.' ... ~ •• I". ~ ROAD B , .• ;!; Iii ; " ~ 1.1 ., ,, ' f@. --------~---- ~ -.~ ~ i1f j "'''" ·' st.: ·~ ,,, . ,.,,,,, ..,.,,_,,_ ,on, ---"100' ·,: -, J't,; I j ~ i· ~ ( l ~ '~ ~!~ i,.t ~ ,:~ I "' I ~:~a ~-~ii ti\.i ,1 (II) (II) II) 'I"' 0 0 •ISCH•,,.--, ·O<Ho~i.c ''""" ,,, THE ENCLA\JE. AT ORIDL~ RIDqf[cc1·.;F~ 02.2e.H PREL,M!NARY Pj, T ' ROAD PRCFILES =;-;; t; '., ~ DRS PR,JJECT NC 1Jl"7 (.tB .. ' . ' / I 'I I _--:-_:.7-J56/fj_AVE SE -,-\. . .. ~ • I I I / I . I ': ( '·. ~a ·;w i'' /\~·.· . ~ I' '· . ( '! ?~\ '. '1 ,_ ... ~I T "' t1 I I I I J I :: I\) '(Ji I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,.·.··~ ··· I\;) .... 156TH AVE SE i ' ·f ---.+ H ·,. A'=•r ., i ~; : <:o ' 1-.:i \ l_._,, I .i I I' ' I. • I . r~:~~-,J~ i ·;;i{~ftii1l!~~jii~1~~ ~r?:~1~!~~ ~~~11;~,!~~i~~-~ f1~~f J ;;;:;Jiil1 )1/!(i;; i;lj !j)~ ~ i ,;lfi'·:~,; ~'. ~-_'.f< .'·V ~~~~ ~-:~J ~~ t-~ , h ~ ; ' ~;! i , I " I >I I - ~1 ~- .:_, . .--- • '<, .l (_1 '< - ~-. {; ;/f'/€~ ' i :i ; -- ' ' ~ i 1·_'\ ' " i >, ~~--'----/ I I ' l I / I I I I I / l 1' I ., 1-,.; _; -. -er;./ I )•" .,1 I " -""\ !) ' :t' I ,. -, ,. / =:.:._=--':; "! --;::-;_ I ,• I~,·'' > "'--Y< X X X X I X X X w co 0 Sc "J 0 x ~ < w > < ·" u L Ix ,~; _SE_!_~!_" q_-~_ci SE___I"°.>9~,AC>"_ ' ! !' i i ' ,.,s,sr --- --,~ I~- ~ I 1,!'-1 ~--i ·---j I . I THE lfJaA·(/E'1tf s4i621! kfocJE -, SC <•H Pi.ACF ---- ~, • I --;~ 1 ' .. SE ,Jrn, PUCC -i --------L -----w~ \1 -i -'::::_~ :;t'_-m,-k.ml(,-:: '-----'------1-1 --1-----: f -----, ----1 ,---- ,-~. ------ .',£ 'fZMJ smar ,--:--, --- + J--- ·' ,,~ ,_ - ~! I I PROJECT SITE PROPOSED PLAT OF TrlE ENClA Vt Ar BRIDLE R•DG£ I I: ' I .' - __ _j _ i_L /1 - _ ___J ('1~1'£ J ' . I ' -~--=-1 ;--i-, 1 f ~----, I _:._-' ~J __ -~' ' ,!~ j I-;--,-,-; Ii ' ' L_, , 1~ '\ ---.~"' - ~5e-t--,, siiiii:r .L 'cs,. ·sn,=f~ .. .. !1 ,L ···,i14zt<-DP1,•cf it ,_l_ I S!I!__Z.~ ... ; -;Jljo.£~1 ~'+-, __ _:::-.'..._ I """"""W"c--·--·- --,---. _ s<-i,,11!__,s,i,a-i-· i ' · ' . -. I • I SE t.;JII(} $"'£€' ---------,-L._ ,- I I I .. _J ill! !; ,.,_ -/ '~·-., ··j I . \ \ :; ,1 ---, - I -!