Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1o
~.-" -----8
/
---------tjf------I
I
AUG 03 ;7015
." r , 'I IF , l! , I , 0
0 i I" ., ! ,H ~ ~ 1 ;0
! ! i<~ 1 1! , , 1 " , H .. 1 • • ); ,
I ,g , " s ~ i "' f n f I , z , 1 II ! ' I , z I W, , i ~ ~ , ,1 , ! i
,
~' ! Ii ! ! en , . ! 'I I ! (j) < [ ~I ! !, ! ! ! I 'I , , , ! I ! ! ~ , h • t ,
! ~ ~~ I ! ,
i • , 'r , , ~ g , i i h ! ! ! H ! , 0 ~ ~ ! !
~i
, !
»oj r " 'i Ii II ~ " 11 'm ~ Renton Aerospace ~ ~~ ~ [! ~ , !
!
SRG ...II. ' i '= ~ I •
! i! ]] Training Center I <:) ,
...II. I ~~ ~~ City of Renton , .M ......... ~,_ ........... _.
N
»1 -' 0
N
-t--;t--------, ,-,
- - - - - - --~ --.... --I, II---------1~)
--0--------------~--
I i
I~
I
I ,
-]~-~--------
-'----'---------
-
,
H !, II H
l; " ~
1 o
~ , ,
--------~--
+----4~i~
11 iill ~ Renton Aerospace , • ~ ~~ Training Center ! !j ]J , Ii i! > I City of Renton ,
.ftft B.'U. __ •• ___ u_ .. ~.
o
SRG
N
»1
...Jo. ' o w
r---~----
i
I I~
I
! t---
i ,
j--
,
LL-
, " ~ f
I
I
i
I
~~
-j
~" } I
~~I
1:lJ
o
~i' •
I ,
1 L
, I ,
"1 i i i,¥:
, ' ,
i 1 , ,
~+-
-I
!
t
I
,
II
I
II:
, ,
-... ---{.-~
'J
,,",
-~W"
'J
--(~)
-<l)
--G
riJ "-w-~\'!
Renton Aerospace
Training Center
City of Renton
~M ..... ,_ .,_ .............. _.
o
! 15RG
____ Hardie Ave_ NW-I
I~ I -lli---' -----l~
I I. I
._1 __ ~ 1,-I --+-1-,---
I 1
L--------' L.......... ----
,
Ni q ~~---------------~ --~ ------~----------------==-----------
r
;u
CD
:::J
~
o q
'" o
q~-~~~-
-»0 __ :::J .... "OS: o c
:::\.::J n-
'O-
w
-----
],'.11.2015100146AM ):>
» , j' fil!'liB , ,
f ~ 5; ~! s -0 , ! ,
0
+----,-, ..
H
J
;
<--
/
,
\
" -, .' ,
1
I,
I'
1
o o
I-i-~.j.
, ____ -<1
, ----';,
----:;
',I
_~--,I
"
J; Renton Aerospace
!
Training Center I SRG ]I] 68 City of Renton .~
.... n ............. ., ............... w ..
E
n [; r-:-. ~
~: ~ ~
~ ~,-;
I :
~--, ~
('-:: m
U L m
0 0', i !;~ ~!~ I
1'0 .~.
D g~~ • ~.~i ~j~ ~
~OQ • ~i ~ !l'i'i ')!iii .. •• O~ " g~ "~ ~ ~~ 1~ • 0 "" "~ ~~ '"
~;~ • '0 ~;;;
!~ P~ • 0' ~,
0'
" ,
EB
I~ .... --
~
" Z
CC
~
ii
~
, I
I HI!! 'j'm • 1'1 I'i .'
, I ..... ----, ' ,
:, I
, ,
I
j
§
o
-------MATCHLINE SEE L 111
\;
•
j
I
Renton Aerospace Training
Center
.~ ,
c
B
A
D
W PERIMETER RO ,
---, ,
,r"c" ;~,-~,~~cc,e~~c::",: eCce_~:: -C~ ~ --::; -~-: -::'!:~"'~:'f ~:; C~;;:iJt;GY-;~ J 1 SRG
""'0 "'.,N,.,,,,,. 'lie
;/ Ii ,IY:! ['l r ,__________ I ' ."" -, "
I. j J '--------, L \ ~
I 1 'I 0 __ , I ./ 0 orr",
1 iO ,,',!, \ ",-___ ", ", '_ ,
·'~,~~.:;:I".';,~;
Nt> ~'J 'M)
"<c",. "l",,"OPec.,
III
C -C •• f!
"~' '!i'i·r'l' \ jf"'2f" ' ' " c,' , , " ", '" '" 'J-" , __", ,
' ,l', " ' .. " ~ __ -'-, 1 'I "~, ,! __ , .!'" " , A-",l.; "t, .'ll,,,,,
" ".", , ""X "LJ I : I :'!! ". """'''' U Ii,':":::::", ~" I, " , " !,'!, " ' , "'," , : ,. I.!,. """'no, \!
" " -,. "--' , " " , . -,
',I.! il'; 'I r-\lEW, CURIJ.( ,
' '!r "'''' c" 0 0 , r I •• "-.~-,-, ' , a;.,< J
' ~ .--•• ~ -----'i " '-...11',:;" , ',-----"'-" • I ,~ " £ '..-cc----------_c-..,-" , ", ___ "
"'--"---'\< """'" "', ''''[' -'-'" '1:1'0"--' ". ~1\~'\,k-:~::~,--l
1 • \ ' . • '"L .-----.... ;...--~---~__c'__ ~~::.--:..::t'" ~ ~"" oc ww~ .,." .~ '~"""'''':''''~ ___ ~
• 'J
r-
I I ,
-----.
...
CII
(,)
1\1 a.
1/1 e ! CD I 0( • C .. C o II . ..... 1 cc
CII II I II:U •
.~-
-~ ""'l.n""" ........... ........ . ~""", ---_"U-.",".~ ---"" .. -.~ ........ ---.......
~ MfIl[RIAl.J
--tiNiER AVE S
---~ PROffR1"VN[
~, -'--
- - - - -11101;1 01 wt!1<!(
[~ISII'I6 TRfTS ro RtWIJM 1'~()I[tJ iJI ilAC(
['JQ2J-'-, elf> CONe. P~1'I1(;., ~1l.I~ GRAy
J . BRCIOW F!1iISH. So\Itt:UJ JOW,s '. • REf. l/U>D r,' 'TlA elP CI)~C. PAl'll(;., MI'S ectoR, 0' ' n. 5.0J.i00JAST, ~1I'I:UT JQjNl~ • --,--REf. l/l.J20
[~~0: ,-:'-73 f'!.AATlM:.\RQ., REF, L!il0/l511
1--. ----lAHJSCIIP[ R[~TIJRo\JIV" AA'tA
J 0 1
f/Y[lR05£m m Ulo'lfS Uf ~CON5TRtiCTICII
2
"'''' 1 fltr. CNl FOR CURes. PAAKING ~11£A P~Vl:lIENrc ~. AAfJ OilAJJ.J~Gf
~I
3
4
-. .,~
~. -........... -. ----. ''''., --. -..
L111
'"
,
I
~.
:', : f ,
if w ~. ,p' I
i
I i
I
~'
• L
" ,
t' ,'Ii:r
/,11'1 -I fit
i I'
()
D
,
,
.
."
g
~
" B
~"
f
-01 0
~ , ,
• ~ • w ,
~ , ,
" I I
• ,
I r t ~
f ,
~ t
" i:;
r:: i HI U;I if 1/ -. ifia ,f .... "1 ' ' .... , ,
0 .;;;
, ~
@
? , ,
'. [' "
,
f ~ f ,
< ~
• Q
" 2 " ,
~
£
0 0 !
f 0 .r~ ~ ,~
f " •
'.[ ~ EEl ; i 0
"
"
"
~
v
Q
c
S
~
~
" iii
~
~
"'
, 1
I
,~, -,
i'i~ » z
oj z
'" ;E
l> z
z
0
'" :r
iii!!
lim 'ilj'/
"
ii
I!
I'
I
"
,.,'
if j ( I
'"
,
II ,
u
!i
(")
~---, ' /
f~~~~r~
"L :\
, .. -~ -' .• ----... -.... ---
Renton Aerospace Training Center
o
---
-
'"
o
~ ,
c
z
~ ,
c ,
~ , ,
" 0 i~
[
,
~
<
~ !
• ~ " <
~ ?
~
", ,
0 ~ 0 ~
~ 0 0 ~
"~ ~ " ~ ~" ~" ,8 , , ~ "2 i~ ii !
, 8
! 0 l " , ~ , , ~ ! 0
!
" ! i , It , ~
~ I ~
~ " • , , , 0
~ , , , ; ; ? ~ ~ , f
r-I HI'/ 'I \1 If UI I i, I !, ..... I ! ' o • •
-
o o
1'-I I \", ----.---~----------~-~.-.--------------.
~ " " m
~
J;
~
. !
I
, : : \\... MATCHLINESEEL511'
I
I',
\i
l
" "
I
I Renton Aerospace Training
Center
W9:20'5. 5. 58 p',' ):>
'--~------
-..,----'---
.. 11 '" '1"
--, ,
\ , !
! !
!
,
! Lj I I i I , , I , I ! I ''':~ ~!~ 'I~ "
¥
q': , ",,, ~~ ! ~ , ~ ~ ~ i , , ,
i
»1 1 II !! H !i I IV' t ~ "
0 ,
...to.
OJ
G:?,:
:~
~'~
m r ,m < '» :j
,0 z
~
" 0 1::1·
'3 i~ '~
':::0 P-
~ if:;'
! {
" ~> " , ! • , I! ',---r;;, , ~
I' \---' , !
! , ,
! : a !
"
' ,
< , i i : ! ! I
I ,.
l!'~ jill ~ Ii iii ~ Si r ! !' ]] T?, $:~
i ~~ ~~
"
"
TI
()
I
!
'>"
H ~ H II ", 5[
, , ~
I
" I
I
I II " ! Ii ' i q~ , ~~
I'
Hf-+---1-1 " H~--t--+l II
Renton Aerospace
Training Center
~!!_~! ,,~e_~~~ _.
o
--(~
I ---J~, ,j
I'
---'-:3
! SRG i , ! ,
7'19:,015,00 50 p~' ::t>
_--1 __
i
I ,
-r----
~l ~i~ J~
o 0 ~
!! i 0
II , !
!
!
!
OJ
, , ,
IlIjlpn
1
I
,I
\
I
.' o· I' r
i
I
I
I
f
!
",~
-{~
1
~
i ,
!::1.
']J I ,I i 5~
()
~
I
o
/ Ie-~l 2)
! 'f-~L\
~ If-~--: ~~ ~~
j f-r---------, I ! ~ H
If--"""~~' u ~ u
' .. __ ·1 ~!!l. .. •
-----jf~------+-r-: __ +-i" -! --C0
I---f------' ,
<~ f--/
I
,
Renton Aerospace
Training Center
City of Renton
~"" _A'~' __ .,~ __ ~~~~ _.
I I 1'_+
, II
, I , I
I
!
j
1 ,
I
\
I ~.
\
\
-l-
SRG
'"
..
>
~,r:''2;l " J _. :';\,",.-,{I ~
c ';;" '11 ~ ~:~:? : ~ir.f,\'l j " .. . .. C"~ ;:;i!iQ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ [iih ~@ ~~ ~
;:;:~;,! ~~ • ~. " i/.~ ~ "'~ z
~~" ~o F' '. ~~ ~ "~~ z
.~z 0
a~ ~
()
~ ;+
0'
III
»
~
(l)
III
C/)
0
"0
(l) en
!: i HpIlI!P!
o'li'" ...... ' ,
(:'
g~ em
:" .'" -"I m
'1
0 z
" ~
EB
" •
•
• ,
"
I I , ' ,
<
'j;
Ip:
'.;'
I ~ " ,i
: ir
'\
I
/
"
~'
,i
. I
I
I
'"
tu ~~
~? 'e; '" g:t>
,<
!r"
,
,
/
/'
/
IIIU
IiWI I'J .'
,
j
I
" 0
I " , ',1'"
,
V
/1 ':<. , , , , , , , , .-
r:~
Renton Aerospace Training
Center
_ ...... 'C!tJ' .. _
... i
0
5
! ~
/ I
, I
, ,
I
I ,
I
I
i r
I I,
:1 I
" :1
I' ,
~ /'J
" /' ~--~ --~
------~---_ _.r__~{ I
, / I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I
" lJ (
I
I
I , I , ,
I I ,
I
"
I
I
" I
~ I
,~
N
I
~ l,
I
c J
I I ,
I I
I
I ,
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
) I
I -----~-
•
J
if W!J l! j
f i I 'Inl ~ ' j'j I 1'1
f "
OJ
'}
~ "> -~ ~z
"'"'::::: z;..-· ~~,
~o
(",Z
~ ~ < fi
;<;
g
,
I
I , :--"-~--i
I : I ,
I :
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: l i ~~Jt; l
I ~~!~ ,
I ~;:::i' :
I ' ,
Renton Aerospace
Training Center
City of /fent"" ~ .... a._ ......... ---..., -..
, ,
T
I' , ,
I
,
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
-----[
, ,
---,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I" I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I _J
0
SRG,
-~
R
~
-
ii
i ,
;j!
~ _.
l • ;
&
, "
! "
•
J • 5 ,
"
011 (UiU, 'I t\lil !;: -¥!( • d
~ ,
;
I
I
I
" I
~~
I
U
I
f
III!! II i ?: , ~f. 'tf I' I I .:::z I "I " ...,.., "J i I 7~ .' fCc ,;:z
I
r~ -----\
' ,
\
\
,
I
I
I
I
I :
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ §fj
I ~_
I Cl'£
I ••
: g~
ji
I
I
" I
I
I
I
I
I %J]).....lYI1t-, I
~~ 1
-I • e t
I ;
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I t I I L __ -, I
I I L ___ ---...J
Renton Aerospace
Training Center
" City of Il.mton
~.,~ ........ eA,_ A, ..... _ .. ,",A
~,:~
o
, -s
~ u
S fs
i 'e =. • ?J~
i i f • • . il a ~ ~
f
~
SRG
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPII'"'ANT
LUA 15-000582
Application Date: August 04, 2015
Name: Renton Aerospace Training Center
Site Address: 300 Rainier Ave N
Renton, WA 98057-5390
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I September 11 , 2015
Technical Services. Comments Contact: ArTlandaASkfen:!425C430-7369I aaskren@rentonwa.gov
Recommendations: Technical Services Review 8/19/2015 Amanda Askren
Tille Report nol provided. Referenced King Counly Record of Survey 20000314900001 for boundary and easemenl informalion for review.
Streel dedication required based on proposed sile plan property lines as depicled. Please provide street dedication documenls for
review.
Sireet vacalion required based on proposed sile plan property lines as depicted. Please proceed wilh Ihe slreel vacalion process and
provide documents as necessary.
Please confirm there are no additional easemenls on project sile since Ihe recorded survey in March 2000.
Fire Review -Building Comments.: .. :: .... : .. :.: : :.:::.::: Contact: Corey Thomas: 142$~~70?~:~:~l1oiil~$~tento~wa.gov
Recommendalions: Environmental Impacl Comments:
1. Fire mitigation impact fees are currenlly applicable at the rate of $0.45 per square fool of commercial space. This fee is paid at time
of building permit issuance. Credil will be granled for the removal of the existing building.
Code Related Comments:
1. The preliminary fire flow is 2,500 gpm. A minimum of one hydrant is required wilhin 150 feet of the slruclure and two additional
hydrants are required wilhin 300 feel of Ihe structure. One hydrant shall be within 50 feet of the required fire department conneclion. It
appears adequate fire flow is available in this area.
2. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required Ihroughout Ihe building. Separate plans and permits required by Ihe fire
department. Direcl oulside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser room. Fully addressable and full delection is required for the fire
alarm system.
3. Fire departmenl apparatus access roadways are required wilhin 150 feel of all poinls on the building. Fire lane signage required for
the on site roadway. Required lurning radius are 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30 Ion vehicle and 322 psi point loading.
4. An eleclronic site plan is required prior 10 occupancy for pre fire planning purposes.
5. The building shall comply wilh Ihe Cily of Renton Emergency Radio Coverage ordinance. Testing shall verify both incoming and
outgoing minimum emergency radio signal coverage. If inadequate, the building shall be enhanced with amplification equipment in order
to meet minimum coverage. Separate plans and permits are required for any proposed amplification systems.
6. Applicant shall provide a complete Hazardous Material Inventory Statement prior to building permit issuance. Use of City of Renton
form or equivilant is required.
Engineering Review Comments .. ::. . ./ ContaCt: Kamran Yazdidoost 1425'430'1382lRY!lZdfdoost@rentoriwa.gov
Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS
WATER Water service will be provided by the City of Renton.
SEWER Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.
STORM There is storm conveyance system in West Perimeter RD.
STREETS There are no frontage improvements on West Perimeter RD.
CODE REQUIREMENTS:
Water
The proposed development is within the City of Renton's 196 pressure zone water service area.
There is an existing 12 inch water main in on the west side of Rainier Ave N and also a 12 inch water main in on the west side of West
Perimeter Road. The maximum flowrate of the water system in this area is limited to 2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure due to
restrictions from smaller pipes feeding the system.
The static water pressure on the Rainier Ave N side of the building (at floor elevation 56 ft.) is approximately 60 psi and on the West
Perimeter Rd side of the building (at floor elevation 31 feet) is approximately 70 psi.
Ran: November 18, 2015 Page 1 of 5
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPI'''ANT
LUA 15-000582
of
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I September 11 , 2015
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Kamran Yazdldoost 1425-430-7382 I kyazdidoost@rentonwa.gov
Currently there is a 3/4 inch meter serving the existing building on the property from the 12 inch water main on West Perimeter Rd.
A minimum of 7 foot of horizontal separation shall be maintained between the existing 12 inch water line and the footing, foundation or
wall of the proposed building. Existing thrust blocks and bearing soil behind the water line must not be disturbed otherwise the concrete
blocks must be re poured.
According to Renton Fire Department review comments, the preliminary fire flow demand for the proposed building is 2,500 gpm based
on a fully fire sprinklered building. Since the existing water system in the vicinity of this project has a limited capacity of 2,000 gpm, the
following additional water main improvements will be required to increase the system capacity to provide the fireflow demand of 2,500
gpm.
1. Installation of fire sprinkler stub with a detector double check valve assembly (DDCVA) for backflow prevention. The DDCVA shall be
installed in an outside underground vault per City standard plan no. 360.2. The DDCVA may be installed inside the building sprinkler
room if it meets the City's standard plan no. 360.5.
2. Installation of additional hydrant(s) as required by Renton Fire Prevention Dept.
3. Installation of domestic water meter with a reduced backflow prevention assembly (RPBA). The RPBA shall be installed behind the
meter and inside a heated enclosure ("hot box") per City standard plan. Sizing of the meter shall be done per Uniform Plumbing Code
meter sizing criteria_
4. Installation of landscape irrigation meter and double check valve assembly (DCVA).
5. Civil plans for the water main improvements will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of
Washington.
6. The development is subject to water system development charges and meter installation fees based on the sizes of the meters and of
the fire sprinkler feed. Credit will be given to the existing connection.
SEWER
1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 8 inch sewer main in W perimeter Road. There is an existing side
sewer connected to the existing building. The existing sewer stub must be capped before demolition. New building can be connected to
the existing sewer stub in W perimeter Road.
2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new water meter. Credit will be given to the existing connection.
SURFACE WATER
1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated July 27, 2015 was submitted by Magnusson Klemencic Associates. The proposed
development 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. Based on the City's flow control map, this site lalls within the Flow Control Duration
Standard, Forested Condition. Flow control BMPS required for this project per City of Renton Amendments to King County Storm Water
Design Manual section 1.2.3.3.
2. The submitted drainage report includes the 8 core reqUirements, but includes only special requirement number 2. All special
requirements (six special requirements) must be included in the drainage report (TIR) submitted with the utility construction permit.
3. The drainage report (TIR) includes a detailed summary of the pre and post developed site conditions, and it appears that the project
qualifies under the 0.1cfs exemption and it is exempt to provide flow control facility.
4. The project is a commercial site resulting in less than 5,000 sf of pollution generating impervious surface and it is exempt to provide
water quality per section 1.8 of KCSWDM.
5. A geotechnical report, dated April 20, 2015 was submitted by S&EE Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc. The field study included 3
soil test borings which were performed in 2012 and 3 additional borings which were performed in 2015. These exploration pits were dug
up to 50 feet in native's soil. No ground water was encountered on boring test B 2 which ground water was observed at 8.5 foot. Fill soils
encountered throughout the site randomly from 6" up to 14 feet. The geotechnical report recommended soldier pile and timber lagging
walls for excavation shoring; any fill at eastern portion of the building and under footing must be removed by over excavation and backfill
with structural fill.
Ran: November 18, 2015 Page 2 of 5
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPI'~ANT
LUA 15-000582
of
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I September 11 , 2015
Engineering Review Comments Contact: Kamran Yazdidoosll 425-430-73821 kyazdidoosl@rentonwa.gov
6. Surface water system development fees of $0.540 per square foot of new impervious surface will apply. This is payable prior to
issuance of the construction permit.
TRANSPORTATION ISTREET
1. This project fronts Rainier Ave S. Frontage improvements along Rainier Ave S will be constructed under a transportation improvement
project which requires minimum of 22 feet ROW Iclear from existing cement concrete curb to construct 8 foot planter strip, 12 foot
sidewalk/bike path and 2 foot behind sidewalk.
2. Transportation impact fees of $1.67 per square foot of new impervious surface will apply. These fees are payable prior to building
permit issuance.
3. A traffic impact analysis is prepared by Transportation Operations, Transportation Systems Division, Public Works Department, and
City of Renton. The traffic analysis focused on the AM and PM peak hours between 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The traffic impact
analysis studied all intersections to operate at LOS E or better and southernmost driveway at LOS A. Traffic impact analysis concludes that
the proposed project is not required to mitigate any intersection impact. The proposed project will be required to pay transportation impact
fee. The traffic impact analysis requires the proposed project to modify the existing channelization on Rainier Ave North to provide a merge
lane with the through traffic.
4. All utilities serving the site are required to be undergrounded.
5. All electrical, phone, and cable services and lines serving the proposed development must be underground. The construction of
these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton inspector prior to recording the plat
6. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Separate permits and fees for water, sewer and storm connections 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.
PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. Flow control BMPS required for this project per City of Renton Amendments to King County Storm Water Design Manual section
1.2.3.3.
2. Drainage facility covenant -required for al proposed drainage facilities (including flow control BMP).
3. Include in the TIR sizing calculations and criteria (per section C.2.1 of the KCSWDM) for the proposed BMPs.
4. The proposed project will be required to pay transportation impact fee.
5. Per traffic analysis study, the proposed project will be required to modify the existing channelization on Rainier Ave North to provide a
merge lane with the through traffic.
.
Police Plan Review Comments· .' Contact:.Cyndie Parks 1425-430-7521 1 cparks@rentonwa.gov
Recommendations: 15 CFS Estimated Annually
Ran: November 18, 2015 Page 3 of 5
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPL''''' \NT
LUA 15-000582
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use
Police Plan Review Comments
Minimal impact on police services.
Ran: November 18, 2015
of .
Version 1 I September 11 , 2015
Contact: Cyndie Parks 1425-430-7521 I cparks@rentonwa.gov
Page 4 of 5
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPl '~ANT
LUA 15-000582
PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use
Ran: November 18, 2015
of
Version 2 I November 02, 2015
Page 5 of 5
November 18, 2015
Jonathan Wilson
City of Renton -Airport
616 W Perimeter Rd, Ste A
Renton,WA 98057
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
SUBJECT: Renton Aerospace Training Center
LUA1S-00069S, ECF, VA-A, MOD
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended November 6, 2015 for the
Administrative Site Development Plan Review approval. No appeals were filed,
therefore, this decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits
may proceed.
The advisory notes listed in the City of Renton Report and Decision dated October 23,
2015 must be adhered to during construction and prior to final inspection. Furthermore,
the Administrative Site Development Plan Review decision will expire two (2) years from
the date of decision. If you are unable to finalize the development within the two-year
time-frame, a single two (2) year extension may be requested in writing, pursuant to
RMC 4-9-200.
In regards to the vesting of the above referenced project, please be aware that as long
as the development of the project conforms to the approved plans and building permits
are submitted within the relevant time limits, the zoning regulations in effect at the time
of the original approval shall continue to apply. However, all construction shall conform
to the International Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations in force at the
time of building permit application.
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton. Washing ton 98057 • rentonwa.gov
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT ----------.. Ren ton ®
A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION
REPORT DA TE:
Project Name:
Owner:
Applicant:
Contact:
File Number:
Project Manager:
Project Summary:
Project Location:
Site Area:
October 23, 2015
Renton Aerospace Training Center
City of Renton; 1055 S Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057
Jonathon Wilson, Renton Municipal Airport; 616 W Perimeter Rd, Unit A; Renton, WA
98057
Ross Widener, Widener & Associates; 10108 32nd Ave W, Suite 0; Everett, WA 98204
LUA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, a street modification,
modification to a critical slope, and a front yard setback variance for the construction of
a new 22,300 square foot, two story, Aerospace Training facility. The subject property is
located on the east side of Rainier Ave N just north of Airport Way at 300 Rainier Ave.
The project work area totals 30,151 square feet and is zoned Medium Industrial (1M).
The site currently contains the former Renton Chamber of Commerce building which is
proposed for removal. There are two primary access points on Rainier Ave which are
proposed to remain as is. The appl'lcant is proposing to retain the existing 41 parking
stalls on site to serve the proposed use. The applicant is requesting a street modification
from RMC 4-6-060 in order to eliminate the improvements required along Rainier Ave N.
The applicant is also proposing a variance from RMC 4-2-130 in order to reduce the
required 20-foot front yard setback dowrdo O-feet at the closest point. There are
critical slopes located on the western portion of the site of which the applicant is
requesting a modification from RMC 4-3-050 in order to impact the critical slope. This
project also includes the installation of a pressure-reducing valve near the airport tower,
as well as the addition of a short soft-surface trail from the parking lot at the south end
of the airport to Airport Way. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report, Traffic
Impact Analysis, Parking Analysis, and Geotechnical Engineering study with the subject
application.
300 Rainier Ave N
30,151 SF
Project Location Map
Staff Report and Decision -Final
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
Administrative Report & Decision
WA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD, MOD
October 23, 2015
I B. EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Exhibit 10:
Staff Report
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations
Geotechnical Report (April 20, 2015)
Technical Information Report (July 27, 2015)
Geotechnical Report Addendum (dated September 15, 2015)
Utility and Drainage Plan
Neighborhood Detail Map
Traffic Report (May 2015)
Exhibit 11: Agency Comment Letter: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
Exhibit 12: SEPA Determination
I Co FINDINGS OF FACT {FOF}:
Page 20f9
1. The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, a street modification, a modification from
critical area regulations, and a front yard setback variance for the construction of a new 22,300 square
foot, two-story, Aerospace Training facility.
2. The new facility would provide a training center for aerospace and manufacturing technologies. The
project includes a large shop space, classrooms, design labs, and administrative space. Approximately
72 students and faculty would occupy the facility.
3. The site is currently occupied by a building formerly used by the Renton Chamber of Commerce. There
is a surface parking lot to the south of the existing building and grass lawn to the north of the building.
4. The proposal includes the removal of the existing structure with the retention of the existing parking
area with 41 parking stalls.
5. Access is proposed via Rainier Ave N via two existing access points, at the north and south ends of the
existing parking lot.
6. The project work area totals 30,151 square feet and is located within the Employment Area (EA)
Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Medium Industrial (1M) zoning classification.
7. The subject site is long and narrow in the north-south direction, and is bordered to the west by Rainier
Ave North and to the east by Perimeter Road.
8. The westerly portion of the site is relatively flat and includes an existing building, paved walks, the
parking lot, and landscaped area surrounding the building. The easterly portion of the site includes a
steep slope that is approximately 30 feet high and connects the elevated westerly portion of the site to
Perimeter Road.
9_ The highest point of the proposed roof is at an elevation of 78 feet and 9 inches which is 51 feet above
Perimeter Road and approximately 19 feet above the Rainier Ave N grade (Exhibit 4).
10. Pedestrian access is proposed by way of a small paved plaza with connections to the existing parking
and existing sidewalk along Rainier Ave N.
11. The principal exterior building materials are coated steel siding and glazing (Exhibit 4).
12. Construction is anticipated to commence in December of 2015 with substantial completion scheduled
for September 2016.
Staff Report and Decision -Final
City of Renton Department of Com 'ty & Economic Development Administrative Report & Decision
LuA1S-000S8Z, ECF, VA-A, MOD, MOD RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CE!\, ER
October 23, 2015 Page 3 of9
13. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is concurrently pursuing National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) approval.
14. The facility is being designed to meet or exceed the requirements of American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASH RAE) standards, and the requirements of the
Washington State Energy Code. The project may pursue additional energy conservation measures in
pursuit of US Green Building Council LEED Silver Certification.
15. The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-3-050, pursuant to RMC 4-3-050J and RMC 4-9-
250D, in order to re-grade the critical slopes on site. The proposal includes approximately 12,000
square feet of impacts to the critical slopes as part of construction. The steep slope is not a natural
condition and was constructed by placing fill on the westerly portion of the site during construction of
the previous (current) site development.
16. The applicant is also requesting a street modification from RMC 4-6-060, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D, in
order to eliminate the improvements required along Rainier Ave N as part of the proposal.
17. Finally, the applicant is also proposing a variance from RMC 4-2-130, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, in order
to reduce the required 20-foot front yard setback down to O-feet at the closest point to the new
building. The variance and all modifications are subject to Administrative approval and will be reviewed
under a separate cover.
18. Staff received a comment letter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Exhibits 11) with
questions related to lighting. No other public or agency comments have been received.
19. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended),
on October 19, 2015 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) for the Renton Aerospace Training Center (Exhibit 12). A 14-day appeal period will commence on
October 23, 2015 and ends on November 6, 2015.
20. 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 has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report
and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report.
21. Street Modification Analysis: All frontage roads are required to meet street standards pursuant to
RMC 4-6-060. The applicant is requesting a street modification, from RMC 4-6-060, in order to modify
the requirement for required right-of-way improvements along Rainier Ave N. The City's Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) includes improvement projects for the Rainier Ave N and Airport Way
corridors, including: new traffic Signals, illumination, wider Sidewalks with streetscaping,
pedestrian/bicycle path, and other non-motorized improvements. Both projects are anticipated to be
constructed between 2015 and 2020. However, the applicant is requesting a street modification from
RMC 4-6-060, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D, in order to eliminate the improvements required along
Rainier Ave N associated with the project so they may be built with the remainder of the corridor
project.
Compliance IStreetModiflcation, Criteria and Analysis ..... '.'
.' '.',. .
a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the proposed modification is the
,/ minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives.
Statf Comment: The proposal complies with the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
,/ b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental
protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon
Staff Report and Decision -Final
City of Renton Department of Carr ity & Economic Development Administrative Report & Decision
uJA15-000581, fCF, VA-A, MOD, MOD RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CE ••• ER
October 23. 2015 Page 4 of 9
sound engineering judgment.
Stoff Comment: The purpose of the City's street standards is to establish design
standards and development requirements Jor street improvements to ensure
reasonable and safe access to public and private properties. The Transportation
Department has a transportation corridor plan Jor Rainier Ave N. The proposed right-
of-way design and existing improvements would provide convenient access and travel
Jor all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles.
In order to accommodote planned street improvements Jor the Roinier Ave N
improvement project, a minimum of 22 feet of right-oJ-way is needed behind the
existingcurb to construct 8 Joot planter strip, 12 foot sidewalk/bike path and 2 Joot
behind the sidewalk.
There is more than adequate right-oJ-way to accommodate planned improvements Jor
Rainier Ave Jronting the site. As it happens, the existing building Jootprint currently
encroaches into the right-oJ-way, as well as the proposed location Jor the new troining
center. The applicant however, hos set the building back Jar enaugh to accommodate
Jor planned improvements in the future. Staff is recammending, as a condition of the
setback variance approval, the applicant be required to obtain a right-oJ-way vacation
Jor the portion of existing right-oJ-way needed to accommodate the proposed Jootprint
(See FOF 23).
The proposal is expected to meet the objectives and saJety, function, appearance,
environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Cade requirements,
based upon sound engineering judgment.
c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
,/ Staff Comment: The proposed delay in right-oJ-way improvements (until such time the
remainder of the corridor project is construct) is not anticipated to be injurious to other
properties within the vicinity of the site.
d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code.
,/
Staff. Comment: See comments under criterion 'b'.
e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
,/
Staff. Comment: See comments under criterion 'b'.
f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
,/
Staff. Comment: See comments under criterion 'c'.
22. Critical Area Modification Analysis: Critical slopes on site represent approximately 24,000 square feet.
Pursuant to RMC 4-3-100 development is prohibited on protected slopes. The applicant is requesting a
modification from RMC 4-3-050, pursuant to RMC 4-3-050J and RMC 4-9-250D, in order to re-grade the
critical slopes on site. The proposal is compliant with the following modification criteria, if all
conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested Critical Area
Modification as noted below:
Compliance Critical Area Modification Criteria and Analysis .
.
a. The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report describing any potential impacts
,/ of the proposed modification and any necessary mitigation measures.
Statt Comment: The applicant provided a geotechnical report, prepared by the Soil &
Staff Report and Decision -Final
City of Renton Deportment of Com 'ty & Economic Development Administrative Report & Decision
LuA1S-OOOS82, ECF, VA-A, MOD, MOD RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CEt., ER
October 23, 2015 Page 5 019
Environmental Engineers, Inc. dated April 20,2015 (Exhibit 5).
b. All submitted reports shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists
selected by the City at the applicant's expense.
,/' Staff Comment: Given the proposal is a City project the provided geotechnical report,
prepared by the Sail & Environmental Engineers, was a qualified specialist selected by
the City. Therefore, the Administrator has determined that independent review can be
waived in accordance with subsection RMC 4-3-0500.
c_ Administrator may grant, condition, or deny the request based upon the proposal's
compliance with the applicable modification criteria of RMC 4-9-250D.
Staff Comment: In support of the requested modification the provided geotechnical
report contained a slape reconnaissance across portions of the steep slape area on site
(Exhibit 7). The prohibition on protected slopes is nat intended to prevent the
development of property that includes forty percent (40%) or greater slopes an a
portion of the site, provided there is enough developable area elsewhere to
accommodate building pads. The purpose of the Criticol Area Regulations as it relates
to criticol slopes is to reduce the risks to the City and its citizens from development
occurring on unstable slopes.
The slope onsite is relotively steep, with an approximate 75% inclination on averoge.
The proposal includes approximately 12,000 square feet of impacts to the critical slope
as part of construction. The steep slope is not a natural condition as it was constructed
by placing fill on the westerly portion of the site during construction of the current site
development. The critical slope on this site was created when soil was removed from
the toe of the slape (east half of the site) when Perimeter Road was constructed 70
years ago. The proposal also does nat include the creation of any new critical areas.
The slope reconnaissance contends there are no signs of recent large scale erasion or
slape instability observed at the subject site. The report states that given the stability
". of the steep to near vertical reliefs (created by past grading activities) as wells as the
subsurface conditions the sites soils exhibit good soil strength choracteristics. It is
anticipated that the proposed building's structural foundation wall elements would
effectively improve the overall stability of the site and therefore proposed grading
within the protected slopes would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity of the site.
Height restrictions imposed by the FAA, given the sites close proximity to the Renton
Municipal Airport, requires excavation into the hill side rather than a two-story building
canstructed on grade. The proposed disturbance of the steep slope on the site would be
the minimum necessary to construct the new Aerospace Training Center building and
the area of disturbance is being retained by a tied-back sharing wall and reinforced
concrete retaining wall. The design has been prepared by a licensed professional
engineer based on the recommendations of a licensed professional geotechnical
engineer (Exhibits 5 and 7). It is the opinion of the geotechnical engineer thot the
praject would not chonge the "stability status" of the onsite slope north and south of
the building, and at the building location the stability status would be enhanced by the
proposed walls.
Maximum extent of excavation for the construction of the building will be 25 feet.
Trenching for fiber optic cables on the north and south eastern side would be no
greater than 6 feet deep. All other excavation would average less than 3 feet. There
would be an estimated 7,000 CY of cut and 1,000 CY of fill associated with the proposed
Stoff Report and Decision -Final
City of Renton Department of Com ty & Economic Development Administrative Report & Decision
LlJA1S-OOOS8Z, ECF, VA-A, MOD, MOD RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CE,v, ER
October 23, 2015 Page 6 of9
project. The requested modification is the ' , omount necessary to minimum
accommodate reasonable use of the property and meet the objectives and purpose of
the 1M zone, Based on the above analysis, the requested modification would meet the
criteria found in RMC 4-9-250D,
d_ The proposed variance (modification) is based on consideration of the best
available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence
,r of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed,
Staff Comment: The applicant provided a geotechnical report, prepared by the Soil &
Environmental Engineers, Inc" and it is based on consideration of the best available
science (Exhibit 5).
23. Setback Variance Analysis; The proposed facility would have a front yard setback of 0 feet, at the
closest point, from the front (Rainier Ave N) property line which would not meet the minimum front
yard setback of 20 feet pursuant to RMC 4-2-130. The applicant has requested a Variance in order to
reduce the minimum setback. The proposal is compliant with the following variance criteria, pursuant
to RMC 4-9-250, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
requested Setback Variance
Comll!I~~c~Setback Variance Criteria and An .. lysi~:" -<'; • ",;,,' .",. ,,' ", " "
Compliant if
conditions
of approval
are met
Compliant if
conditions
of approval
are met
a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the
variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject
property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject
property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and under identical zone classification.
Staff Comment: The Renton Aerospoce Training Center is located on a narrow strip of
City of Renton property between Rainier Ave N and Perimeter Rd limiting the width of
the structure. In foct, the site is currently so narrow that the proposed footprint
currently encroaches into the existing right-of-way. As a result, staff is recommending ,
the applicant obtain a right-of-way vacation for the area between the current right-of-
way line ond the proposed right-of-woy line for the Rainier Ave N TIP project (see Exhibit
2), The right-of-way vacation shall be approved by the City Council prior to building
permit approvol.
While the street vocation would assist in widening the site there are critical slopes on
site representing approximately 24,000 square feet, which limits the development
potential of the site, Finally, height restrictions imposed by the FAA given the sites close
proximity to the Renton Municipal Airport limits the building envelope for the proposed
use. Due to the site constrains, shape, size, and critical areas the strict application of
the zoning code would deprive the subject property owner of rights and privileges
enjoyed by other property owners along Rainier Ave.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is situated.
Staff Comment: The required 20100t setback allows for space to create attractive
spaces that unify the building and street environments and is inviting and comfortable
for pedestrians. This is especially important along Rainier Ave N, a primary arterial with
plans for a TIP project with objectives to provide a more comfortable pedestrian
environment. If approved, the reduced setback would provide little area to create an
Staff Report and Decision -Final
City at Renton Deportment of Com ty & Economic Development Administrative Report & Decision
WA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOO, MOO RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
October 23, 2015
II. CONCLUSIONS:
Page 7 of 9
attractive space that unifies the building and the street environment. However, given
the limitations of the site would preclude additional setbacks the pedestrian
environment should be enhanced through architectural design.
The primary building entry faces south, opening to a small pedestrian-scaled plaza with
planting, a seat wall, and view overlooking the airport runway. The paved plaza extends
ta the west to meet the sidewalk along Rainier Ave N, and would connect to the future
multi-use trail. The building's largest face address the airport runway, while the west
far;ade, facing Rainier Ave, has limited pedestrian orientation with the exception of the
structure being limited to a height of 19-foot one story. There are no entrances
proposed on the far;ade facing the street nor is there a prominent entrance visible from
the street when traveling from north to south.
Building facades which are modulated and/or articulated reduce the apparent size of
buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of
the neighborhood. Alternative methods to moss the building such as angled or curved
facade elements, off-set planes, wing walls, and terracing cauld also be considered for
the for;ode facing the street. Other design features and human scale elements could
have also been incorporated into the design in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal.
Therefore, staff recommends as a candition of approval that the applicant submit
revised elevations that depict alternative methods to moss the proposed building
and/or other design features and human scale elements in order to enhance the
aesthetic appeal, unify the building and street environments, and is inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
The building elevations indicate various building materials would be used in order to add
texture. In order to ensure quality materials are used, staff recommends as a condition
at approval the applicant submit a materials board. The material board shall be
submitted, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approval.
c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
property is situated.
Staff Comment: Given the physical site constraints and height limitations imposed by the
FAA it is anticipated other property owners in the vicinity with the same limitations
would be reviewed, consistent with the subject application. Therefore, the approval
would not constitute a grant of special privilege.
d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'b'.
1. The subject site is located within the Employment Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan land use designation
and complies with all policies if the conditions of approval are met.
2. The subject site is located in the Medium Industrial (1M) zoning designation and complies with the
zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant complies
with City Code and conditions of approval.
Staff Report and Decision -Final
City of Renton Department of Com. ty & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
October 23, 2015
Administrative Report & Decision
WA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD, MOD
Page 8 of 9
3. The proposed street modification from RMC 4-6-060 is compliant with criteria pursuant to RMC 4-9-
250D, in order to eliminate the improvements required along Rainier Ave N associated with the project
(see FOF 21). Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Street Modification.
4. The proposed modification from RMC 4-3-050 is compliant with criteria pursuant to RMC 4-3-050J and
RMC 4-9-250D, in order to re-grade the critical slopes on site (see FOF 22). Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the Critical Area Modification.
5. The proposed variance from RMC 4-2-130, is compliant with criteria pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, in order
reduce the minimum setback, if ali conditions of approval are met (see FOF 23). Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the Setback Variance.
I J. DECISION:
The Renton Aerospace Training Facility Street Modification, Critical Area Modification, and Setback Variance,
File No. LUA15-000582, as depicted in Exhibit 2, is approved and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall obtain a right-of-way vacation for the area between the current right-of-way line
and the proposed right-of-way line for the Rainier Ave N TIP project (see Exhibit 2). The right-of-way
vacation shall be approved by the City Council prior to building permit approval.
2. The applicant shall submit revised elevations that depict alternative methods to mass the proposed
building and/or other design features and human scale elements in order to enhance the aesthetic
appeal, unify the building and street environments, and is inviting and comfortable for pedestrians.
Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the CUrrent Planning Project Manager prior
to building permit approval.
3. The applicant shall submit a materials board. The material board shall be submitted, and approved by,
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURE:
Iv" Z;;>· WI')
Date
TRANSMITTED this 23'd day of October, 2015 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact:
Owner:
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Applicant:
Jonathon Wilson
Renton Municipal Airport
616 W Perimeter Rd, Unit A
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED this 23'd day of October, 2015 to the Parties of Record:
Name and address
Staff Report and Decision ·Final
Contact:
Ross Widener
Widener & Associates
10108 32nd Ave W, Suite 0
Everett WA 98204
City of Renton Department of Corr ity & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING Cm, ER
October 23, 2015
TRANSMITTED this 23'd day af October, 201S to the fallowing:
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Jan Conklin, Development Services
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Fire Marshal
Administrative Report & Decision
.o.IA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD, MOD
Page 9 019
K_ LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXPIRATION:
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days 01 the
decision date.
APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2015. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-
day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680), together with the required fee to the Hearing
Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. RMC 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the
Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City
Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
EXPIRATION: The administrative short plat decision will expire two (2) years from the date of decision. A single
one (1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-7-070.M.
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened
by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable
prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the
reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will
be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal
appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications
may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals
to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing
through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to
know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any
violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.
Staff Report and Decision -Final
o o
'" is ,
(J j l! IF i , 0 ~ . • ,
H Hi , • i I , , , , > • I I , .l! , ,
'~, ,
. ",'
-~
. ··1"· , .
1
~
Z
iii ~ ~
~ ~ ~ i
N
» , ~, 'Ii' 'i II , , H -:1, J !I! ',~ . Renton Aero!" ce , , " ~ \~~ i! ..... , , ~i ~ '.~ !
Q Ij }] Training Cent I
Q )~~ ·U Cit of Renton !
~
%
toof
CD
toof
-i
W
l~
• £ ~
Ii
w " < '<
~ ,
" ~
~
~ ~ ~ •
r-,
(111 .... ' .....
<:;
,
"
, ,
~.
..
"
, :..:
~\
( :) "'-.,
.,.,
~i
~
,\'
t~
f!
k
,
~~
i"
;
;;
" 0 0 5'
:, a
'''' "1
" t,
i r
;,z
h
'£ g
~ EB ;;: I';
[' :J
,"'w i H~ z
~
2~
" ~
" '" " 0 ~
i
~
~
" ~
" rii
~
I
I
I
I
I
-~
if ~I
OJ ()
r -'-,
\ \ \.