-- ---~ - _ _l_ J ;I th_ ...... ----! c"''"""""'eiJ""'"""'"'o,. '1-• '-'-l>~•l I =•'~,c~ ... c,r'CJ,oa_w,, -, ----___ ________:, j ----· '-------' ·1~:--· - I ·, • • ! ' ·, .,. \ • -.!'. "'"'c"'~ ~~ .\ '~--. ' /, ' Ill< STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS _.,,.,,., ....... ,~ .,..,,, .. ~ .. <, """"'"'>M-· o,,..,,.,.,, ,,,,.,.,.,, " ,- SC 'H11' S"lfir i -, --1~---~ +-- -i~-- -'· ' ' --t::-- ~ -- -'~L -1- _\ ,._~ >OTW ~>:.'..";,: ""'" ~ ~ •co•,·;,S•·,i• NOT[. 0, C") .,, ... 0 0 ~,.. ""·"'~,.-.... ,,.~,e."'"<;'"'""' @ NORTH ~' THE ENC: AVE :,.~ 6"l1DLE RllM,... ~ ~Rt:i..lMINIJ.f<Y P:..AT .1._.E/VF, ,. \IEIGHBCRHOODDETAILMAP '"~i1 "'' ~RS PROJ:C NO. nn X X X X I X X X '" D, Q ci' I C' 61 c2 i '.D < ~ > 4C ~ C, z w Se cc .~~ ! 5£ 1/4 SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 N RANG£ 5 E W.M ~.i. 1--r~--=-_ _-_ -~-Tf!E ENCLA ~E ~ T BRIDLE RIDGE <trJ\t~ ""': 111~: -. . . . .. . , • • . _ _L_. . c-1.--~, +-T~,---,--,--L_-,--'---------+ S'5lC~Y""'"""'"'~'',t1.·,_,I -~ ... -·-·---1: ! 'Jll.~ i·!lili I• i' ~ • ' 2 'ti - J([ i ~r~,, :f,:: . ;1:1 '11. r-1·-~ 1c I ' : I I I I 3 I / /s B !1 ,:{·· l '2(J ! ,2' I 22 23 ' 24 25 I, " 9 .,,, .. _,,.. .,: , L I I I 1 • I -, n "'""""'''"""""'~~o-1 ,~---~,./ I -~,i[l ,;,1~¥:~t,,;;l:~il:t_"-·:a,---- / .{ I· I''!' , •/ ·---!·1----.· / 'j:1: . . q: \!,, , / . . + // "'!J:rf.-TR4cr•A'•' '3 . ', \· .. I'\\ ' · -I• ·, I· ·. i'\ '1,~1. \_ ... r· . , I 1-1 ___ -;,,,;;~r' /->'f ~ ti'..;:~;.· . \ -----;~ · · 1i ,., 1 _. .-~y ~,".!: 'I ..... """' , I J .IL -i l!i1~- 1..tl ... ,,.• ·-··· 1 I. u::::11;:~:'~~: ,t,...-NC>•"1WA" · 1.~ ~1· .t'l'! \'.~. ' J~_ /JR S7RONr:; ;C j._ .· -·==.-. ---~\ ~ CONSULTING£1'/G/N££RS U:~L~s~:-~ '=·;·;~;;"~;~::::= " ~ ~ < ' le : ~ I -i :~ "''-~""'·· "":''SJS AS ~0-ED ® LCGfNO ~-··'f• ;R • 'I~ ::i T;f @ Q -.:I' II) ... Q Q NORTH "'l--lE E"JC A\,[ AT BRIDLE RIO~t-._"'t\<ED [ c,.ze 1~ PRELiMINAR"~ p; AT ~~~Le f:: PREL!Mlr.ARY TR/lf'flC cc;,l~OI Pi AN,,, 2 i ,-,,, ~ D~S P~OJECT ~O. 13'.17