I \
I I
1 !
I !
I I
--j -----~ ,. ", --~;;.::-:;.::.-;;::.,;;.;.,. ---r ' ~ !....;:, ... r, I
1\
I',
I \ I , : \
I '
I I
: l
I ~. If I ,
" ,
'';
1-----!
.r 'i i~+-I :!
-,-0" .~
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
, I
, I
, I I,,), , I j,
, I
1 / -I' I" ".1-,-
I . i'-
I
f Renton Aerospace Training Center
o
,
I,
o
~~ '"
~; c' ,,'" ~"!i • ~
(A
, ,
< " ~
~
" ~
~
~
r i hi !f • ~I , " U1 1 I ..... ,
(;) ,
1
r
I;
I
~
I! ,
[JJ o o
----~-----~----------------------------.
,
i ~ ,
"
"
\
\
MATCHLINI;-SE!::l5'i1
\',
"
,
Renton Aerospace Training
Center
",''''
(") 0
j::-:'
~
:<;;
::-(f)
! '--;
m " ,... I , , m
~ '" ." ~ l: ~ f" ~~ 9 i~ gl 'i ,!!. :: ~i It i ! ,
~' i' II " .-' Z Q II t i
I' '~d ;! I! i h ,! ~ ~ r
'I ~ 1 It ,
i '3 ' I l ' " ~ I, ~
;0
~
~
-~ III . , j ---t---fi=1~t-+t;-
'" <~) W " II d I , .
,
I
i
/-', H I , 0, •• \-.-" P 1-
!
I " ! , !
It i ! ~~ I • [
H , t
I$. I ~ ~ ! ,.~ , .
i :t ! ' " ! I " ., "
" I,
i; ,
" ! V !I
,
I'
iI .. ,-'-,
:/ i,,-!,,>'
m
iliF
!i' , I:'
I,
,
I
.--" ,~ -: r !1. I , , i
:;
iel U j¥ if H 'J '::;: Renton Aeros ~ ~ ~ :e ~ t; (:r :if !l '( , !
SRC. ~ ;" ]] Training Cent I 0 I,,~ ,!" .. ! B j~ ! City of Renton
N
~l
o
N
,
" '{ . , n
PI
i
" • ~ <
I ; !-, i
.
[
!
" " l/
"
"
I
i
H
H
Ii
/
/~
,
I
i
-:0;
,
! (). '--
o
!
I
" I, '" "'t. "'~ -,:;':
l--j·~ -I
j, ,
-Ir :------'1
i--
I, • I I ~-
--,
I' _______ ._".,.,,_, I
:-----,--11
C:r:q~i
I
~,-·ji
Renton Aeros :e
Q
,
I
~
'~
"
, ~'
\. -"'
Training Cente.
City of Renton ISRC;
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Itire Document
Available Upon Request
PROPOSED AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
300 RAINIER AVE N., RENTON, W A
S&EE JOB NO. 1234B
APRIL 20, 2015
EXHIBIT 5
i :
, ,
! :
, i
: i
; I
, i
i !
: i
Entire Document
Available Upon Request
STORMWATER TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Renton Aerospace Training Center
Renton, Washington
July 27, 2015
EXHIBIT 6
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENC[C
, 7 '
, " ,
Entire Document
Available Upon Request
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGlN
1.6!j25 Redll].oD.<l Wil)',..Sui.te .. M 174~K"-<lmQf\g,'Nashington.98052. 1425) 86~:~g~ \I \\"Soi[Fnvir,mrne"Uicoin_.
ML Duncan Thieme. AlA
SRG Partnership, Inc,
1[0 Union StrM#300
Seattle, W A 98101
Dear Duncan:
September 15,2015
Report Addendum
Proposed Aerospace Training Center
Renton, WA
Soil & Envirorunental Engineers, Inc. (S&EE) has performed a geotechnical investigation for the project
Our report of this investigation is dated April 20, 2015 and has been submitted previously. Per your request,
I have reviewed the "On Hold" Notice dated September I I, 2015 issued by the city, I have also reviewed
the followings:
• RMC 4-3·050J and RMC 4·9-2500
. Structural, shoring and civil plans dated 091 1512015 I 5 and prepared by MagmJ5son Kelmencic Associc"tes
My review indicates that the onsite steep slope is located in an area of high landslide hJ17JJrds. Based on my
understanding of the project, the entire steep slope located within the footprint of the proposed building will
be removed by excavation. During construction, the cut face will be stabilized by a tied·back shoring wall.
Then. a reinforced concrete retaining wall will be constructed in front of the shoring wall to provide
permanent stability, My April-20-15 report has presented the geotechnical Parameters tor the designed of
these walls, My review of the design plans indicated that the geotechnical parameters utilized in the designs
are consistent with my recommendations. Based on this, [ conclude that for the existing onsite slope away
from the proposed construction, its stability status will remain unchanged. On the other hand, for the
existing onsite slope located within the proposed construction, its stability status will be enhanced by the
proposed walls.
I believe this communication wiII serve the present need. Should you have any question or require
additional information, please let me know anytime.
Very truly yours,
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. AL 1It'-'\.I''PA-~' / -IS; -/ <,;-
C. J. Shin. Ph,C
President EXHIBIT 7
;g 5
,"
0 1
q ,~
0 , ,
"
f1 iUH ¥; . ,;! t ' < c., ....
i
/
~t
}
t
/
;;!H 1~1 J
-·,"'·M ~.u ~f
i~}~
,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ,
I
~ I
U i
! ,
~' I
~
&
/
:.:~
.-:::"':
7-'"'
-~ -,
o o
Renton Aeros,
Training Cent,
Cilv 01 Rantnn
e
0
• ;;;
~
'£
"
" " < g
~
" , ,
,!!J
i ,
•• # i~.
-}
I
-t
" -1
-------------.....-..
-"Rr.
m >< ~ ....
OJ ....
-I
\D
~ ~ b--!,~-J_._ J_-J I' I L_l~,~,~,~ ---I rT
~ ~ r~'~ i----l ~1·-'-=--T-=-H-a-rd-ie-A-V-e"~w-"_~}
3-i "I 1 lin 01 z
8. i. i 1 ~ r--1
o ~.~. I~ 1 \ ~ J\teISOI]~'~'.J L,~ L.--J-~,~,~ _, J~,
"::>'
~
U
:J
jj
'" q
'" q
~
0 q
'"
.~ rl\t* .-J I
~L-__________________________________________ _
__ Itire Document
Available Upon Request
Renton Aerospace Training Center
EXHIBIT 10
Renton, Washington
Traffic Impact Analysis
May 2015
Prepared By:
1
Transportation Operations
Transportation Systems Division
Public Works Department
City of Renton
Rocale Timmons
From:
Sent:
To:
Karen Walter < KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn,us>
Friday, August 28, 2015 2:52 PM
Rocale Timmons
Subject: RE: Notice of Application -Renton Aerospace Training Center -LUA1S-000582, ECF, SA-
A, V-A, MOD
Attachments: Tabor et al 2004, Light Intensity and Sockeye Fry predation in lower Cedar River.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Rocale,
Follow up
Completed
Thank you for sending us the requested information for the Renton Aerospace Training Center. We have reviewed this
information. As you noted, the information about the lighting plans is not currently available for review. The lighting plan
needs to ensure that artificial lighting from the project site is minimized to the full extent possible and reduces any
cumulative contributions to the existing artificial lighting conditions that delay outgoing juvenile salmon migration and
increase predation opportuniiies, As described in Roger Tabor et al. (2008) study on artificial lighting in the Cedar River,
artificial lights can contribute to the overall lighting conditions by reflecting off of clouds which the researchers documented
to be the greatest near the mouth of the Cedar River. As the site is on a slope and there no vegetation to screen lighting
from the project site (including the parking lot), it could add to the existing artificial lighting conditions at the airport. The
following measures should be implemented for new and existing lights at the project site:
a. Eliminate any unnecessary lights
b. For lights that are necessary, they should be managed as follows:
1. Reducing "on" hours/use motion sensors
2. Reducing light intensity output
3. Relocation
4. Re-aiming
5. Reducing lamp height
6. Addition of shielding devices
7. Changing fixture types
8. Changing lamp types, color temperatures/wavelength and/or wattage
9. Dimming
We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Karen Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
Habitat Program
39015 172nd Ave SE
Aubum, WA 98092
253-876-3116
From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 20157:41 PM
To: Karen Walter
Subject: RE: Notice of Application -Renton Aerospace Training Center -
1
EXHIBIT 11
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
-MITIGATED (DNS)
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA1S-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD
APPLICANT: Jonathan Wilson
PROJECT NAME: Renton Aerospace Training Center
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, a street
modification, modification to a critical slope, and a front yard setback variance for the construction of a new
22,300 square foot, two story, Aerospace Training facility. The subject property is located on the east side of
Rainier Ave N just north of Airport Way at 300 Rainier Ave. The project work area totals 30,151 square feet and
is zoned Medium Industrial (1M). The site currently contains the former Renton Chamber of Commerce building
which is proposed for removal. There are two primary access points on Rainier Ave which are proposed to
remain as is. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing 41 parking stalls on site to serve the proposed use.
The applicant is requesting a street modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to eliminate the improvements
required along Rainier Ave N. The applicant is also proposing a variance from RMC 4-2-130 in order to reduce
the required 20-foot front yard setback down to O-feet at the closest point. There are critical slopes located on
the western portion of the site of which the applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-3-050 in order to
impact the critical slope. This project also inCludes the installation of a pressure-reducing pump near the airport
tower, as well as the addition of a short soft-surface trail from the parking lot at the south end of the airport to
Airport Way. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Parking Analysis, and
Geotechnical Engineering study with the subject application.
PROJECT LOCATION: 300 Rainier Ave N
LEAD AGENCY: 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). This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. 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 November 6, 2015_
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.
EXHIBIT 12
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services Department
October 23, 2015
OCTOBER 19, 2015
Date
Date
?J tiff ~.\\! -H_
Mark Peterson, Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services
:1 0
/-C; \ ~--<..c< "-\ ! ""' ..;A -
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
10 115 /1;-~-.. ---"--,.".".".".
Date
Date
Denis Law
Mayor
October 22, 2015
Jonathan Wilson
Renton Municipal Airport
616 W Perimeter Rd, Unit A
Renton,WA 98057
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Adm i nistrator
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
Renton Aerospace Training Center, LUA1S-000S82, ECF, VA-A, MOD
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This letter is written on behalf ofthe Environmental Review Committee (ERe) to advise
you that they have completed their review ofthe subject project and have issued a
threshold Determination of Non-Significance. Please refere to the enclosed ERC Report
and Decision for more details.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
p.m. on November 6,2015, 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 information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all
parties notified.
If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Rocale Timmons
Senior Planner
Enclosure
cc: Ross Widener I Contact
Jennifer Palmer I Party(ies) of Record
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in
thc English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was
regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.
The annexed notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on October 23,2015.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is
the sum oJ $104.38.
, //, )./:. //:[4/~'.(,.r /;.-i .. V(
Dnda Mills
Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
Subscribed .and sworn to me this 23rd day of October, 2015.
Gale Gwin, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in
Puyallup, Washington
. If II
,\~" "., "'" ."1'",
.... ' G):-, : •..••... //v , ...... ~' .. ~;;;:o;x.,;\.. . ~
.... ."0 ""'._ .... • c) <.fl.
i NOTARY : _ . . -. ll'-~ (j) \ PUB C .: <: :::
-:. ......-II ... .0" 0.:::: ~ ~."'~~' 1'\ :'''I·'>'·.<~_ .... , ... ",/'\'c)~··'····· .• ,', " ,
"/'1 .,t:. \ .. ',/(-.. ~)"-.'\
IIIIIIIIHP'
"onCE OF
ENVIRONMElliT AL
DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW COMMITTEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review
Committee has issued a Detenni-
nation of NonSignificance Miti-
gated (DNSM) for the following
project under the authority of the
Renton municipal code.
Renton Aerospace Training
Center
LUAI5000582
Location: 300 Rainicr Avc N.
The applicant is requesting the
approval for the construction of
a new 22,300 square foot, two
story, Aerospace Training fa-
cility. The property is located
on the east side of Rainier Ave
S just north of Airport Way a1
300 Rainier Ave. The project
work area totals 30,151 square
feet and is zoned Medium In-
dustrial (lM). There are two
primary access points on Raini-
er Ave which are proposed to
remain as is. The applicant is
proposing to retain the existing
41 parking stalls on site to
serve the proposed use
Appeals of the DNSM must be
filed in writing on or before
5:00 p,m. on November 06,
2015 Appeals must be filed in
WTiting together with the re-
quired fee with:
Hearing Exammcr clo City
Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S
Gradv Way, Renton, WA 98057
App;als to the Hearing Examiner
are governed by RMC 48110 and
more infonnation may be ob-
tained from the Renton City
Clerk's Office, 4254306510 .
Published in the Renton Reporter
on October 23, 2015. #1443755
Denis Law
Mayor 9 r -...::...---""..,.,,~ r _._"--
October 22, 2015 Community & Economic Development Department
CE."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
Transmitted herewith is a copy ofthe Environmental Determination for the following
project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) on October 19, 2015:
SEPA DETERMINATION:
PROJECT NAME:
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (ONS)
Renton Aerospace Training Center
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
p.m. on November 6,2015, 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 information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete
details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Rocale Timmons
Senior Planner
Enclosure
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Ramin Pazookl, WSDOT, NW Region
Larry Fisher, WOFW
Duwamish Tribal Office
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
DEPARTMENT OF COMMU~II Y
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
-MITIGATED (DNS)
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD
APPLICANT: Jonathan Wilson
PROJECT NAME: Renton Aerospace Training Center
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, a street
modification, modification to a critical slope, and a front yard setback variance for the construction of a new
22,300 square foot, two story, Aerospace Training facility. The subject property is located on the east side of
Rainier Ave N just north of Airport Way at 300 Rainier Ave. The project work area totals 30,151 square feet and
is zoned Medium Industrial (1M). The site currently contains the former Renton Chamber of Commerce building
which is proposed for removal. There are two primary access points on Rainier Ave which are proposed to
remain as is. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing 41 parking stalls on site to serve the proposed use.
The applicant is requesting a street modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to eliminate the improvements
required along Rainier Ave N. The applicant is also proposing a variance from RMC 4-2-130 in order to reduce
the required 20-foot front yard setback down to O-feet at the closest point. There are critical slopes located on
the western portion of the site of which the applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-3-050 in order to
impact the critical slope. This project also includes the installation of a pressure-reducing pump near the airport
tower, as well as the addition of a short soft-surface trail from the parking lot at the south end of the airport to
Airport Way. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Parking Analysis, and
Geotechnical Engineering study with the subject application.
PROJECT LOCATION: 300 Rainier Ave N
LEAD AGENCY: 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). This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. 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 November 6, 2015.
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.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMU ...... Y
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PUBLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DECISION:
SIGNATURES:
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services Department
October 23, 2015
OCTOBER 19, 2015
Date
Date
Ma k Peterson, Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services
r n
, ,I C t:, J, "St--
C.E. "Chip" Vi;-;cent, Administrator
Department of Community &
Economic Development
Date
Date
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: Renton Aerospcace Training Center
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOO
LOCATION: 300 Rainier Ave N
DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) REVIEW, A STREET
MODIFICATION, MODIFICATION TO A CRITICAL SLOPE, AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A NEW 22,300 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY, AEROSPACE TRAINING FACILITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF RAINIER AVE N JUST NORTH OF AIRPORT WAY AT 300 RAINIER AVE. THE PROJECT WORK AREA TOTALS 30,151
SQUARE FEET AND IS ZONED MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL (1M). THE SITE CURRENTLY CONTAINS THE FORMER RENTON CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE BUILDING WHICH IS PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY ACCESS POINTS ON RAINIER AVE
WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN AS IS. THE APPUCANT IS PROPOSING TO RETAIN THE EXISTING 41 PARKING STALLS ON
SITE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED USE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A STREET MODIFICATION FROM RMC 4-6-060 IN ORDER
TO ELIMINATE THE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED ALONG RAINIER AVE N. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING A VARIANCE
FROM RMC 4·2-130 IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 20·FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK DOWN TO O-FEET AT THE CLOSEST
POINT. THERE ARE CRITICAL SLOPES LOCATED ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE OF WHICH THE APPUCANT IS
REQUESTING A MODIFICATION FROM RMC 4-3..050 IN ORDER TO IMPACT THE CRITICAL SLOPE. THIS PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES
THE INSTALLATION OF A PRESSURE-REDUCING VALVE NEAR THE AIRPORT TOWER, AS WELL AS THE ADDITION OF A SHORT
SOFT-SURFACE TRAIL FROM THE PARKING LOT AT THE SOUTH END OF THE AIRPORT TO AIRPORT WAY. THE APPLICANT HAS
SUBMITTED A DRAINAGE REPORT, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, PARKING ANALYSIS, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
STUDY WITH THE SUBJECT APPLICATION.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERe) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED
ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 6,
2015, 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 City of RMC 4-8-110 and information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510_
IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES
NOTIFIED.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DA TE:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Praject Manager:
Owner:
Applicant:
Contact:
Praject Location:
Project Summary:
Site Area:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
October 19, 2015
Renton Aerospace Training Center
LUA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
City of Renton; 1055 S Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057
Jonathon Wilson, Renton Municipal Airport; 616 W Perimeter Rd, Unit A; Renton, WA
98057
Ross Widener, Widener & Associates; 10108 32nd Ave W, Suite 0; Everett, WA 98204
300 Rainier Ave N
The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, a street modification,
modification to a critical slope, and a front yard setback variance for the construction of a
new 22,300 square foot, two story, Aerospace Training facility. The subject property is
located on the east side of Rainier Ave N just north of Airport Way at 300 Rainier Ave. The
project work area totals 30,151 square feet and is zoned Medium Industrial (1M). The site
currently contains the former Renton Chamber of Commerce building which is proposed
for removal. There are two primary access points on Rainier Ave which are proposed to
remain as is. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing 41 parking stalls on site to
serve the proposed use. The applicant is requesting a street modification from RMC 4-6-
060 in order to eliminate the improvements required along Rainier Ave N. The applicant is
also proposing a variance from RMC 4-2-130 in order to reduce the required 20·foot front
yard setback down to O-feet at the closest point. There are critical slopes located on the
western portion of the site of which the applicant is requesting a modification from RMC
4-3-050 in order to impact the critical slope. This project also includes the installation of a
pressure-reducing pump near the airport tower, as well as the addition of a short soft-
surface trail from the parking lot at the south end of the airport to Airport Way. The
applicant has submitted a Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Parking Analysis, and
Geotechnical Engineering study with the subject application.
30,151 Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 22,300 SF
Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of
Non-Significance.
Project Location Map
ERCReport
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
Report of October 19, 2015
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION I BACKGROUND
Environmental Review Committee Report
LUA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD, MOD
Page 2 of 9
The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, a street modification, a modification from
critical area regulations, and a front yard setback variance for the construction of a new 22,300 square
foot, two story, Aerospace Training facility. The new facility would provide a training center for aerospace
and manufacturing technologies, The project includes a large shop space, classrooms, design labs, and
administrative space. Approximately 72 students and faculty would occupy the facility,
The site is currently occupied by a building formerly used by the Renton Chamber of Commerce. There is a
surface parking lot to the south of the existing building and grass lawn to the north of the building. The
proposal includes the removal of the existing structure with the retention of the existing parking area with
41 parking stalls. Access is proposed via Rainier Ave N via two existing access points, at the north and
south ends ofthe existing parking lot,
The project work area totals 30,151 square feet and is located within the Employment Area (EA)
Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Medium Industrial (1M) zoning classification, The subject
site is long and narrow in the north-south direction, and is bordered to the west by Rainier Ave North and
to the east by Perimeter Road. The westerly portion of the site is relatively flat and includes an existing
building, paved walks, the parking lot, and landscaped area surrounding the building. The easterly portion
of the site includes a steep slope that is approximately 30 feet high and connects the elevated westerly
portion of the site to Perimeter Road.
The highest point of the proposed roof is at an elevation of 78 feet and 9 inches which is 51 feet above
Perimeter Road and approximately 19 feet above the Rainier Ave N grade (Exhibit 4). Pedestrian access is
proposed by way of a small paved plaza with connections to the existing parking and existing sidewalk
along Rainier Ave N. The access is being designed with consideration given to the future multi-use trail
along Rainier Ave N. The principal exterior building materials are coated steel siding and glazing (Exhibit 4).
Construction is anticipated to commence in December of 2015 with substantial completion scheduled for
September 2016. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is concurrently pursuing National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval. The facility is being designed to meet or exceed the
requirements of American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASH RAE)
standards, and the requirements of the Washington State Energy Code. The project may pursue additional
energy conservation measures in pursuit of US Green Building Council LEED Silver Certification.
The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-3-050, pursuant to RMC 4-3-050J and RMC 4-9-
250D, in order to re-grade the critical slopes on site. The proposal includes approximately 12,000 square
feet of impacts to the critical slopes as part of construction. The steep slope is not a natural condition and
was constructed by placing fill on the westerly portion of the site during construction of the previous
(current) site development. The applicant is also requesting a street modification from RMC 4-6-060,
pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D, in order to eliminate the improvements required along Rainier Ave N as part of
the proposal. Finally, the applicant is also proposing a variance from RMC 4-2-130, pursuant to RMC 4-9-
250, in order to reduce the required 20-foot front yard setback down to O-feet at the closest point to the
new building. The variance and all modifications are subject to Administrative approval and will be
reviewed under a separate cover.
ERCReport
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
Environmental Review Committee Report
LUA1S-oOOS82, ECF, VA-A, MOD, MOD
Report of October 19, 2015 Page30f9
Staff received a comment letter from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Exhibits 11) with
questions related to lighting. No other public or agency comments have been received.
I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) 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 with a 14-day Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
None
C. Exhibits
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Exhibit 9:
Exhibit 10:
Exhibit 11:
Environmental Review Committee Report
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations
Geotechnical Report (April 20, 2015)
Technical Information Report (July 27, 2015)
Geotechnical Report Addendum (dated September 15, 2015)
Utility and Drainage Plan
Neighborhood Detail Map
Traffic Report (May 2015)
Agency Comment Letter: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
D. Environmentallmpacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine
whether the applicant has 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 have the following probable impacts:
1. Earth
Impacts: The westerly portion of the site is relatively flat and includes an existing building, paved
walks, parking lot, and landscaped area surrounding the building. The easterly portion of the site
includes a steep slope that is approximately 30 feet high and connects the elevated westerly
portion of the site to Perimeter Road. The building footprint for the new building is located on the
level bench that overlooks the Renton MuniCipal Airport and overlaps the existing on site slope.
The existing site includes approximately 26,000 square feet of impervious area. Following
development, impervious surface coverage would be approximately 72 percent (approximately
20,000 square feet).
ERe Report
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
Report of October 19, 2015
Environmental Review Committee Report
WA1S-OOOS82, ECF, VA-A, MOO, MOD
Page 4 of 9
According to the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by the Soil & Environmental Engineers,
Inc. dated April 20, 2015, the soils encountered during field exploration include sand, gravel, and
hard silt (Exhibit 5). According to the report, a perched groundwater table is located on the site,
the depth of which would depend on the season and precipitation. As a result, groundwater may
be encountered during trenching. Due to space restraints, open cut is not feasible for the
basement construction and as a result the report recommends that soldier pile and timber lagging
walls be constructed for excavation shoring.
The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-3-050, pursuant to RMC 4-3-050J and RMC
4-9-2500, in oroer to re-grade the critical slopes on site. The steep slope is not a natural condition
as it was constructed by placing fill on the westerly portion of the site during construction of the
current site development. The critical slope on this site was created when soil was removed from
the toe of the slope (east half of the site) when Perimeter Road was constructed 70 years ago. The
slope is relatively steep, with an approximate 75% inclination on average. The slope is covered
with thick vines and there are no obvious signs of slope movements such as slumps or hummocky
terrains. The proposal includes approximately 12,000 square feet of impacts to the critical slope as
part of construction.
Height restrictions imposed by the FAA given the sites close proximity to the Renton Municipal
Airport requires excavation into the hill side rather than a two-story building constructed on grade.
The proposed disturbance of the steep slope on the site would be the minimum necessary to
construct the new Aerospace Training Center building and the area of disturbance is being retained
by a tied-back shoring wall and reinforced concrete retaining wall. The design has been prepared by
a licensed professional engineer based on the recommendations of a licensed professional
geotechnical engineer (Exhibits 5 and 7). It is the opinion of the geotechnical engineer that the
project would not change the "stability status" of the onsite slope north and south of the building,
and at the building location the stability status would be enhanced by the proposed walls.
As part of the Administrative Variance and Modification decisions, staff will likely be approving the
request to impact the critical slopes on site. The analysis will be included in the Administrative staff
report.
Maximum extent of excavation for the construction of the building will be 25 feet. Trenching for
fiber optic cables on the north and south eastern side would be no greater than 6 feet deep. All
other excavation would average less than 3 feet. There would be an estimated 7,000 CY of cut and
1,000 CY of fill associated with the proposed project. Removal of the existing impervious cover
during construction would leave soils susceptible to erosion. The applicant will be required to
design a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) pursuant to the 2009 King
County Surface Water Design Manual Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended.
Nexus: Not Applicable
2. Water
a. Storm Water
Impacts: Stormwater runoff from the westerly portion of the site predominantly drains to the
south, where it enters a catch basin that drains to a large public storm drain in Perimeter Road.
Runoff from the existing building and easterly portion of the site is conveyed to a catch basin in
Perimeter Road that is part of a private system owned by the Renton Municipal Airport. That
ERCReport
City oj Renton Department oj Community & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
Report 01 October 19, 2015
Environmental Review Committee Report
WAIS-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOO, MOD
Page 5019
private system drains to a large detention facility and then connects to the public storm drain in
West Perimeter Road at the detention facility, approximately 880 feet (0.167 miles) downstream of
the site. The public storm-drain pipe outfalls in Lake Washington, approximately one mile
downstream from the site. There are no off-site flows directed to the site.
This project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of
Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this
site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. This project is subject to
full drainage review. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by
Magnusson Klemencic, dated July 27,2015 (Exhibit 6).
The submitted drainage report includes the 8 core requirements, but only includes Special
Requirement #2. All special requirements (six) must be included in the drainage report submitted
with the utility construction permit.
The report also includes a detailed summary of the pre and post developed conditions. Drainage
patterns are proposed to remain similar to the existing conditions. The revised parking lot would
continue to drain toward the existing catch basin located to the south. Similarly, the proposed
building would also connect to the existing private drainage system in Perimeter Road. In both
cases, the existing storm drain lines would remain in place, and the proposed drainage
conveyances would drain to the public storm drain in West Perimeter Road. No new outfalls would
be created for this project; all runoff would be collected and discharged via one of the two systems
described above. As a result of this project, approximately 3,630 square feet of new and/or
replaced pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) would be constructed. The project
qualifies for a flow control and water quality exemption.
Although the City standard is to convey the 25-year stormwater runoff while maintaining 6 inches
of freeboard in structures, new storm drain pipes have been designed with capacity to convey the
100-year stormwater runoff while flowing less than full.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended.
Nexus: Not Applicable
3. Transportation
Impacts: Access to the site is proposed via two driveways along Rainier Ave N. The north driveway
would operate as inbound only. The southbound driveway would operate as outbound only, with
both right and left turns allowed. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared
by City of Renton Transportation Systems Division, dated May, 2015 (Exhibit 8).
The provided TIA was found to meet the intent of the TIA guidelines and is generally acceptable for
preliminary review with recommendations for minor revisions which are not anticipated to change
the likelihood of significant adverse impacts.
Level of Service: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate approximately
170 average daily trips with 25 AM peak-hour trips and 25 PM peak-hour trips. The provided
report analyzed three locations (Exhibit 8):
ERe Report
Intersection 1: Airport Way/Shattuck Ave S
Intersection 2: Airport Way/Renton Ave ExtenSion/Rainier Ave N
Intersection 3: Rainier Ave N/NW 3rd Place
City of Renton Department oj Community & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
Report 01 October 19, 2015
Environmental Review Committee Report
WA1S-OOOS82, ECF, VA-A, MOO, MOO
Page 6 019
The provided analysis notes that all intersections will operate at the same LOS (E or better) with or
without the project with less than a second delay. Therefore the proposal would not be required
to mitigate at any intersection. However, to the safely expedite the movement of traffic exiting the
project site to travel southbound on Rainier Ave N, the proposal includes modification to the
existing channelization of Rainier Ave N to provide a merge lane with through traffic.
Street Improvements: The City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes improvement
projects for the Rainier Ave N and Airport Way corridors, including: new traffic signals, illumination,
wider sidewalks with streetscaping, pedestrian/bicycle path, and other non-motorized
improvements. Both projects are anticipated to be constructed between 2015 and 2020.
In order to accommodate planned street improvements for the Rainier Ave N improvement project
a minimum of 22 feet of right-of-way is needed behind the existing cement concrete
curb to construct 8 foot planter strip, 12 foot sidewalk/bike path and 2 foot behind sidewalk. There
is more than adequate right-of-way to accommodate planned improvements for Rainier Ave
fronting the site. However, the applicant is requesting a street modification from RMC 4-6-060,
pursuant to RMC 4-9-2500, in order to eliminate the improvements required along Rainier Ave N.
Street improvements, performed by the applicant, would not be needed at this time as they will
likely be removed at the time City improves Rainier Ave N. The applicant has situated the building
far enough from Rainier Ave N to accommodate the proposed improvements behind the existing
curb. Therefore, as part of the Administrative Variance and Modification decisions,. staff will likely
be approving the request to eliminate required street improvements along Rainier Ave N.
However, it should be noted the existing right-of-way line is currently situated within the proposed
building footprint. Therefore, it is likely staff will include a condition of street modification
approval, the applicant be required to apply for and have granted a right-of-way vacation prior to
building permit approval. The analysis will be included in the Administrative staff report.
Impact Fees: Increased traffic created by the development on the remainder of the transportation
system would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Currently this fee is
assessed at $1.67 per new square foot of building area. The fee is expected to increase in 2016, to
$2.00 per square foot, and is determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building
permit issuance.
Site Distance: The site distance was evaluated at the driveway intersections with Rainier Ave N.
Field measurements at the driveway locations indicate that the stopping distance is in excess of
500 feet which exceeds minimum Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) standards.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended.
Nexus: Not Applicable
4, Fire & Police
Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services
to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required
improvements and fees.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended.
Nexus: Not Applicable
ERCReport
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER CITY OF RENTON; 1055 S GRADY WAY; RENTON, WA 98057
Report of October 19, 2015 Page 7 of 9
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 is 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 before 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2015. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to
the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-i h Floor, (425) 430-6510.
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use
action. Because these notes 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. The Development Services Division reserves the
right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received.
2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant 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.
3. 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.
4. All landscaping shall be irrigated by an approved irrigation system prior to final occupancy permits
Water:
1. Water service will be provided by the City.
2. The proposed development is within the City of Renton's 196 pressure zone water service area.
3. There is an existing 12 inch water main in on the west side of Rainier Ave N and also a 12 inch water main in on
the west side of West Perimeter Road. The maximum flowrate of the water system in this area is limited to
2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure due to restrictions from smaller pipes feeding the system.
4. The static water pressure on the Rainier Ave N side of the building (at floor elevation 56 ft.) is approximately 60
psi and on the West Perimeter Rd side of the building (at floor elevation 31 feet) is approximately 70 psi.
5. Currently there is a 3/4 inch meter serving the existing building on the property from the 12 inch water main on
West Perimeter Rd.
ERCReport
City of Renton Department oj Community & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
Environmental Review Committee Report
WA1S-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOO, MOD
Report of October 19, 2015 Page 8 of 9
6. A minimum of 7 foot of horizontal separation shall be maintained between the existing 12 inch water line and
the footing, foundation or wall of the proposed building. Existing thrust blocks and bearing soil behind the
water line must not be disturbed otherwise the concrete blocks must be re poured.
7. According to Renton Fire Department review comments, the preliminary fire flow demand for the proposed
building is 2,500 gpm based on a fully fire sprinkle red building. Since the existing water system in the vicinity of
this project has a limited capacity of 2,000 gpm, the following additional water main improvements will be
required to increase the system capacity to provide the fireflow demand of 2,500 gpm.
8. Installation of fire sprinkler stub with a detector double check valve assembly (DDCVA) for backflow prevention.
9. The DDCVA shall be installed in an outside underground vault per City standard plan no. 360.2. The DDCVA
may be installed inside the building sprinkler room if it meets the City's standard plan no. 360.5.
10. Installation of additional hydrant(s) as required by Renton Fire Prevention Dept.
11. Installation of domestic water meter with a reduced backflow prevention assembly (RPBA). The RPBA shall be
installed behind the meter and inside a heated enclosure ("hot box") per City standard plan. Sizing of the
meter shall be done per Uniform Plumbing Code meter sizing criteria.
12. Installation of landscape irrigation meter and double check valve assembly (DCVA).
13. Civil plans for the water main improvements will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional
engineer in the State of Washington.
14. The development is subject to water system development charges and meter installation fees based on the
sizes of the meters and of the fire sprinkler feed. Credit will be given to the existing connection.
Sewer.
1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton.
2. There is an existing 8 inch sewer main in West Perimeter Road. There is an existing side sewer connected to the
existing building. The existing sewer stub must be capped before demolition. New building can be connected to
the existing sewer stub in W perimeter Road.
3. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) is based on domestic meter size. The SDC fee is payable
at the time the utility construction permit is issued.
Surface Water:
1. The project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton
Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the
Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. This project is subject to full drainage review.
2. The site is required to provide detention and water quality under the current King County Surface Water
Manual.
3. Stormwater system development charge (SDC) fee is applicable on the project. The current SDC fee for
stormwater is $0.491 per square feet of new impervious surface, but not less than $1,228.00. The SDC fee will
be due at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit and the rate that is current at that time will be
applicable.
4. Aquifer protection per RMC 4-3-050 is required for this Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. Final design shall
be required to comply by this City code.
Transportation:
1. Transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be applicable on the
project. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit.
2. The street frontage improvements on the site were recently constructed by the City's recent NE 4th Street
corridor project. Therefore, this project is not required to provide street frontage improvements.
3. If street cuts are unavoidable for water or gas service, a minimum pavement restoration of full concrete panel
replacement will be required. Traffic control will also be applicable.
Fire:
1. The preliminary fire flow requirement for a non-sprinklered building is 2,000 gpm. Two fire hydrants are
required. One fire hydrant is required within 150-feet of the proposed buildings and one hydrant is required
within 300-feet. Existing hydrants are adequate.
2. The threshold for fire alarm systems in Renton is 3,000 square feet. The threshold for fire sprinkler systems in
ERCReport
City of Renton Department oj Community & Economic Development
RENTON AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
Report of October 19, 2015
Environmental Review Committee Report
LUA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOO, MOO
Page 9 of 9
Renton is 5,000 square feet or an occupant load of 100 or more persons. Separate plans and permits are
required to be submitted to the Renton Fire Department for review and permitting. Fire alarm system shall be
fully addressable and full detection is required. A direct outside door is required to the fire sprinkler riser
control room
3. An annual place of assembly permit is required for occupancies exceeding 50 persons.
4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are adequate. Turning radius are 25-feet inside and 45-feet
outside.
5. An electronic site plan is required to be submitted to the Renton Fire Department for pre-fire planning purposes
prior to occupancy of the building.
General:
1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according
to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer.
2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City'S current horizontal and
vertical control network.
ERe Report
OJ o o
0 ~ 0-, j " I " 0 , ,
,
• ,
! ,
• , ~. ,
,
»1 ~, ,.-!!I! j ! ,0 -::1. Renton Aerospace " I' . , '"" ~~ ~ -, ~i ,\,1 i ! ..... ' , ( ~ ~1~ Training Cente ! SRG 0 " ] n 1i;~ ! 0 9~ «. City of Renton ,
m >< ::::I:
t-I
IJJ
t-I
-I
W
w
• ~ • • iii • ~
" ~ • " 2
I • 8
i7,
" !
1'"" (II! .... ' ....
;"0 Ul
I
r:
r
:
c'
,
"
~
~
, I,
,.;,
f
c, 0 [j
," c r,:l
, ~ & ,i
",
"
!
"I '/ ",' I! H " ! r , ! j " ' ,
'Z o
;0 -,
I
OJ o
--
,
"",
\
I .... h~~~~
; I Wil'v~ ...... _
MA,TCIHLlNlSEE L510 \ i ----1--
--------~~--------~-
r--' \ ,
, \
I
" I
I
" I
I
o
! I ,
I
I
I
I I
" \ ,
" ,
I,
, I
',I , ,
i,
" f
i)'
(.
!'
,; \',
I 'ii \ i,
-; \
1 "
I,
i
I Ii
I,
,
I,
\
,I 1 i
II i,
,I ~ ~ " 1
___ 'i, ',1
~<,~!,--" i t
\.';'_J
"
!ii_
.' .. ---,------.-""" ---
' i n~F II j Renton Aerospace Training fJ) ~~I.! I I Center i~r~~ "' ~ 11i'1 ~ ph M_ .... AlfP<>l'll City ., .........
"
0
:1'::::'
~~ c
zi§
[ ,
'"
,;;
-Cl I () 0 0
~W ';0
l<:;::;
~8 , ,-
i~
~
'"
, ~ ;] ~~
• " , ,
~
~{ ! ,
" R
~ ,
:.-•
,
, "ci t:
~ ,
r , f E~ it ;~' !I Ut
,
i i ~ {ill , .... • I ' 0 , ,
i ~ ---~"i:!
U PS: z
'z
" " r ~
" Z r: "' 0 0
C
~
'" I
'-' ?;'
I'
r,
[
I)
C h
fi.
P'
~ ~
Ii ,-,
r-3
'" l~
" 0" ~
~
; -, ,
~ ED I' 0
0
~!' ,
o o
:' , I
----~----~~--------~-----------------~ MA lCHLlNE: SEf::. L511
, !
I
, , ,
I
I
\-'
"
','C'
\
Renton Aerospace Training
Center
-t---t----, ,
I I
I i , ! ~ ~ ~
~ " .,
~l o .....
(Jl
, l I
, " ~ • I " I
j
/.
f ~i '-_J
C~) W
,,.---'\
~r::/
" ~ ,
~
I
1
1 i ! , < • t • • ,
J i
~
i
, (.
• I
!
~-,
t
,
,
· . . . .' .
Renton Aerospace
Training Cente
City of Renton
,
!
'i
! , ,
I
I.
i,l
/
!
l
t
J
{;;'';
' __ J
,--,
(-:.
..... _j
!SRG
(~ ;;1
'oj
'z ~o
"" -< :I: ,m If;; i:& '-< ,0
Z
I ,
-
I
N
!
1 I , ,
j
f!'~
'[ • 'I
I 1
! ~ 1
t ! ~ 1. i l
':
" H
Ii
0
'-'-\ 0;~'
~i~
;'m ~i(f) ,-<
1m r
~ »
::!
0
Z
;0 • ~:
» < ! ~
!
I
Renton Aerospace
Training Cente
City of Renton
o
,
{
.. _j'. ~
ISRG
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Entire Document
Available Upon Request
PROPOSED AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
300 RAINIER AVE N., RENTON, WA
S&EE JOB NO. 1234B
APRIL 20, 2015
EXHIBIT 5
: I
,
, i
Entire Document
Available Upon Request
STORMWATER TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Renton Aerospace Training Center
Renton, Washington
July 27, 2015
EXHIBIT 6
III
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENCIC
ASSOCiATES
S
Entire Document
Available Upon Request
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGlN
.. __ . __ .. 1§625 RedIl)90.<l.W~L.SuiteJ"U;4>.1<'!".dmQnd,Wasl]irul!.Q!L980j2.i425) 86~:58§~ ,,\\ w'.0.LEnyirnnD2entaltOffi __
Mr. Duncan Thieme. AlA
SRG Partner.;hip,lnc.
110 Union Street #300
Seattle, W A 981 01
Dear Duncan:
September 15,2015
Report Addendum
Proposed Aerospace Training Center
Renton. WA
Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc. (S&EE) has performed a geotechnical investigation for the project.
Our report of this investigation is dated April 20, 2015 and has been submitted previously. Per your request,
I have reviewed the "On Hold" Notice dated September 11,2015 issued by the city. I have also reviewed
the followings:
-RMC 4-3-050J and RMC 4-9-250D
-Structural, shoring and civil plans dated 09/1 512015 I 5 and prepared by Magnusson Kelrnenelc Associcates
My review indicates that the onsite steep slope is located ;n an area of high landslide hal.ards. Based on my
understanding of the project, the entire steep slope located within the footprint of the proposed building wi II
be removed by excavation. During constmclion, the cut lace will be stabilized by a tied-back shoring wall.
Then, a reinforced concrete retaining wall will be constructed in front of the shoring wall to provide
penn anent stability. My April-20-15 report has presented the geotechnical P'!f3Illeters tor the designed of
these walls. My review of the design plans indicated that the geoteclmical parameters utilized in the designs
are consistent with my recommendations. Based on this, I conclude that for the existing onsite slope away
from the proposed construction, its stability status will remain unchanged. On the other hand, for the
existing onsite slope located within the proposed construction, its stability status will be enhanced by the
proposed walls.
I believe this communication will serve the present need. Should you have any question or require
additional information, please let me know anytime.
Very truly yours,
.r\L0.I:lrv7 ~~M£N'; ~:~:~' me
c. J. Shin, Ph.C
President EXHIBIT 7
6"~
J
N
" ,
("') j j U Nf ~s jf ~; 1 '; 1 i ' W ~ .... ,
J
" /
, , I
!
/
, , , , ,
, ,
J
I
i
~
!-:~
~
"
r;lH '. ,,~ '. '~1'ij
' j:~l
H
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0, j 7:~ ;'1
i :::: ,
f ~" ,
0:-
:;~
:=::;
o
Renton Aerospace
Training Center , . ~:. City of Renton
I
I
I
-~,-}
I
I
I
I ,
l~ ,
I ,
I ,
i , ,
,
i ,
_____ .1
i
I
I
I
I~
SRG
~ z --r··', ~ ~. f-------------Har-dieA-Ve.-NW-=:) I
~ g e--_=--_~I-__ ·---·=--_-I-, ~'--·--·-I--=-·-=---.-~=-:-=--T.J
~ I I z I \ \
8. \ \ ~ ri \ ~ ~-~~ \ ~ \ \ \
or l\IelSOI] A~j L __ L. -------1---
::::::" '11\1*
m >< :t
I-f
D:I B I-f
-I
\0 '" q
'" q
~L ______________________ ~
q
Entire Document
Available Upon Request
Renton Aerospace Training Center
Renton, Washington
EXHIBIT 10
Traffic Impact Analysis
May 2015
Prepared By:
1
Transportation Operations
Transportation Systems Division
Public Works Department
City of Renton
Rocale Timmons
From:
Sent:
To:
Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn,us>
Friday, August 28, 2015 2:52 PM
Rocale Timmons
Subject: RE: Notice of Application -Renton Aerospace Training Center -LUA15-000582, ECF, SA-
A, V-A, MOD
Attachments: Tabor et al 2004, Light Intensity and Sockeye Fry predation in lower Cedar River,pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Rocale,
Follow up
Completed
Thank you for sending us the requested information for the Renton Aerospace Training Center. We have reviewed this
information. As you noted, the information about the lighting plans is not currently available for review. The lighting plan
needs to ensure that artificial lighting from the project site is minimized to the full extent possible and reduces any
cumulative contributions to the existing artificial lighting conditions that delay outgoing juvenile salmon migration and
increase predation opportuniiies. As described in Roger Tabor et al. (2008) study on artificial lighting in the Cedar River,
artificial lights can contribute to the overall lighting conditions by reflecting off of clouds which the researchers documented
to be the greatest near the mouth of the Cedar River. As the site is on a slope and there no vegetation to screen lighting
from the project site (including the parking lot), it could add to Ihe existing artificial lighting conditions at the airport. The
following measures should be implemented for new and existing lights at the project site:
a. Eliminate any unnecessary lights
b, For lights that are necessary, they should be managed as follows:
1. Reducing "on" hours/use motion sensors
2. Reducing light intensity output
3, Relocation
4, Re-aiming
5. Reducing lamp height
6, Addition of shielding devices
7, Changing fixture types
8, Changing lamp types, color temperatures/wavelength and/or wattage
g, Dimming
We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Karen Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
Habitat Program
39015 172nd Ave SE
Auburn, WA 98092
253-876-3116
From: Rocale Timmons [mailto:RTimmons@Rentonwa.govl
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 7:41 PM
To: Karen Walter
Subject: RE: Notice of Application -Renton Aerospace Training Center-EXHIBIT 11
Department of Community and
Economic Developml
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non -Significance
Mitigated (DNS-M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal
code.
Renton Aerospace Training Center
LUA1S-000S82
Location: 300 Rainier Ave N. The applicant is requesting the approval for the
construction of a new 22,300 square foot, two story, Aerospace Training facility. ThE
property is located on the east side of Rainier Ave S just north of Airport Way at 300
Rainier Ave. The project work area totals 30,151 square feet and is zoned Medium
Industrial (1M). There are two primary access points on Rainier Ave which are
proposed to remain as is. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing 41 parking
stalls on site to serve the proposed use.
Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before S:OO p.m. on November
06,2015. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with:
Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057. Appeals to the Hearing 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: October 23, 2015
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
September 22, 2015
Rocale Timmons ~
Doug Jacobson, P.E rIJ4YI.l4X.
Deputy Public Wo s d
Renton Aviation Training Facility
Sensitive Area Modification Request
The following memorandum addresses the criteria identified in RMC 4-9-2500. If you have any
questions contact me at 425.430.7242.
a. Substantially implements the policy direction ofthe policies and objectives ofthe
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed
modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and
objectives;
Comprehensive Plan Goal L-U states: Preserve, protect, and enhance the quality offunctions of
the City's sensitive areas including: ..... areas seismic and geological hazards.
The proposed disturbance of the steep slope on the site is the minimum necessary to canstruct
the new Aerospace Training Center building and the area of disturbance is being retained by a
tied-back shoring wall and reinforced cancrete retaining wall. The design has been prepared by a
licensed professional engineer based on the recommendations of a licensed professional
geotechnical engineer. It is the opinion of the geotechnical engineer that the project should not
be changing the "stability status" of the onsite slope north and south of the building.
b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment;
The project design has been prepared by professional engineers and licensed architects based on
the recommendations made by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer has
reviewed the design and concluded it is consistent with their recommendations.
c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity;
" . '-.. .
In a letter dated September 15, 2015, the licensed engineer who performed the geotechnical
investigation for the project states:
C: \u sers \d jaco bso n \a p pd ata \Ioca I\m icrosoft\ win dows \ te m po ra ry i nte rnet fi les \co nte nt, 0 ut I 00 k \n m kq 6 p20\stee p
slope modification memo -cae comments. doc
Addressee Name
Page 2 of 2
Date of Memo Here
My review of the design plans indicated that the geotechnical parameters utilized in the designs
are consistent with my recommendations. Based on this, I conclude that for the existing onsite
slope away from the construction, its stability status will remain unchanged. On the other hand,
for the existing onsite slope within the proposed construction, its stability status will be enhanced
by the proposed walls.
d. Conforms to the intent and purpose ofthe Code;
The RMC allows an Administrative modification for the regrading of a slope which was created
through public or private road installation.
The criticol area steep slope on this site was created when sail was removed from the toe of the
slope (east half of the site) when Perimeter Road was constructed 70 years ago.
In accordance with the requirement that the applicant submit a geotechnical repart describing
any patential impacts of the praposed madificatians and any necessary mitigatian measures, a
copy of a geatechnical repart and a memorandum documenting the geotechnical engineer's
review of the construction plans have been submitted for this project.
e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
The proposed use of the site is to construct a two story Aerospace Training Facility. Height
restrictions imposed by the FAA given the sites close proximity requires excavation into the hill
side rather than a two-story building constructed on grade. The proposed disturbance of the
steep slope on the site is the minimum necessory to construct the new Aerospace Training Center
building and the area of disturbance is being retained by a tied-back shoring wall and reinforced
concrete retaining woll. The design has been prepared by a licensed professianal engineer based
on the recammendations of a licensed professional geotechnical engineer. It is the opinion of the
geotechnical engineer that the project should be chonging the "stability status" of the onsite
slope north and south of the building, and at the building location the stability status will be
enhanced by the proposed walls.
f-Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
In a letter dated September 15, 2015 the licensed engineer that performed the geotechnical
investigation for the project states:
My review of the design pions indicated that the geotechnical parameters utilized in the designs
are consistent with my recommendations. Based on this, I conclude that for the existing onsite
slope away from the construction, its stability status will remain unchanged. On the other hond,
for the existing onsite slope within the proposed construction, its stobility status will be enhanced
by the proposed walls.
END OF MEMORANDUM
c : \ use rs \d ja cobson \a pp data \Ioca I\m ic rosoft\ wi ndows \ te m po ra ry i nte rnet fi I es \co nte n t .outloo k\n m kq 6 p 20\stee p
slope modification memo· cac comments.doc
'. ----
SOIL &; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS. INC'.
n_~ n __ JQ~5 ~«<:I11]OJ1~_\'L"l.. S~i!'i.N 124Lg~dm9nILW~hingtqn~052. (425) 86~,5_S68,,','
Mr. Duncan Thieme, AlA
SRG Partnership, Inc.
110 Union Street #300
Seattle, W A 98101
Dear Duncan:
September 15. 20J 5
Report Addendum
Proposed Aerospace Training Center
Renton. WA
Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc. (s&EE) has perfOJ1l1ed a geotechnical investigation for the project.
OUf report of this investigation is dated April 20, 2015 and has been submitted previously. Per your request,
I have reviewed the "On Hold" Notice dated September 11.2015 issued by the city. I have also reviewed
the followings:
-RMC 4-3-0503 and RMC 4-9-2500
-Structural, shoring and civil plans dated 091151201515 and prepared by Magnusson Kelmeneic Associcates
My review indicates that the onsile steep slope is located in an area of high landslide hazards. Based on my
understanding of the project, the entire steep slope located within the footprint of the proposed building will
be removed by excavation. During construction, the cut face will be stabilized by a tied-ba~k shoring, wall.
Then, a reinforced concrete retaining waH will be constructed in front of the shoring wali to provide
permanent stability. My April-20-15 report has presented the geotechnical parameters for the designed of
these walls. My review of the design plans indicated that the geotechnical parameters utilized in the designs
are consistent with my recommendations. Based on this, I conclude that for the existing onsite slope away
from the proposed construction, its stability status will remain unchanged. On the other hand, for the
existing onsite slope located within the proposed construction, its stability status will be enhanced by the
proposed walls,
I believe this communication will serve the present need. Should you have any question or require
additional infonnation, please let me know anytime,
Very truly yours,
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
r"nAv7-i~~L
C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E.
Presidem
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
16625 Redmond W"b_~]Ijt_e M 124. Redmon~ Washington 98052. (425) 868-5868 ""w.SoiIEl1\irolllllental.com~ .. __
Mr. Duncan Thieme, AlA
SRG Partnership, Inc.
II 0 Union Street #300
Seattle, W A 9810 I
Dear Duncan:
September 15,2015
Report Addendum
Proposed Aerospace Training Center
Renton, WA
Soil & Environmental Engineers, Inc. (S&EE) has performed a geotechnical investigation for the project.
Our report of this investigation is dated April 20, 2015 and has been submitted previously. Per your request,
I have reviewed the "On Hold" Notice dated September 11, 20 I 5 issued by the city. I have also reviewed
the followings:
-RMC 4-3-05OJ and RMC 4-9-250D
-Structural, shoring and civil plans dated 0911 5/201 5 15 and prepared by Magnusson Kelmencic Associcates
My review indicates that the onsite steep slope is located in an area of high landslide hazards. Based on my
understanding of the project, the entire steep slope located within the footprint of the proposed building will
be removed by excavation. During construction, the cut face will be stabilized by a tied-back shoring wall.
Then, a reinforced concrete retaining wall will be constructed in front of the shoring wall to provide
permanent stability. My April-20-15 report has presented the geotechnical parameters for the designed of
these walls. My review of the design plans indicated that the geotechnical parameters utilized in the designs
are consistent with my recommendations. Based on this, I conclude that for the existing onsite slope away
from the proposed construction, its stability status will remain unchanged. On the other hand, for the
existing onsile slope located within the proposed construction, its stability status will be enhanced by the
proposed walls.
I believe this communication will serve the present need. Should you have any question or require
additional information, please let me know anytime.
Very truly yours,
'\11" .... -;/ _~NT; ~:~~::RS, INC.
c. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E.
President
October 6, 2015
Jonathan Wilson
Renton Municipal Airport
616 W Perimeter Road, Unit A
Renton, WA 98057
SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E.11Chip"Vincent, Administrator
Renton Aerospace Training Center I LUA15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD, CAE
Dear Mr. Wilson,
Thank you for submitting the additional materials requested in the September 11, 2015 letter
from the City. Your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the
Renton Aerospace Training Center project.
The Environmental Review has been rescheduled for Environment Review Committee on
October 19, 2015. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7219.
Sincerely,
j~~~
Senior Planner
cc: Doug Jacobson l City of Renton J Owner(s)
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
September 11, 2015
Jonathan Wilson
Renton Municipal Airport
616 W Perimeter Road, Unit A
Renton, WA 98057
SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent. Administrator
Renton Aerospace Training Center / lUA1S-OOOS82, ECF, VA-A, MOD
Dear Mr. Wilson:
The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for
review on August 6, 2015. During our review, staff has determined that additional
information is necessary in order to proceed further.
The following information will need to be submitted before November 6, 2015 so that
we may continue the review of the above subject application:
• ReVised Geotechnical Report: The applicant shall submit a revised geotechnical
report describing any potential impacts of the proposed modification to the
exisitng critical slope on site. The revised report shall address all critieria and
any necessary mitigation measures found in RMC 4-3-050J, Alterations to Critical
Areas and in addition to the criteria of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures.
At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested
information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions.
i:'J~
Rocale Timmons
Senior Planner
cc: Doug Jacobson, City of Renton
Renton City Hall • lOSS South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
Plan Number: LUA1S-000S82
Site Address: 300 RAINIER AVE N
Description: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, Environmental (SEPA) Review, a street modification, and
a front yard setback variance for the construction of a new 22,300 square foot, two story, Aerospace Training facility. The subject
property is located on the east side of Rainier Ave 5 just north of Airport Way at 300 Rainier Ave. The project work area totals 30,151
square feet and is zoned Medium Industrial (1M). The site currently contains the former Renton Chamber of Commerce building which is
proposed for removal. There are two primary access points on Rainier Ave which are proposed to remain as is. The applicant is
proposing to retain the existing 41 parking stalls on site to serve the proposed use. The applicant is requesting a street modification
from RMC 4-6-060 in order to eliminate the improvements required along Rainier Ave S. The applicant is also proposing a variance
from RMC 4-2-130 in order to reduce the required 20-foot front yard setback down to O-feet at the closest pOint. There are critical
slopes located on the western portion of the site. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report, Traffic Impact Analysis, Parking
Analysis, and Geotechnical Engineering study with the subject application.
Review Type: Community Services Review-Version 1
Date Assigned: 08/06/2015
Date Due: 08/20/2015
Project Manager: Rocale TImmons
Environmental Impact
Earth Animals Ught/Glare HistoriC/Cultural Preservation
Air Environmental Health Recreation Airport Environmental
Water Energy/Natural Resources Utilities 10,000 Feet
Plants Housing TransportatIon 14,000 Feet
Land/Shoreline Use Aesthetics Public Service
Where to enter your comments: Manage Mv Reviews
Which types of comments should be entered:
Recommendation· Comments that impact the project induding any of the Enivornmentallmpacts above.
Correction -Corrections to the project that need to be made before the review can be completed and lor requesting submittal of
additional documentation and/or resubmittal of existing documentation.
What statuses should be used:
Reviewed ·1 have reviewed the project and have no comments.
Reviewed with Comments -I have reviewed the project and and I have comments entered in Recommendations.
Correction/Resubmit -I have reviewed the project and the applicant needs to submit and/or resubmit documentation and I have added
corrections in Corrections.
Planting strip -this project does not show an 8 foot wide planting strip
between sidewalk and curb along Rainier Avenue. This is a needed part of
the project given the traffic on Rainier and the sidewalk adjacent to that
traffic with no separation.
anotvvlcr-C:-.~CiYJ!I07~ ffh,~/~//J-;U(/h'~~1
-li).bL /ocQ;.6CT a7-.. r"Za1/UV) ~~/ t() / ~ ~ u.y.
~~,e/,&.rz~ ;8-1$'"-15 &ga;ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date
peL
Agencies See Attached
Jonathan Wilson, City of Renton Owner/Applicant
Jennifer Palmer, KPG Engineer
Ross Widener, Widener Associates Contact
300 Surrounding Properties See Attached
(Signature of Sender):
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS ,,,\\\\\\111 1 ) ~""O\..\. Y p. 1
"
'1/ ::.... ~~ .... "\."\\\I"lt?~ "/.
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that c)" \) f ,,-,c 1,\ "C-,,~ {' -.i""O+*!~tlO+'~ ~~
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act'fOf fh~ u~~ titd j!IS~s
mentioned in the instrument, ~ \ '\' ~
~ \d!.C'9·L~7 §
"" -1 Dated: CLuq!<.vt ~ 1()6 ""''''"'
(J Public in and the State 1&>-:"';::"'--
COUNTY OF KING
Notary (print): ___ ....l.l+",1""h.,1 c·_ .... J),"'OV"""':<"'6<--____________ _
My appointment expires: A '-'ifc~51-Q '\ ).i) {::t
Renton Aerospace Training Center
lUA15-000582, ECF, SA·A, V-A, MOD
template -affidavit of service by mailing
Dept. of Ecology"
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
WSDOT Northwest Region ...
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
King Area Dev. 5erv., M5-240
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 Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Servo
Attn: SEPA Section
35030 SE Douglas St. #210
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
Metro Transit
Senior Environmental Planner
Gary Kriedt
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Seattle Public Utilities
Timothy C. Croll,
Attn: SEPA Responsible Official
700 Fifth Avenue, Su ite 4900
PO 60x 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
AGENCY (DOE) LEITER MAILING
(ERe DETERMINATIONS)
Dept. of Ecology ** Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. IlOIlO
Attn: Misty Blair Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box 47703 39015 _17Znd Avenue SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092
Duwamish Tribal Office· Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program IlOIlO
4717W Marginal Way 5W Attn: laura Murphy
Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172" Avenue 5E
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
KC Wastewater Treatment Division ... Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program **
Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Erin staten
Ms. Shirley Marroquin 39015172" Avenue 5E
201 5. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-{)50 Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
WDFW -Larry Fisher· Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation*
1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Gretchen Kaehler
Issaquah, WA 98027 PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
City of Newcastle City of Kent
Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Charlene Anderson, AICP, ECD
Director of Community Development 220 Fourth Avenue South
12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Kent, WA 98032-5895
Newcastle, WA 98056
Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila
Wendy Weiker, Community Svcs. Mgr. Jack Pace, Responsible Official
355110" Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Mailstop EST 11 W Tukwila, WA 98188
Bellevue, WA 98004
Puget Sound Energy
Doug Corbin, Municipal liaison Mgr,
6905 South 228'" St
Kent, WA 98032
"'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
.... Karen Walter, Laura Murphy and Erin Slaten with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. are
emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email
addresses: KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us I Laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us/
erin.slaten@muckleshoot.nsn.us
..... 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
City of Renton
lOSS S Grady Way
Renton. WA 98057
Ross Widener
Widener & Associates
10108 32nd Ave W, Suite D
Everett. WA 98204
Jennifer Palmer
KPG
753 9th Ave N
SEattle, WA 98109
JONATHAN WILSON
CITY OF RENTON -Airport
616 W Perimeter Rd, A
Renton. WA 98057
Renton, WA 98057
Ross Widener
Widener & Associates
10108 32nd Ave W, SUite D
Everett, WA 98204
753 9th Ave N
SEattle, WA 98109
616 W Perimeter Rd, A
Renton, WA 98057
3185600010 4182300000 3185600035
ABRAMS JEFF AHGW LLC AVILA MANOLO V+JOVElITA V
PO BOX 1315 600 UNIVERSITY ST #2100 305 HARDIE AVE NW
RENTON, WA 98057 SEATTLE, WA 98101 RENTON, WA 98055
4204400215 9460000020 4204400202
BARRON BRENT +CYNTHIA BOSET ADDIS K BOWEN WILBUR E+TERRI
310 HARDIE AVE NW 364 MAPLE AVE NW 315 TAYLOR AVE NW
RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055
82000000 82000000 4204400100
BROWN NYE5HA BROWN SCOTIA Y BUCHAN BROS INVESTMENT PROP
402 TAYLOR AVE NW #B 410 TAYLOR AVE NW #B 2630 116TH AVE NE #100
RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 BELLEVUE, WA 98004
4182300000 4182300000 4202400385
BUEHLER BEN BUEHLER WALTER & INGRID CAGE DANNY L
PO BOX 1228 5344 232ND AVE SE 403 TAYLOR PL NW
ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 ISSAQUAH, WA 98029 RENTON, WA 98055
4202400395 3185600055 4204400125
CARMONA RUTH M+MICHAEL CENTURY 21 PROP MNGMT CHMIELOWSKI WLADY5LAW
206 NW 4TH ST 13322 HIGHWAY 99 STE 100 14400 5E 78TH WAY
RENTON, WA 98055 EVERETT, WA 98204 NEWCASTLE, WA 98059
4182300000 4204400206 4202400440
CREI5LER VINCENT L CRYER ANTHONY+ TRODEP NASIRO Current Tenant
13241 5E 2615T 5T 320 MAPLE AVE NW 401 Taylor PI NW
KENT, WA 98042 RENTON, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4204400125 4204400125 4204400125
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
114 NW 3rd PI APT A 114 NW 3rd PI APT B 114 NW 3rd PI APT C
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4204400125 4204400125 4204400125
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
114 NW 3rd PI APT D 114 NW 3rd PI APT E 114 NW 3rd PI APT F
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4204400126 4204400125 4204400125
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
114 NW 3rd PI APT G 114 NW 3rd PI APT H 114 NW 3rd PI
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4204400100 4204400101 4204400100
Current Tenant CurrentTenant Current Tenant
365 Rainier Ave N UNIT A1 365 Rainier Ave N UNIT AlOO 365 Rainier Ave N UNIT B1
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4204400100 4204400100 4202401340
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
365 Rainier Ave N UNIT B2 365 Rainier Ave N UNIT B3 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 101
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401340 4202401340 4202401340
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
390 Taylor Ave NW APT 102 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 103· 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 104
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401340 4202401340 4202401340
Current Tenant Cu rrent T ena nt Current Tenant
390 Taylor Ave NW APT 105 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 201 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 202
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401340 4202401340 4202401340
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
390 Taylor Ave NW APT 203 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 204 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 205
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401340 4202401340 4202401340
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
390 Taylor Ave NW APT 301 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 302 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 303
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401340 4202401340 4202401340
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
390 Taylor Ave NW APT 304 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 305 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 401
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401340 4202401340 4202401340
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
390 Taylor Ave NW APT 402 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 403 390 Taylor Ave NW APT 404
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401340 4202401335 4202401335
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
390 Taylor Ave NW APT 405 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 101 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 102
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401335 4202401335 4202401335
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
400 Taylor Ave NW APT 103 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 104 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 105
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401335 4202401335 4202401335
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
400 Taylor Ave NW APT 201 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 202 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 203
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401335 4202401335 4202401335
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
400 Taylor Ave NW APT 204 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 205 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 301
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401335 4202401335 4202401335
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
400 Taylor Ave NW APT 302 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 303 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 304
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401335 4202401335 4202401335
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
400 Taylor Ave NW APT 305 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 401 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 402
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401336 4202401335 4202401335
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
400 Taylor Ave NW APT 403 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 404 400 Taylor Ave NW APT 405
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202400390 4202400390 4202400390
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
401 Taylor Ave NW APT 1 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 10 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 11
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202400390 4202400390 4202400390
Current Tenant CurrentTenant Current Tenant
401 Taylor Ave NW APT 12 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 13 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 14
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202400391 4202400390 4202400390
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
401 Taylor Ave NW APT 15 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 2 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 3
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202400390 4202400390 4202400390
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
401 Taylor Ave NW APT 4 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 5 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 6
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202400390 4202400390 4202400390
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
401 Taylor Ave NW APT 7 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 8 401 Taylor Ave NW APT 9
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202400390 4204400115 4204400115
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
401 TAYLOR PL NW 100 NW 3rd PI APT 1 100 NW 3rd PI APT 2
RENTON, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4204400115 4204400211 4204400210
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
100 NW 3rd PI APT 3 333 Rainier Ave N UNIT 101 333 Rainier Ave N UNIT 200
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4204400210 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant CurrentTenant Current Tenant
333 Rainier Ave N UNIT 201 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 101 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 102
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 103 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 104 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 105
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 106 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 107 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 108
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 109 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 110 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 111
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 112 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 114 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 115
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant CurrentTenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 116 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 117 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 201
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 202 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 203 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 204
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant CurrentTenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 205 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 206 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 207
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 208 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 209 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 210
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 211 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 212 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 214
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 215 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 216 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 217
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 301 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 302 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 303
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 304 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 305 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 306
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 307 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 308 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 309
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 310 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 311 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 312
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4204400135 4204400135
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 314 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 315 360 Taylor Ave NW APT 316
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98033
4204400135 4202401425 4202401425
Current Tenant Current Tenant Current Tenant
360 Taylor Ave NW APT 317 409 Rainier Ave N 415 Rainier Ave N
Renton, WA 98033 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
4202401425 3185600005 4202400375
Current Tenant DO CUOC PHAT+MY LE DANG ENGIDA WONDWASSEN
419 Rainier Ave N 230 GLENN WOOD PL SE 407 TAYLOR PL NW
Renton, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98056 RENTON, WA 98057
3185600040 3185600045 4182300000
FRYMAN RUSSELL+LAUREN GATII PIETRO & HELEN GOODFELLOW MALCOLM
309 HARDIE AVE NW 69 SALMON BEACH 3308 FUHRMAN AVE E
RENTON, WA 98055 TACOMA, WA 98407 SEATTLE, WA 98102
82000000 4204400120 4204400208
HOG LEY MIRIAM A HOLM JOHN R HUANG LlNLlN
406 TAYLOR AVE NW UNIT #A 4611130TH AVE SE 2101 SHORELINE DR
RENTON, WA 9805S BELLEVUE, WA 98006 ALAMEDA, CA 94501
4202400396 9460000060 4204400225
JIM JACQUES CONSTRUCTION KAMARAINEN EDWIN E KNEE ARVID
6833 RIPLEY LN 5E 203 NW 4TH ST 1855 CRESTLINE DR
RENTON, WA 980S6 RENTON, WA 98055 WALLA, WA 99362
4204400261 4182300000 4204400204
KRANZ RAINIER AVENUE PROPER LANE COMPANY THE LEE HAO Q
22710 SE 456TH WAY PO BOX 937 330 MAPLE AVE NW
ENUMCLAW, WA 98022 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055
3185600054 4202401335 82000000
LY HA THI THANH MOSS ROAD L L C MUCKERHEIDE WILLIAM M
6814 119TH NE 6923 40TH AVE SW 406 TAYLOR AVE NW #B
KIRKLAND, WA 98033 SEATTLE, WA 98036 RENTON, WA 98055
82000000 3185600050 4182300000
NGUYEN JUDY NORDYKE BRENT +CARRIE L PESCHEL BRIAN+KIM
404 TAYLOR AVE NW UNIT A 313 HARDIE AVE NW 8696 ISLAND DR S
RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON,WA 98057 SEATTLE, WA 98118
82000000 4204400210 4204400135
PIE DAPHNE A POLOTANU FLORINEL PRECISION MANAGEMENT CO INC
404 TAYLOR AV NW UNIT #B 17401 NE 2ND PL 10604 NE 38TH PL STE 227
RENTON, WA 98055 BELLEVUE,WA 98008 KIRKLAND, WA 98033
4204400265 9460000010 4204400201
RANDLES MATTHEW JAMES REYMANN BRIAN M+OWEN ELiSAB SARGENT ROBERT J
19201 SE JONES RD 368 MAPLE AVE NW 321 TAYLOR AVE NW
RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057
4202401400 3185600020 3185600030
SENECA REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS SHEPPARD BRUCE A+KRIS ROBER SHOGREN LESTER
8921 NE 118TH PL 312 TAYLOR AVE NE 308 TAYLOR AVE NW
KIRKLAND, WA 98034 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055
4202400430 9460000050 4182300000
SLAINTE I LLC+SLAINTE I AN SMITH WAYNE+ASHLEY KIRSTEN SPIEGELMAN MARK D
1017 W ARMOUR ST 36S TAYLOR AVE NW 935 210TH CT SE
SEATTLE, WA 98119 RENTON,WA 98057 SAMMAMISH, WA 98075
4204400150 4204400283 9460000040
STEVEN5 ELIZABETH A SUPASATIT II LLC TANNER JESSE H+JANICE R
353 TAYLOR AVE NW 10308 SE 196TH DT 361 TAYLOR AVE NW
RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055
4182300000
THOMAS W SCOTI
5612 MATIERHORN PL NW
ISSAQUAH, WA 98027
82000000
TRAN TONG
410 TAYLOR AVE NW #A
RENTON, WA 980SS
4204400207
WATE KERRY E (TRUSTEE)
23303 SE 14TH CT
SAMMAMISH, WA 98075
4182300000
WOOD GEOFFREY P+JILL JACOBI
5424 SAND POINT WAY NE
SEATILE, WA 98105
4182300000
TILDEN BRADLEY D+DANIELLE Y
4733 194TH AVE SE
ISSAQUAH, WA 98027
4202401255
U-HAUL REAL ESTATE COMPANY
453 Rainier Ave N
Renton, WA 98057
4204400203
WATE KERRY E+CHERYL L
311 Taylor Ave NW
Renton, WA 98057
82000000
TRAN DUNG TUAN+MY HOA THI N
402 TAYLOR AVE NW #A
RENTON, WA 980S7
4204400155
WARNER PIN KEY L
3S0 MAPLE AVE NW
RENTON, WA 980S7
9460000030
WOLDEABZGI KIFLOM
360 MAPLE AVE NW
RENTON, WA 98055
------..-Renton 0
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M)
A Muter Appl"",t1an has been filed Ind .ttepted wItIIlh. Dep."ment of Community. E ..... omk Dtvlllopmlm
(CfDI-,I.nnll\l Ol"hla" of the City of Rent<>n. Tho fallowlllI blteR, d.Kribes the .ppllutl" .. Ind the .... assary
Public ""pravll •.
DATe Of "DTICE OF APPlICATION: AUS"5t 7, 20.15
LAIIIII USE NUMMR, LUA1S.oooS62
PROJECT NAME:
~ROJEcrDESCIUPTION: Th. awlleont I, ",quutlnl Adml"lnnt",e 5lI:e PI.o" Revi_. E"""onmenl:
ISEPA) ReYlow, • ,I"'ot modification, aM • Ironl yard setbad<"VlII1.ra far the co!\<bUctk>n of. n~ 22,'!O0. squor.l""
twa .wry. Aerospace T""irU"II ,.dUty. Till! ,ybje'" propertY 1,locatood "" the ust sid. of Allnll" Ave S JUst north <
A.rp<>rt W'V 01 300 110,",., Avl. The project won .... taUl. 30,151 sqUI ... Itlld ,rid '" lonod Med,um Indu.II1.llIM
The Slto! cu"~nt'" oontaiM the form .... Renton QI.mber '" CrmmeO'a! building ""'Ielo .. proposed fer I1!!m<>Yiill. The", if
twO prlmary .« .... point$ on 11,01", .... _ .. nlell ". propo..,d to ,amlin as I •. 1110 .,phe.,nt is proposing to ... In th
e ... tlnll 41 ".ricln, ,"'110 on oiteto..,rw tn_ propo",d use. Tho .ppli",m io ,equ~rtlns a otrul modlfiaHon fnlm 11M
4.6~ in .,1'd..,.10 .. iminlle th.'mp ...... "",nt1 ",qulred ai""l IImnl., """ S. The apphclnt ks al.., propo5lna I ""ri'~
I,om RMe 4·2·130 in orde, to redueI! the raqulred 20·foot from vard Httlack down to [l..f ... 1 01 tho d",ost po,n
Th ... ar. crJt<cal oklp .. l""'lad on tile ...... Iem portion of the "Ie. The applicant hil' oub!nitlt!d 0 o...i~ille Re90r
TflKIc Impoct Anill~"s, Plricinl AnolllSl., ilnd Gealechnlul Enlineetlngstudy wM tho .ubj~ ilPpI,c:ot'''''·
PROJECT LOCATION: 300 Roinl.,Aoenue N
OPTIONAl. DmRMINATlQPII OF HON-SIGNIFlCAHtl, MlflliATED IDNS-MI: IU th. L""d /\sency.lh. CIty 01 Renton hi
dete"",,"" thn .ii!1iflcom .IM"",mentol Im".rts Ife unlblv to resu~ from !hoi proposed projoct. Therolen, ,
permitted under thio HCW 0.21C.110, tho C~V 01 Renton I. u.'n,tho Oplio~aI PNS-M p",cass to "". nolla! Ih"'-
ONS-M is likely 10 boo! il .... d. Comment periodl lor tile project and Ih. p"QIIOSed DNS·III.", in"'lfiIledl"IO 0 5I"3i
comment poritid. The'" will b. no comment penod 100"""inlll1e l'I5uiln", of Ihe lhreshold Determination 01 Nor
SllInlflcanc.,.MrHBiI",d IDNS--MI. lhls mil)' boo lI1e ooly oppootu"ty 10 comment OIl the eIMronmen""lmporu of th
propo .. !. A 14-di"/ appo~ poliod will follow the ilsu,,",e olthe DNS-M.
PERMIT APPUCATION DAn,
NOTltl O~ CDMPI.EI"E ""POCATION:
APPUCANT!PRtIJ(a CONTACT PERSOf1I:
AusuSI 4,2015
1\u8UK 7,2C~
J ... .cMn wlbon/CIty of Rlnton AIrport/616 Parirntter Rd.. Unit "'RaMon, WA _'/425-430-7477
Env\nInmenui (SEPAl R_. SIt. 1'1111 rwI ....
B~Udlnl P_It, tanftnlctIon p,.,.",1t. fir. Permit. ~ ,.".,It
Draln .... Report. Ij"""KhnIcal Report, PIfId,.. Analysis, Tnffle Implc
~-
If y<>u .. ould I ... III boo! made a party of ra",rd 10 receivoe further Informotioo on In .. propoHd p":>!Ict. c"",pla'" In
Imm and return 10' OtyolRanton, CEO _P",nninl D;,;o!on,10SS So. G,.dy Way, Remon. WA <}8(l57.
NamR/File No., Renlon ..... """paoeTralnInICMtlor{tUA15-OOlSl2, EO, SA-A, V-A, MOO
NAME' ______________________________________________________ __
MPJLlNG /\DDRUS: _________________________ aty/~lZlp' ______________ _
TELEPHONE NO. ______________________ _
-------,...Renton €)
!.o,ation wh.r.'ppijeatl ... m;rv
bar.III._d:
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW:
lonln&/lond U.a:
EnIlI",_1 Daoumo_thlt
~Vlluillatha ~ PraJlct:
Dlwelopment Riluilltlons
Uuod F"" PmJId Mttlptlan:
Dap;onm_ 01 Community 6. Economic: 08\lllapmlnt ICfDI-pllnnl",
D~on, 51x1t1 ~Ioor Renton CIty Holl, lOSS Soulh Grady Way, Renton. WA
98057
The subject .. te is deslrnlled EmploJrMnI ""'" Ind...ai.1 tEAl) on the CIty ot
lli!nlon Campr.hensiv. Land Use MapiM MedIum Indllltrioljl-M) on tho
Oty'. ZoninS Mop
E",'"",mentaIISEPA) Cheeldlll
The p'o!ect will U Subject to tho Cit(s SEpA ardina""" RMC RMC 4-2·UO, 4-J.,
...... 4-!-ZOII and Miler ~pllc:able codes ~d "'!Iul.tion. u .",..apnate.
The 10010wIng "'ltl8iI~on Meuuru will ~k.ly be impa",d on tho propo..,d
p",)ea. These recommended MI~.atlon Mel''''.' .dd .... p,oject Impact> not
coo.red by exl~gcodes and rl!(lul~llons .. dbrd above.
The awli .. nl shall comply with the recommendal;loru Inwdod in Uuo poIechnic:a1 repoo.
Comments on tM Mlwa Ipplkatl ... mLlSliM ... bmlttod In wrltInI to Roelle T1mmGns. Senior ......... , tiD -PloMI/II
DIvlJI ... , lDSS 5oIItI1 Gow/v Wq, -. VIA _7. by 5000 PM on AuPllt21,. :1015 If you have ",,_stlons about mi.
PO-OpoHI. Or wish to be m3de • ".ny 01 'etCO"d and "'<live additional natln",tlon by mall (""tact Ihe Proj.ct Mln"er.
AnI'D"" who sUbmlu writbln tomments will OUIOmOtlc:a~y become ~ p_ny of re<:ard and will be nallned olanv decision
on Ihi. P",)Kt. A COllY '" the ",bo.oquanl "' ..... hold delermlnatlon Is aIIillibla upon req .... ot.
CONTACT PERSON: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219;Eml;
rtlmmons@rentonwil.gov
PL£ASE INCWDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAWNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION
I, ff@t(,? lLvt) 1Y1 UV\.-S , hereby certify that ,? copies of the above document
w~re posted in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on
Signed: ~~\,J,;tinvWld/tJfiL Date:------"f'--L/-'-f~/-'--I=--r----
STATE OF WASHINGTON
SS
COUNTY OF KING
(certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 7<o(~I-e I, mm .. _' \
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
blic in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print):
Denis Law
Mayor
August 6, 2015
Jonathan Wilson
Renton Municipal Airport
616 W Perimeter Road, Unit A
Renton, WA 98057
Community & Economic Development Department
C.E."Chi p"Vincent, Ad mi nistrato r
Subject: Notice of Complete Application
Renton Aerospace Training Center, LUA15-000582, ECF, SA-A, V-A, MOD
Dear Mr. Wilson:
The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application
is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review.
It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on
August 31, 2015. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information
is required to continue processing your application.
Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rocale Timmons
Senior Planner
cc: Doug Jacobson, City of Renton
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
-------~ .. Renton 0
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M)
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development
(CEO) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary
Public Approvals.
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: August 6, 2015
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA15-000582
PROJECT NAME: Renton Aerospace Learning Center
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, Environmental
{SEPAl Review, a street modification, and a front yard setback variance for the construction of a new 22,300 square foot,
two story, Aerospace Training facility. The subject property is located on the east side of Rainier Ave 5 just north of
Airport Way at 300 Rainier Ave. The project work area totals 30,151 square feet and is zoned Medium Industrial (1M),
The site currently contains the former Renton Chamber of Commerce building which is proposed for removal. There are
two primary access points on Rainier Ave which are proposed to remain as is. The applicant is proposing to retain the
existing 41 parking stalls on site to serve the proposed use. The applicant is requesting a street modification from RMC
4~6-060 in order to eliminate the improvements required along Rainier Ave S. The applicant is also proposing a variance
from RMC 4-2-130 in order to reduce the required 20-foot front yard setback down to O-feet at the dosest point.
There are critical slopes located on the western portion of the site. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report,
Traffic Impact Analysis, Parking Analysis, and Geotechnical Engineering study with the subject application.
PROJECT LOCATION: 300 Rainier Avenue N
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): A5 the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has
determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.· Therefore, as
permitted under the RCW 43,21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a
DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the pmject and the proposed DN5-M are integrated into a single
comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-
Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the
proposal. A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance ofthe DN5-M.
PERMIT APPUCATION DATE:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
APPUCANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON:
Permits/Review Requested:
Other Permits which may be required:
Requested Studies:
August 4, 2015
August 6, 2015
Jonathan Wilson/City of Renton Alrport/616 Perimeter Rd, Unit
A/Renton, WA 98057/425-430-7477
Environmental (SEPA) Review, Site Plan review
Building Permit. Construction Permit, Fire Permit, Sign Permit
Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Parking Analysis, Traffic Impact
Statement
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this
form and return to: City of Renton, CEO -Planning Division, 1055 50. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057,
Name/File No.: Renton Aerospace Training Center/lUA15-000582, ECF, SA-A, V-A, MOO
NAME: ______________________________________________________________ __
MAILING ADDRESS: ______________________________ City!State/Zip: ____________________ _
TELEPHDNE NO.: ______________ _
Location where application may
be reviewed:
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW:
Zoning/Land Use:
Environmental Documents that
Evaluate the Proposed Project:
Development Regulations
Used For Project Mitigation:
Proposed Mitigation Measures:
Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning
Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 10S5 South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057
The subject site is designated Employment Area Industrial (EAI) on the City of
Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Medium Industrial (t~M) on the
City's Zoning Map.
Environmental (SEPA) Checklist
The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC RMC 4~2~130, 4~3,
4-4, 4~9-200 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed
project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not
covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above.
• The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, CEO -Planning
Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on August 20, 2015 If you have questions about this
proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager.
Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision
on this project. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination is available upon request.
CONTACT PERSON: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219;Eml:
rtimmons@rentonwa.gov
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
On the 23rd day of October, 2015, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
SEPA Determination and Notice documents. This information was sent to:
Agencies See Attached
Jonathan Wilson, City of Renton Applicant
Jennifer Palmer Party of Record
Ross Widener Contact
(Signature of Sender): ---{J~~"!'!~U:oJ..l)!Ly":!'...:::~----------::::<~",~\~~I\~ \ \ II ~\.y Po III/
) '<"0$_ ~;'JII = f 'i)~
) SS g /,1 +0'"" "UI ~
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING ) :; rn i ... ~ ~
~-4~ .. ;: ~ ~\ 6!~ :;
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante ~ <" ~ "?t." '-~ g
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fo{ltiJ ~1!01es
. d' h . '" ---mentlone In t e Instrument. I'h\\\\\,\,"
Dated: f)c.~'z J3 clOI'>
J t ry Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (print): ___ ....:.I-1..:..;o-';\k,:>,\:--. _T....wQ"-'lA""J"".41l,;S'--_________ _
My appointment expires: ~v.s-\ dll ( Wl:j
Renton Aerospace Training Center
lUA1S-000S82, ECF, SA-A, MOD
template -affidavit of service by mailing
Dept. of Ecology·*
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
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-37S5
Seattle, WA 98124
Boyd Powers ***
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Servo
Attn: SEPA Section
35030 SE Douglas St. #210
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
Metro Transit
Senior Environmental Planner
Gary Kriedt
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Seattle Public Utilities
Timothy C. Croll,
Attn: SEPA Responsible Official
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
PO Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
AGENCY (DOE) LETIER MAILING
(ERe DETERMINATIONS)
Dept. of Ecology oil * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. U
Attn: Misty Blair Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box 47703 39015 _172" Avenue SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092
Duwamish Tribal Office '" Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program **
4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Laura Murphy
Seattle, WA98106-1514 39015 172 nd Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
KC Wastewater Treatment Division '" Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program **
Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Erin Slaten
Ms. Shirley Marroquin 390151720
' Avenue SE
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
WDFW -Larry Fisher' Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation'"
1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Gretchen Kaehler
Issaquah, WA 98027 PO Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
City of Newcastle City of Kent
Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Charlene Anderson, AICP, ECD
Director of Community Development 220 Fourth Avenue South
12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Kent, WA 98032-5895
Newcastle, WA 98056
Puget Sound Energy City ofTukwila
Wendy Weiker, Community Svcs. Mgr. Jack Pace, Responsible Official
355 110" Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Mailstop EST 11W Tukwila, WA 98188
Bellevue, WA 98004
Puge! Sound Energy
Doug Corbin, Municipal liaison Mgr.
6905 South 228" St
Kent, WA 98032
*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
** Karen Walter, Laura Murphy and Erin Slaten with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. are
emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email
addresses: KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us/ Laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.usL
erin.slaten@muckleshoot.nsn.us
·**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
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton. WA 98057
Ross Widener
Widener & Associates
10108 32nd Ave W, Suite D
Everett. WA 98204
Jennifer Palmer
KPG
753 9th Ave N
SEattle. WA 98109
JONATHAN WILSON
CITY OF RENTON -Airport
616 W Perimeter Rd. A
Renton. WA 98057
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 18, 2015
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Sabrina Mirante
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office
Project Name: Renton Aerospace Training Center
LUA (file) Number: LUA-15-000582, ECF, VA-A, MOD
Cross-References:
AKA's:
, Project Manager: Rocale Timmons
i Acceptance Date: August 5, 2015
Applicant: Jonathan Wilson, City of Renton
Owner: City of Renton
Contact: Ross Widener, Widener & Associates
PID Number: 0723059007
ERC Determination: DNS Date: October 19, 2015
Appeal Period Ends: November 6, 2015
Administrative Decision: Approved with Conditions Date: October 23, 2015
-Appeal Period Ends: November 6, 2015
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom:
HEX Decision: Date:
Appeal Period Ends:
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
Council Decision: Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, Environmental
(SEPA) Review, a street modification, and a front yard setback variance for the construction of a
new 22,300 square foot, two story, Aerospace Training facility. The subject property is located on
the east side of Rainier Ave S just north of Airport Way at 300 Rainier Ave. The project work area
totals 30,151 square feet and is zoned Medium Industrial (1M). The site currently contains the
former Renton Chamber of Commerce building which is proposed for removal. There are two
primary access points on Rainier Ave which are proposed to remain as is. The applicant is
proposing to retain the existing 41 parking stalls on site to serve the proposed use. The applicant
is requesting a street modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to eliminate the improvements
required along Rainier Ave S. The applicant is also proposing a variance from RMC 4-2-130 in order
to reduce the required 20-foot front yard setback down to O-feet at the closest pOint. There are
critical slopes located on the western portion of the site. The applicant has submitted a Drainage
Report, Traffic Impact AnalYSiS, Parking AnalYSiS, and Geotechnical Engineering study with the
subiect aoolication.
9.11.15 -Project placed on I pending receipt of a revised Geott. ·eport.
10.7.15 -Project Taken off hold
Location: 300 Rainier Ave N
Comments:
ERe Determination Types: ONS -Determination of Non-Significance; ONS-M -Determination of
Non-Significance-Mitigated; OS -Determination of Significance.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN" Y
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION
NAME Doug Jacobson PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
Renton Aerospace Training Center
ADDRESS: 1 055 S Grady Way PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
300 Rainier Ave N. Renton, WA 98057
CITY: Renton ZIP: 98057
TELEPHONE NUMBER (425) 430-7242 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
Parcel #: 0723059007
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME Jonathan Wilson EXISTING LAND USErS):
Vacated Chamber of Commerce building
COMPANY (if applicable): Renton Municipal Airport PROPOSED LAND USErS):
Aerospace Training Center
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
ADDRESS 616 W Perimeter Road Unit A , Employment Area Industrial and Urban Center -North
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
CITY: Renton ZIP: 98057 (if applicable)
N/A
TELEPHONE NUMBER (425) 430-7477 EXISTING ZONING:
Medium Industrial
CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):
N/A
NAME Ross Widener SITE AREA (in square feet):
65160 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
COMPANY (if applicable): Widener & Associates DEDICATED:
N/A
ADDRESS 10108 32nd Ave W Suite 0 ,
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
N/A
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
CITY: Everett ZIP: 98204 ACRE (if applicable)
N/A
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable)
(425) 503-3629
rwidener@prodigy.net
N/A
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
N/A
1
H :\CED\Data\Forms-T emplates\Self -H el p Handouts\Plann i ng\Master Application.doc Rev: 02/2015
,
PROJECTINFORMATrIO~N~~(4c~o~n~t~in~u~e~dL-) ______________ ,
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE:
N/A $12,500,000
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): NI A
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable)
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A a AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL a AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO
BUILDINGS (if applicable): 22 300 , a FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq, ft,
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A 9 GEOLOGIC HAZARD 24451 sq. ft.
NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if a HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft.
applicable): 22,300
a SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft.
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW
PROJECT (if applicable): 72 students/faculty total a WETLANDS sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included)
SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION _7_, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE~, IN THE CITY
OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Name/s) , declare under penalty of perjury und'fL.ll:!lllaws of the State of
Washington that I am (please check one) 0 the current owner of the property involved in this application or U the authorized
representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein
contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of Owner/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) SS
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have salisfactory evidence Ihat signed this instrument and
acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary acl for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument.
Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print):
My appOintment expires:
2
H :\CED\Data\Fo rms-T em plates\Self-Hel p Handouts\Planni ng\Master Application. doc Rev: 02/2015
AUG 0 3 '; r"!::
,~ ,~ ,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PACIFIC NORTHWEST nn.E COMPANY
ALTA COMWThI£NT; SCH[oULf A, OROfR NO. 323290
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF KING. STATE
OF WASHINGTON. AND DESCRI8ED AS FOLLOWS'
PORnONS OF SECTION 7 AND 18, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANCE 5 EAST, W.I.I'., IN KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE PARnCULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE INNER HARBOR UNE OF" LAKE WASHINGTON AS SHOWN UPON
SHEET #26 Of THE PLAT OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS SURVEY 1921, AS SAID PLAT
WAS FILm WITH THE AUDITOR OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 19, 1921 UNDER
RECORDING NUMBER 1552504 M-/ICH POINT BEARS NORTH .15' 00' W[ST 92.62 FEET FROM
THE ANGLE POINT IN SAID INNER HARBOR LINE DESCRIBED "862" ON SAID PLAT;
THENCE SOUTH J5' 00' DO~ EAST, ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE, 92.62 FEU TO
SAID ANGLE POINT; THENCE EAST, ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE, 403.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 1.3' 5.1' 28~ EAST 924.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 76' 06' 82" WE"ST
50.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1.1' 5.1' 28" EAST .118.15 FEf!; THENCE SOUTH 14' 08'
28" EAST .1,239.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH IS' 12' 50" EAST 99.52 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 18' 16' 25" EAST 100.01 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 21' 39' 45" EAST
100.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 24' .11' 35" EAST 104.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 28' 13'
20" EAST 100.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31' 11' 40" EAST 100.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
34' 18' .10" EAST 100.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37' 14' os" EAST 100.05 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 40' OJ' 1O~ EAST 100.3.1 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42' 53' 3D" EAST
100.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45' 39' 20~ EAST 101.62 FEET TO A POINT ON A UNE
'M-IICH IS A PRODUCTION NORTHERL Y OF" THE EAST LINE OF LOT 23, BLOCK 4. RENTON REAL
ESTATE CO.'S 1ST ADDITION TO RENTON; THENCE SOUTH 00' 31' 47~ WE"ST, ALONG SAID
PRODUCED UNE AND THE EAST UNE OF LOTS 2.1 AND 18, BLOCK 4 OF SAID PLAT. 254.62
FEET TO THE INTE:RSECnON OF THE NORTH LINE OF DIXIE AVENUE AS NOW LOCATE:D AND
ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE EAST UNE OF LOT 18, BLOCK 4 OF SAID ADDITION;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID DIXIE AVENUE, NOR1H 88' 34' 43" WEST,
1.486.84 FEET TO THE w[ST UNE OF LAKE STREET; THENCE NORTH DO' 31' 47" EAST.
ALONG SAID WEST UNE, 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88' 34' 43" WE"ST, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID DIXIE A VENUE, 225.49 FEET TO AN ANGLE POIN T IN SAID LINE;
THENCE NORTH 71' 29' 12~ WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 152.58 FEET, MORE
OR LESS, TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY 15 AS NOW
FIXED AND ESTABLISHEO; THENCE NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WA Y LINE, FOLLOW
THE TANGENT AND CURVING COURSES THEREOF TO AN INTfRSEC71DN ~TH A L1Nf WHICH IS
5 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE LINE BET~.EN LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 18 OF" THE
PLAT OF BRYN MAWR, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, PRODUCED EASTERLY, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 58, IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 88' 27' 28" EAST. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 89.2.3
FEET TO A POINT 'M-IICH IS 540.00 FEET WEST, Io/EASUR£D ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE,
FROM THE ~ST UNE OF BLACK RIVER WA!E"RWAY AS SHOI'IN UPON SHEET 15 PREPARED BY
UDO HESSE. COURT COMMISSIONER. AND FILED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE
#156.371; "THENCE NOR"TH OS' 16' 51" EAST, 4.38.90 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A
UNE lIoHlCH IS 2 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE LINE BETM:EN LOTS 1 AND 2,
BLOCK 17 OF SAID PLAT OF BRYN MA~, PRODUCED EASTERLY, SAID POINT OF
INTERSECTION BEING 520.00 F"EEl WEST. MEASURED ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID WATERWAY; THENCE NORTH 40' 09' 47" EAST, lB8.S5 FITT; THENCE
NORTH 60.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29' DO' 40" WEST, 197.07 FEET TO A POINT ON A
LINE lIoHlCH IS .3DG fTET NORTH, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, THERETO, OF AND PARALLEL
TO THE NORTH LINE Of BO~ING STREET (FORMERLY EMERSON AVENUE) PRODUCED EASTE:RLY:
THENCE SOUTH 8B" 27' 28" EAST. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, .155.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO THA T PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECT10N 7, TOWNSHIP 2.3 NORTH,
RANGE 5 EAST, I'f.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. MORE PART1CULARL Y DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING ON INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON A T AN ANGLE POINT DESIGNA TED
"682" ON PAGE 26 OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS, ACCOROING TO "THE PLA T THEREOF
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1921 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1552504, RECORDS OF KING
COUNTY. WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 35' 00' 00" WEST. ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR
LINE, 92.62 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT Of BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 35' 00' 00"
WEST, ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE, 49.79 FEU TO A POINT 40.00 FEU NORTHERLY,
MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO, THE NORTHERL Y LINE OF A TRACT OF lAND DEEDED TO
DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 3.321579,
RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 8B' 27' 28" WEST, PARALLEL
~TH SAID NORTHERL Y LINE, 2.34.53 FEET, TO A POINT FROM M-/ICH THE INTERSECTION OF
NORTHERL Y LINE OF SAID DEEDED TRACT I'IfTH w[STERL Y UNE OF EXISTING INTERCEPTOR
DITCH BEARS SOUTH 01' .32' 32" WEST, 1HENCE SOU1H 01"32'32-WE"ST 40.00 FEET
TO SAID INTERSECTION; THENCE SOUTH 88' 27' 28" EAST. ALONG NORTHERLY LINE OF"
SAID DEEDED TRACT, 264.17 FITT TO THE TRUE POINT Of BEGINNING.
ALSO BLOCKS A AND B, THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL MAP OF LAKE WASHINGTON SHORE LANOS,
AS SHO"",", ON THE ornCIAL MAP THEREOF ON FILE IN THE ornCE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC LANDS AT OL'rMPIA, WASHINGTON.
REfERENCES
1. PLAT OF RENTON REAL ESTATE CO'S 1ST ADDITION TO RENTON, C. L DIXON, PRESIDENT
RENTON REAL ESTATE CO., VOLUME 21 OF PLATS, PAGE 50, RECORDS OF KINC COUNTY, WA.,
FEB. 16, 1914
2. BRYN MAM?, ALBRO GARDNER, CIVIL ENG., VOLUME 5. OF PLATS, PAGE 5B. RECORDS
OF KING COUNTt. WA, APRIL 14, 1890.
.3. N.H. LATIMER'S LAKE WASHINGTON PLAT, N.H. LATIMER, VOWME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 70,
RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA., OCTOBER 4, 1890.
4. LATIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDITION, D. BRAITHWAITE, CIVlL ENG., VOLUME 18 OF PLATS, PAGE 6.1,
RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA., DECEMBER 7, 1909.
5. SEATTLE TO RENTON, STATE: OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF .'"fIGHWAYS, SHEET 7A, 7B, 4-7
OF 7, FEBRUARY 6. 1940.
6. CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT (LUA-96-090-SHPL) (jlND-20-0197), TlCON, INC., HARMSEN &
ASSOC., BOOK 114 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 7, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA., MARCH 20, 1997.
7. C.H. ADSIT'S LAKE WASHINGTON PLAT, C.H. ADSIT, VOLUME 8 OF PLATS, PAGE 79, RECORDS OF
KING COUNTY, WA., FEBRUARY 15, 1893.
8. LAKELAND AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SEAffiE" GARDNER. GARDNER & FISCHER, INC., ENG.,
VOWME 30 OF PLATS, PAGE .11, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA., APRIL 4, 1927.
9. RECORD OF SURVEY FOR STEVE HARER, BRYN MAM? PROPERTIES, KENNEn-I J. OYLER, C.£. & L.S.,
BOOK 98 OF SURVEYS ON PAGE 99, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. WA.. MAY 12. 1994.
10. SAULSBERRY BEACH TRACTS, PARKER & HILL, VOLUME 32 OF PLATS, PAGE 44, RECORDS OF
KING COUNTY, WA., JANUARY 28, 1929.
11. RECORD OF SUR"vf:Y FOR BO£ING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE DIVlSION, HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
BOOK 2.3 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 82-A, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA., APRIL 11, 1980.
RfffRfNCfS (CDNDNlJfQ)
12. PLAT OF SURVEY OF PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 18-21 LATlI.I[RS LAKE PARK ADDInON,
HAMMOND, COLLJER & WADE-LIVINGSTONE ASSOC .. INC., BOOK 38 OF 5URV[YS. PAGE 112.
RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA., OCTOBER 20, 1983.
fJ. RECORD OF SURIiEY FOR GREGORY MACPHERSON, ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYING AND
DEVELOPMENT, BOOK 98 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 135, RECORDS Of KING COUNTY. WA., /,lAY
21, 1994.
14. RECORD OF SURVE:Y FOR BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE DIVISION, HORTON DENNIS &
ASSOC., INC., BOOK 2.1 OF SURvEYS, PAGE 82, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA., APRIL 11, 1980
15. BAKER'S ADDITION TO BRYN MAII-R, ROLLINS & SHORTT, CIVlL ENG., VOLUME 17 OF" PLATS,
PAGE 5.3, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WA., FEBRUARY 8, 1909.
16. STATE OF WASHINGTON, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, MAPS OF LAKE WASHINGTON
SHORE LANDS. EDW. C. DOHM, STA TE ClELD ENG .. FILED IN THE OFClCE Of THE COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC LANDS, SEPTEMBER 19, 1921.
17. STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MAPS OF
RENTON SHORE LANDS, M.E. BO~ER, ENG. & PLS. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC LANDS, MA Y 10, 196J,
18. STATE OF WASHINGTON, BOARD OF STATE LAND COMMISSIONERS, MAP OF RENTON SHORE LANDS,
fOW. C. DOHM, ENG., FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, JUNE 12. 1914.
19. STATE OF WASHINGTON, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, SUPPLEMENTAL MAP OF RENTON SHORE
LANDS. MARVIN BO~ER, P.L.S., FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS,
SEPTEMBER 29, 1958.
20. STATE: OF WASHINGTON COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL MAP OF" LAKE
WASHINGTON SHORE LANDS, M.E. BO~ER, £NG./P.L.S., FILED IN THE OF"ClCE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC LANDS. SEPTEJ.lBER 14, 1965
21. ASSESSORS QUARTE:R SECTION MAPS, KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
NE 7-2.3-5 LAST REVISION 10/86; SE 7-2.3-5 LAST REVlSION 10/B6;
SW 7-23-5 LAST REVISION 4/17/97; NW 7-23-5 LAST REVISION 7/21/97;
NE 18-23-5 LAST REVISION .3/.11/97; SE 18-2.1-5 LAST REVISION 4/24/97;
SW lB-23-5 LAST REVISION 7/21/97; NW 18-23-5 LAST REVISION 6/17/96
22. MAP OF PORTIONS OF SECTION 7 & 18 TOI'INSHIP 2J NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST. W.M.
H.W. RUTHERFORD, ENG., APRIL 194.3, REVISED OCTOBER 1944. UNRECORDED
.tJ.QKS
BASIS OF BEARINGS IS N4'49'4J~W ORIENTED IN THE WASHINGTON COORDINATE: SYSTEM
NAD B.3 (/991) NORTH lONE, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE RENTON AIRPORT RUNWA Y,
AS ESTABLISHED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.
ClEW MEASUREMENTS FOR THIS MAP I'r[RE PERFORMED M1H TRIMBLE 4000SSE GPS RECEIVERS
AND ~LD TC1010 TOTAL STAnON INSTRUMENTS, AND MEET OR EXCEED A UNEAR CLOSURE OF 1'15,000
AND THE LEAST SQUARES ADJUSTMENT YIELDS A RELATIVE ACCURACY NO GREATER THAN 0.08'
AT A 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL, RELATIVE TO THE CONTROWNG MONUMENTS (NAT10NAL GEODETIC SURVEY
POINTS HAFF, PT B 1962. RNT BCAG 112, RNTA, AND WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA710N
POINT GPI7167-28" VALLEY').
ALL PRIMARY MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT UnUlED HAS BITN COMPARED AND ADJUSTE:D TO A NATIONAL
GEODETIC SURVE:Y CALIBRATE:D BASELINE, lI.'l1HIN THE LAST YEAR.
SUBI'EYQR'S CERTIFICATE
THIS MAP CORRECTlY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY W&H PACIFIC UNDER MY DIRECnDN, IN CONFORMANCE
~rn THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT, AT THE REOVEST OF THE CITY OF RENTON IN MAY 1998.
EXPI~~5 B/11/01
L.S. 11422
REGISTE:RED LAND SURVEYOR REGISTRA TlON NUMBER
AIm/TOR'S RECORDING CERTIFICATE
nLED FOR RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF W&H PACIFIC, INC., THIS DAY OF _____ _
,, __ A T MINUTES PAST ____ _ M. AND RECORDEO IN VOLUME
OF PLA TS, ON PAGES • RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AUDITOR, KING COUNTY
INDEX IN SECTION 7 '" IB, T2JN, R5E, W.M.
~ ... cco..., Q..;C\lco;::
CltC'O""" :3~Tr~
S~l;:)~r;:: ~ 3:: 0) ad] ~::f~~~ ~'<l.::!:,.:!.it:
~§~~~
~
C)
,
1
i ?
Gi
~
\1!
f-
>--0:::
<': ~ a ~ ct Q
<': ::J 0::: Lul!)_
0::: "--<:(
,,-0
0Q<
>--ct a
h Of-G~<
ctLu
0:::
a!
0
t:.i (j) , '" :2 <0
w '" ~ 0 c V)
0 , • ;;
0
" a
'" '" ,
<0
'" " a , ~ , ,
~ ~
. g: I
~
~ 01 ~" ~ I :::' ,I :2: .:..; ......
lU;;: I
G:::I ~
, I!' 1
II
., 1 '. I .~ I : , IT1
, ! ,
'~ ~
D~ '" , ~, u.,
I
"II I II iE~~ i!
En &j' o~ --+-1 ~
I ~ ~." .~ i
. 5 ~ ~ ~
! u) a a
ISH'''1/6
N~
OJ
p = G,
o
""" C0
c---:::J
,30
+,H 12r 7
~I o .I,
~I @ -,
I
WSDH CONCR£rr: I.IONUMfNT IN CASE
WITH BRASS DISK AND PUNCH
0.55' BELOW SURfACE
(u1H A~. S. oi' S. 112TH
NORTHING 186<166.8"
fASTING 1295837.86
FOUND .3/96 ....
LAKE WASHJNGTON
q,~
'-"4h -'''",
,~
"'%",
""~
/
,y:.NGS POlNT; STATION 53+82.57
, t?NT Cl END RWY 15~
NAll IN ASPHAl T
NORTHING 1856.31.89
EAS71NG 12984-46.10
LA7J1lIDE 4-r.JO'ol.7'DJ'" N
LONGITUDE 12213'00.675'· W
FOUND 10/97 ~ \ END RWY STATION 53+79.00
1/2" REBAR &: CA,
LS 1.337"
NORTHING 185217.9.3
EASTING 1297784.09
FOUND 10/97
AIRPORT AIRCRAFT fC
REBAR &' CAP
NORTHING 185177.29
fASTING 1298240.79
STA TlON -f9H8.87
242.85' LEfT u.. T/TUDE 47"29'57.llJ08" N
LONGITUDE 1221.3'03.5456" W
, IJONUM£NT IN CASE
NOR7HlNG 185628..33
EASlING 1298«t;.40
~. F-------tt.:':~k·;;J~~,~:;~ w t SET 9/99 .~ ,~ '~l '
1% ~ ~ ~ \
MONUMENT IN CASE ')\ \ fr LLJ T~} ...
O.Sf' BfLOW RIM 1 -
NORTHING 1804496.604
£ASTING 1298190. 76
STATION 042+72.804
350.00' LEFT -::: NGS POIN T
§
"
~c
;.C ;~'r'J ,
~. ~i?
? .~'r &.'<:
8<:'> ~ ~"l) ~ 0<vB -s-
1
seAl F 1: 500
NOlI:. ANNUAL CHANGE 00"04'19"
,+ LATlTUOE 047"29'50..045504" N
LONGITUDE 122j3'ru.0959~ W
CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE
"'TH :J/8~ BRASS PWG
0,55' BELOW SURFACf
84TH A\IE. S. .t 120TH ST,
NORTHING 18J8J9.057
;~IA~p~ W/ PUNCH IN CASE ~ARKro GE'OOEllC CON1ROt. MARK"
0.6' BElOW RIM
NORTHING 1837051.17
EASTING 12989JJ.053
STATION J.of+n . ..s
J2B.J:J' RIGHT
EASTING 129574-5.98
FOUND 3/96
LATITUDE 047"29'04.3.3298" N
LONGlTIJDf 122j2'5J.0869~ W
FOUNO 10/97 ~
31 • ~
AIRPORT RUERfNCf POINT --.......l
CENTER UNE RUNWA Y AT MIDPOINT
NORTHING 1829-48.375
EASTING 1298672.795
STATION 205+89.50
LAlITUOE 4779'35.20530" N
LONGITUDE 122j2'505,05721" W
n U\ \ik'a;;=-NGS ARP
NORTHING 182940.ffi
EASlING 1298823.68
STA170N 26+68.91
1049.69' RIGHT
LA17WDE 47'29'35.2117" N
LONGITUDE 122j2'504.4732" W • /'/A TCH UNE SHEET :5 NGS PomT
~ "RNTA BCAG 112" /'/A TCH LINE SHEET 4 J. BR'SS D'SI< W/ PIIoro PMifL
~,
0.05' A8011E" GRQ()ND
NGS POINT NORTHING 182931,28
"RNT STA EN 79" E .. .sTlNG 1298989.52
SURFACE DISK "EN-79 1973" STATION 26+045.80
NORTHING 182473,048 .3104.16' RIGHT
EASTING 1298320.50 LATITUDE 47'29'.35.15004-N
STATION 22+45.904 LONGITUDE 122j2'52.0563" W
391.02' lEFT FOUND 10/97 ~~E04~;;~~qiit~:i;o~ W 0
MONUMENT IN CASE ___
0.48' B£LOW RIM
NORmlNG 18104704.87 = EASTING 1298446.02
STATION 12+4{J.31
350.00' L£FT 01
t I. _ ... -IoJRPORT AIRCRAFT
REBAR 6: CAP
NORTHING 1807/7.19
EAS71NG 129916B.93
STATION 4+24.47
306.56' RIGHT 12L ~
LA mUOE 04779'20.6826" N [I
LONGITUDE 12212'59.5882" W
~'14:""E 20483.J9' --------LATITUDE 047'29in.;ul" N
LONGlWDE 12212'48.80560" W
CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE
lM'TH BRASS DISK
STAIJP£D:
KING CO. SURIo£Y
R. DODD CO, ENG.
19J7 121 7
'f3Ti'8
0.804' BELOW SURFACE
84m AIlE", s. .t s. 126TH ST.
NOTE; MUL7lPL£ PUNCHES ON CAP,
MEASURED TO CENTER PUNCH.
NORTHING 181190.66
EASTING 1295717.52
4-X 4" CONCRE1E
MONUMENT lM'TH
BRASS OISK
ON SURFACE
MARKED 110591 *
NORTHING 1BH26.504
EASTING 1298200.08
FOOND 10/97
AIRPORT AIRCRAFT ./ MONUMENT IN CASE
NORmlNG 180189.99
EASTING 129999.3.56
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS NADBJ/91 ALONG
THE CEN7FRLlNE OF THE RUNWAY.
ALL COORDINATB Sl-/OIIN NADBJ/91.
VICINITY MAP
NOT IV SCALE
FOUND 3/9fj
REBAR &-CAP
NORTHING 180757,80
EAS17NG 1298609.05
STA110N 5+12.06
2047.91' LEFT
STATION -01+70.27 S.
1083.88' RIGHT t--==-"'-i==F'3\;:::~ LATITUDE 047'29'08.2776" N I
LONGtWDE 12212'36.7239" W
~ -.-
EXPI~ES 11/11/01
SURVEYED BY: TBW
UNAWN I3Y;
UAiL
Mfill ,
2/99
LATITUDE 47"29'1.3.6356" N
LONGITUDE 12212'57.0271" W
MONUMENT IN CASE
NORTHING 180241.27
EASTING 1298550.18
STA TION 0+02 • .32
.150.05' lEFT
LA71TUDE 47'2!f08.5281" N
LONGITUDE 122,2'57.70490" W
A.OPROV!:D BY'
Ch"I:CKW I3Y. I &iL---" ""0'
VA If: -~~T"" R,N!ON/KING
SCAt!:..
1" 500'
RWY STA TlON 0+00 ~ MONUMENT IN CASE
REBAR &-CAP NORTHING 180215.74
NORTHING 180268.42 EASTING 1299268. 705
EASTING 1298899.19 STATION -0+8.3.60
LA17TUDE 47'29'08.8580" N JeJ.8J'RIGHT S. 120TH ST
LONGITUDE 12212'52.6755" W t.A71JUDE 047'29'08.4-038" N .
SET 9/99 LONGlJUOE 12212'47.2818" W
NGS POINT;
"RNT ct END RWY J:J"
NAIL IN ASPHALT
STATION 0+00.23
0.05 LEFT
NORTHING 180268.65
EAS7lNG 1298a99.12
LA 7lTUDE 047"29'12.1959" N
LONG/lUOE 12212'53.18204" W
FOUND 10/97
--+-c
~
~ ,
flo
'kr
~
~
B
'" " ill
" l'
~ ,
g
"'% /~"S'-1>
INDEX IN SECTION 7 .Ie 18. T2JN. RSE, W././.
CITY OF RENTON
RECORD OF SURVEY
RENTON AIRPORT WASHINGTON
1··-' ,
PROJCCT NO
3-1086-2203
.-.--~ _.---_.-C' --,------
DRA WING 1"11 [" NAM[
_ SE,86RS01:E we __
Will
PACIFIC
3350 MONTE VIU.A
BOTHELL, WA 98021
TEL: (425)951-4800
FAX: (425)951-4808
WWW.WHPACIFIC.COM
'2
~,
lNr~
0)'
I
» = (7)
=
"'"
'" ~':'~'-
l:ci/l,!IIfI~\
.. ~,'~ ,'/It J
SURVEYED ]Y: TBW
DRAMJ BY.-
DA rEo
jJ1JX~~ -UmL_
i Ai'J 11i/I:":'!,;,';','C) !Ui\! ~/
? ,,>'i'
'-,.",{;;" V''t~,~';'~-~. \
\ .~ \
\--. \
.,\ \
"'" ,
~~s
'" ,'~X' ,0::1:<,:
.C"~
3
'"
/
'<J,\
r:;Mrt3.~ I .
\
\
\
\
\
c
~ ,:;>
;
~ ,~, -PP BOEING
C8/C9 ~'. \;; ., ,
~ c-,;:
:i
/ \
"
'-'. "
/
\
~\
-i-iz-f-+
1-
----
----WI"'" !.WE
,~~.~rf~~::'~;~-i ~::~~.'~~~r, I\N.')~,
,_ ;~;{~;5~':~~ '::,t:::';,'A.' #,;j ~ ,0" CCM C' r I i"NI:I!IS/il , ~~i r'2U"1/r~4! / /
\ \ . '''''''''''':; / "f ~ ~ :::: :::: ~ :;:: ,~ L~'M,#j.)
JNNL I~ I-INIUUi, i JI;I ------
-5-
~G .' ,G ~
GRAPHIC SCALE
W~.J '~ :.-. -----
-~
( IN FEET )
I in"h ~ 200 ft
-I
7HE BAstS OF BEARINGS IS NADBJ/91 ALONG THE CENTERUNE OF THE RUNWAY.
ALL COORDINATES SHOI+N NA08J/91.
\
------
WirIIll
- ----HARBOR LINE
BOUNDARY LINE
INT[R-PARCEL LINE
CENTER LINE RUNWAY
EASEMENT LINE
LEASE LINE
GIS BASEMAP FROM AERIAL PHOTO
SET WH PACIPiC REBAR d!" CAP LSllJ.4-22
@ FOUND REBAR &-CAP
@ FOUND MONUMENT
'" FOUND PK NAIL
o SET PK NAIL
~ SET MONUMENT IN CASE
-FOUND QUARTER SECTION CORNER ~ + FOUND SECTION CORNER
NOTE: ALL EASEMENT, RIGHTS, AND ORDINANCE
NUMBERS SHOItN REFER TO UST ON SHEET 6
OF 8.
~Q
l
~~, 8/11/01
INDEX IN SECTION 7 '" lB, T2JN, R5E:, W.M.
C!--![CK[O BY.-
APPROVFTJ BY_ ~ CITY OF' RENTON
"eel' REVISION
--'I RECORD OF' SURVEY
"'Of PPF
:RlcNTON/KING u ___ ~EN~()N_AIR~ORT WASHINGTON
Will 3350 MONTE VJLl...4. PKWY
BOTHELL, WA 98021
TEL: (425)951-4800
FAX: (425)951-4808
WWW.WHPACIFIC.COM r-CALL =-r:ROJeCT NO_ DRAWINC (iLL NAM!:.
. I" ~ 200' J·'1086-220J S086RSOI.DWG
. .--.---~---.--. . --
Pt1.CI FIC
~
~LJ
o
~
D
+ o
;;:{:;~;:~
--;=;~
o
AUG 03 r
c'
" ,
~
~' ,. ,
\~
/ \
C:J
--'"
n
\ o
\\
'/, ~"/'I, T
-,!.,~
",'C,')'", .v.' ~'-';'."J\ (
!!f ~u f!! .0
:..., / ~'tG
:::/ " : in ~ ~! f! 0-.J.. al0 '-0"1:' · / ,.
b <' , -.-
I
GRAPHIC SCALE
'~ 100 .00 i ~QQ --( IN FEET)
inch = 200 ft.
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS 15 N.4D8J/91 ALONG THE: CENTD?UNf OF THE RUNWA Y.
ALL COORDINATES SHOVIN NADBJ/91.
J.Cf!D;J).
- ----HARBOR LINE
========== BOUNDARY L,NE INTER-PARCEL LINE
CENTER LINE RUNWA Y
EASfJJ[NT LINE
LEASE UNE
GIS BASD/AF FROM AERIAL PHOTO
o S[T I'IH PACIFIC REBAR &: CAP L5111422
iii roUND REBAR &: CAP
@ roUND MONUMENT
t:> FOUND PK NAIL
o SET PK NAIL
sf SET MONUMENT IN CASE
iQ·"i".O'ND DU'RTfR seCTION CORNFR
'6'i roUND SEC710N CORNER
0-
NOTE: ALL EASEMENT. RIGHTS, AND ORDINANCE
NUMBERS SI-{OWN REFER TO LIST ON SHEn 6
OF O.
IU, \ 1\ \ " \ I
l~\ \\ 0
0
J
882 + 30.63
()!PIRES 8/1'/01
INDEX IN SECTION 7 &: W.M.
~ .... or:c __
o..;C\loo""'l
OCOIO O
:"l;cc-.:o"",t.;.
~~ I I G
5::-:ci3;;)f;:: ~~~~t> ~ -~~C:: §;~~~~
iil§iJ"<!!' &$~~r=:;;
:II! : I
I I
~I I ~I I
J.':i ~I V'll :::..' ~' ~I 5:
>--:;o:~
2Q:
:;o::::l
lcJ(/)
f---a:: o
Q a:: -Q: c.. -<:(
c..O
a a?:
>--Q:o 0
f-f---G~?:
Q:Lu
a::
c.., Ij") I
{ iE
l
'
~'" ~i7:
b
~
~
8
" " I
<0
'" 00 <-
.-I ~~
0)
0)
"
~
~.
~.
~-
" ).; ':0
~a
~~ G~ ~~
~i ~ I ~I ~ I
, , , .
.~ I , .
"
~ ,
II ~!
Igj I ~.~~.~
.. ;:0'"
> L" +1-;->, :).; i '
~ ~ I.-J I '>' §i c;. ! :;;: I
5 ~ ~ ! ::;, j
Ul :::::-G L
:c> c
G---;
co
"'" -0
·CCO
~--,\
'::
+:.,
....
0, r
~ CJl-'
OJ
\
~
~ .. ,
.. =
\
~
~ .. ,
GPS CDNlROl DIAGRAM
tif!lli
A FAST STAnG CPS NETWORK WAS RUN ON NOVEMBER 6, 1997. NAnONAL GrODEne SURIlEY
POINTS ·PT B 1962", "HAFP", AND WASHINGTON STAT[ OEPARTUENT or TRANSPORTAnON
POINT ·VALLEY' (GPI7167~28) 'M:.RE HEW. TRIMBLE 4000SSE/SSJ REC£IV£RS WERE USED
ANO DATA WAS COLLECTED AT 5 SECOND EPOCHS. DATA WAS COLLECTED ON rHE J CONTROL
POINTS CON7INUOUSLY, WHILE A fOURTH RECEIVER nED B MONUMENTS ON SITE. THE DATA
WAS PROCESSED IN GPSUR\lfY AND ADJUSTED W/11", 1RII.INfT PLUS, BOTH 1RIMBLE
NA VlGA nON PROGRAMS.
LEWYD.
6 FOUNO PI< NAIL
• FOOND MONUMENT
---BOUNDARY UN£
GIS BASEltiAP FROM AERIAL PHOTO
GPS \£CTOR
':.
'0, "'-1-~\U '-'I...-' ~~ :91NT
I Ii PIPE;. WI PUNCH IN CASC
IiIARKED GlOOE7IC CONTROL MARK·
0.6' 8£LOW RIM
.. :. ~
FOUND NAIL .t WASHER ~\
l:..I.lI,. III r ~GS P"'NT
RNTA BCAG 112"
~.~gp~b':~~bHOro PANEl
FOOND NAIL &: WASHER \\ \\~
~ 'il ,,~(;<'
.
fl ~'r'
" " ;," 0;'>, :[>.~ c\ ...
il?1C>.?> t
01 ,<Q'i>
: <,." s-
I
SCALe J: 400
~~, 8/11/01
SURvFYFI"l BY' TBW
DRAWN DY, ~~1LAD-APPROllfD BY-
DldL 5/99 CHI:CKW I3Y.
'''"--t~j --R["':~ ----~=r-t'P' ------~--------+.-
~ --------------~~---.
D
o
o
~
a
t
&
'Iii>.
"Iii>.
~
..
a
•
,
•
CITY Or RENTON
RECORD Or SURVEY
RE:N70N/KING RENTON AIRPORT
a
i
~
I
'" "It..". __________
...
"
FOI.JND MONUjlfNT IN CASE
-f~ X -f" CONCRErr: POST
INSIDE c)'SE 1W7H 1/2"
BRASS PLUG IWTH PUNCH
0.J8' BElOW GROUND
INDE:X IN S£CllDN 7 &: 18, T2:JN, R5£, W.M.
WASHINGTON
SCALI:. fR()Jrn NO I DRA WING >iU, -~~;;[---
1" ~ 500' 3-1086-2203 SOB6RS01.0WG
--------------------
'0 , ",
Oy'1
CJl
P-c::
c;-,
<::> ..,
C0 =
u;
EASEMENTS \ AGBffM£NTS \ RIGHTS \ RfSlRlCnONS \ I EASES' eER PAC/BC NORTHWEST nIlE COMPANY OBDffi NO J2.J29Q
1. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMENT
GRANTE£:CHICAGO. MILWAUKEE AND 51 PAUL RR.
RECORDING NUMBER: 1296387, APRIL 8, 1919
LOCATION PER REFERENCE #22, WIDTH NOT KNOItN.
2. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION UNE EASEMENT
GRAN1EE;CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RR
RECORDING NUMBER: 1325849, JUL Y 16, 1919
APPROXIMA 1E LOCA TlON SHOItN
3. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMENT
GRANTEE:PUGET SOUND POWER &: LIGHT COMPANY,
RECORDING NUMBER:2400095, SEPTEMBER I, 1927
EXPIRED. NOT SHOWN.
4. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMENT
GRANTEE:PUGET SOUND PO~R &. LIGHT COMPANY,
RECORDING NUMBER: 2400102, SEPTEMBER I, 1927
APPROX. LOCATION SHOIIN. WIDTH NOT KNOWN
5. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION ORDINANCE
IN FAVOR Of' CITY OF SEATTlE
ORDINANCE NUMBER:59599, JUNE 9, 1930.
200' WIDE STRIP AS SHOWN.
6. WA fER EASEMENT
RESERVED 8Y J. E. HA'([S AND MUSETTE HAY£S
RECORDING NUMBER: 2659781, MARCH 4, 1931.
PORnON 01" PROPERTY NOT SPECIFIED. AS SHOI1ofll.
7. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMENT
GRANTEE:CITY OF SEATJI.E, A MUNICIPAL CORP
RECORDING NUMBER: 2664B51, APRIL 4, 1931
AS SHOWN. APPROX, LOCA TlON BLACK RIVER.
8. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMEN r
GRANTEE:CITY OF SEATTl.E, A MUNICIPAL CORP.
RECORDING NUMBER:2670419, MAY 7, 1931
AS SHOWN.
9. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMEl'IT
GRANTEE: THE CITY OF SEA TTlE, A MUNICIPAL CORP.
RECORDING NUMBER: 2945728, MAY 12, 1937.
AS SHOWN.
10. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE: STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER:JI00478, IIAY 9, 1940.
AS SHOWN
11. DRAIN PIPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE: STA TE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER:JIOO4-79, MAY 9, 1940
AS SHOWN.
12. SLOPE EASEIIENT
GRANTEE: STA TE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER:JIOO480, MAY 9, 7940,
AS SHOWN.
13. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE: STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUM8ER:JI04477, JUNE 3, 1940.
AS SHOIIN.
14. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE: STA TE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 3250231, JULY 7, 1942.
AS SHOIIN.
15. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE' STA TE or WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER:3250232, JULY 7, 1942.
AS SHO~
16. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE: STA TE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER:32502J4, JUNE 7, 1942.
AS SHO~.
17. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE:STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER:J2502J5, JULY 7, 1942.
AS SHO~.
lB. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRAN1EE:STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER:3250236, JULY 7, 1942.
AS $HOlloN.
19. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE:STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER:3250237, JULY 7, 1942.
AS SHOWN.
20. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE:STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER;32502J8, JULY 7, 1942.
AS SHO'MJ.
21. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE:STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 3256693, AUGUST 6, 1942.
AS SHOWN.
22. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE:STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 3255594, AUGUST 6, 1942
AS SHO'MJ
23. SLOPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE:STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 3103925, MA Y 29, 1940.
AS SHOWN.
24, DRAIN PIPE EASEMENT
GRANTEE:STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 3166660, MAY 7, 1941.
NOT ON PROPERTY. NOT SHO'MJ.
25, ELECTRIC Tl?ANSMISSION EASEMENT
GRANTEE:PUGET SOOND POWER &: UGHT
RECORDING NUM&ER:2970090, OCTOBER Jt. 19J7
EXACT LOCATION AS STAKfD. TOTAL PARCEl SHOWN.
26. DREDGING RIGHT
GRAN1EE: COMMERCIAL WA TERWA Y DISTRICT NO. 2
RECORDING NUMBER:3194760, OCTOBER 3, 1941.
RIGHT TO DREDGE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY
SOUTH~ST OF AREA SHOWN
27, TELEPHONE EASEMENT
GRANTEE: THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
RECORDING NUMBER:3337990, SEPTEMBER 28, 1943.
AS SHOItN.
2R WA TERWA Y EASEMENT
GRANTEE:COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DISTI?ICT NO.2
RECORDING NUMBER:3706115, JUL Y 18, 1947.
AS SHOItN.
29. SEWER EASEMENT
GRANT£E:BR'r'N MAWR LAKER/DGE SEWER DISTRICT
RECORDING NUMBER: 7902200757, FEBRUARY 20. 1979.
AS SHOI'IN
30. SEWER EASEMENT
GRANITE BRYN-MAWR-LAKERIDGE SE'M:R DISTRICT
RECORDING NUMBER, 7905160957. MAY 16, 1979.
AS SHOMJ.
31. BRIDGE &! TOW PATH PERMIT
GRANTEE: mE BODNG COMPANY
RECORDING NUMBER 9209171553, 9/29/69 do: 9/17/92.
AS SHOWN.
32, LEASE AREA AGREEMENT
BETWEEN BRUCE J. LEVEN AND BOEING EMPWY£E FL '(/NG ASSOC.
RECORDING NUMBER: 8806200517, JUNE 20, 1988.
LEGAL DESCRITPTlON DOES NOT CLOSE. AS SHOWN.
33. TRAIL EASEMENT &. AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE BOEING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF RENTON.
RECORDING NUMBER: 9209/71541, AUGUST 14, 1992.
RECORDING NUMBER: 9606110277, DECEMBER, 16, 1994.
RECORDING NUMBER 9609040755, AUGUST 30, 1996.
TRAIL SHOWN WHERE IT IS ADJACENT TO PROPERTY ONL Y.
34. WATER LINE EASE~ENT
GRANTEE: THE BOEING COIAPANY
RECORDING NUMBER:9J08040408, AUGUST 4, 1993.
RECORDING NUMBER 9J05171527, FEBRUARY 16 , 1993.
AS SHOItN.
J5. SE~R LINE EASEMENT UNDER LAKE WASHINGTON.
RECORDING NUMBER: 5450402, JUL Y 10, 1962.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION SHOWN. MAP DOCUMENT NOT LEG/BLE.
J6. AGREEMENT-RaEASE OF DAMAGES-REGARDING THE
LOWERING OF LAKE WASHINGTON 7 FEET.
BETWEEN GERTRUDE UMAR, ELLA BRAIltEY, U,S.A.
RECORDING NUMBER: 445359, DECEMBER 14, 1906
NOT SHOWN.
J7. AGREEMENT -RaEAS[ OF DAMAGES-REGARDING THE
LO~RING OF I.AKE WASHINGTON 7 FEET,
BETWEEN:BRYN MAWIi' LAND COMPANY AND U,S.A.
RECORDING NUMBER: 445370, DECEMBER 14, 1908.
NOT SHOIIN.
J8. AGREEMENT-RELEASE OF OAMAGES-REGARDING THE
LOWERING OF LAKE WASHINGTON 7 FEET.
BETWEEN: JIMMY MOSES AND U.S.A.
RECORDING NUMBER: 448800, DECEMBER 26, 1906.
NOT SHOWN,
J9. ANNEX OF TERRITORY.
CITY OF RENTON
ORDINANCE NO.: 2988
RECORDING NUMBER: 7708040615, AUGUST 4, 1977.
AS SHO'Mol.
40. RESTRlcnONS-NO BOAT HOUSES
GRANTEE: MENTAL SCIENCE COLLEGE
RECORDING NUMBER; 681340, MAY 5, 1910.
AS SHO'Mol.
41, DEED OF RELEASE-IN EMERGENCY U,S.A. CAN TAKE
POSSESSION OF AIRPORT.
RECORDING NUMBER: 372752.3, SEPTEMBER 25, 1947.
RECORDING NUMBER: 4108337, FEBRUARY 13, 1951.
RECORDING NUMBER: 7.304200596, APRIL 20, 1973.
RECORDING NUMBER: 7205160574, MAY 16, 1972.
ENTIRE AIRPORT PROPERTY.
42. RESTRICnONS-SAME AS ABOV£ 141.
RECORDING NUMBER: 7205160514, MAY 16, 1972.
ENTIRE AIRPORT PROPERTY.
43. IIINERAL RIGHTS
FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 2480978, JUL Y 21, 1928,
AS SHO'Mol
44. MINERAL RIGHTS
FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 2652456, JANUARY 14, 1931.
AS $HOiit.'.
45. IIINERAL RIGHTS
FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 2664254, APRIL " 1931
AS SHO'Mol.
46. IIINERAL RIGHTS
FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 6188147, JUNE 12, 1967.
AS SHO'MJ.
47. MINERAL RIGHTS
FOR THE STA TE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 6364405, JUNE 18, 1968.
AS SHO'MJ.
48. RIGHT-Dr-WAY DEED
FOR THE STA TE OF WASHINGTON
RECORDING NUMBER: 6B2~70, MAY, 11, 1910.
OUTSIDE PROPERTY. NOT SHOWN.
49. RESERVATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PLAT OF
RENTON REAL ESTATE COMPANy'S FIRST ADDITION
RECORDED: VOLUME 20 OF PLATS, PAGE 50
ALL COAL, OIL, AND MINERAL PRODUCTS BENEA TH
THE STREETS AND ALLEYS RESERVED FOR RENTON
REAL ESTA TE CO. AND ASIGNS. AS SHOWN.
50. TlIT.£ REPORT OUESTIONS THE LOCATION OF mE NORTHERLY
BOUNDARY 01" AIRPORT WAY AS DISCLOSED BY INFORMATION
IN DEED RELEASE RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING
NUMBER 7205760514 REGARDING WIDENING OF SAID ROADWAY.
51. TITLE REPORT QUESTIONS THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE
EASTERLY BOUNDARy 01" RAINIER AV. N. (STATE HIGHWAY NO.5).
52. RIGH rs OF THE PUBLIC AND/OR LESSEES TO THE USE OF
PUBLIC PORTION 01" THE AIRPORT INCWDING RUNWAY ANO
OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES.
5J. RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC IN AND TO mE ROADWAYS LOCATED
WITHIN THE SUBJECT PREMISES.
54. QUESTION OF LOGA TlON OF LA TERAL BOUNDARIES OF SAID
SECOND CLASS TIDE (OR SHORE) LANDS,
55. RIGHT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND TO THAT
PORTION, IF ANY, OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED WI .. jJCH
LIES BELOW THE LINE OF ORDINARY HlQi WA 1ER.
57. MATTERS IIf-I/CH MAY 8E DISCLOSED BY OUR REVIEW OF
COURT COMMISSJONER'S PLAT NO. 156371, SAID PLAT IS
UNA VA/LABLE.
5ll. MA HERS WHICH MA Y BE DISCLOSED BY A REV!£W OF
ANY CITY OR COUNTY ORDINANCE WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR
59. PROPERTY TAXP.II710-0010-08 IS EXEMPT,
BUT WOULD BECOME TAXABLE IF TRANSFERRED TO A TAXABLE ENTITY.
60. PROPERTY TAXj072305-9007-05 IS EXEMPT,
BUT WOULD BECOME TAXABLE IF TRANSFERRED TO A TAXABlE ENTITY.
61. LEASE
LESSEE: BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY
RECORDING NUMBER: 4677181, SEPTEMBER 16, 1955
RECORDING NUMBER: 54295251, APRIL 1, 1962.
TITlE COMPANY COULD NOT PROVIDE MAP DOCUMENT. NOT SHOItN
62, LEASE
LESSEE: NORTHWEST AVIONICS COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION
RECORDING NUMBER: 7503240451, MARCH 24, 1975
RECORDING NUMBER: 7609270542, SEPTEMBER 27, 1976
RECORDING NUMBER: 6209926, JULY 27, 1967.
RECORDING NUMBER: 6217822, AUGUST 11, 1967
AS SHOItN.
63. LEASE
LESSEE; BERNELL GUTHMILLER AND THOMAS JUDGe DBA AIRPORT
SPECIAL TIES, A PARTNERSHIP
RECORDING NUMBER: 7810060078, OCTOBER 6, 1978.
RECORDING NUMBER 7810050079, OCTOBER 12, 1975.
AS SHOI1ofll.
64. LEASE
LESSEE: RENTON WATERFRONT RESTAURANT CORPORA nON
RECORDING NUMBER: 7808060863, JUNE 6, 1978.
AS SHOIloN.
66. LEASE
LESSEE: JOSEPH C. LANE, JR.
RECORDING NUMBER:87050513J7, MAY 6, 1987
RECORDING NUMBER:8705081335, DECEMBER 3D, 1985
RECORDING NUMBER:8705081334, DECEMBER 15, 1986
RECORDING NUMBER:8705081336, MAY 6, 1987
AS SHO'MJ
67. LEASE
LESSEE: BOEING EMPLOYEES rL YlNG ASSOCIA TlON, INC.
RECORDING NUMBER: B7I1J00018, NOVEMBER 3D, 1987
RECORDING NUMBER: B903140014, MARCH 14, 1989
68. LEASE
9205220627, JUNE 16, 1992
920624040B, JUNE 24, 1992
9406101070, JUNE 70, 7994
9312161069, DECEM8ER 16, 7993
9406101070, JUNE 10, 1994
9405291299, JUNE 29, 1994
LESSEE: BOEING EMPLOYEES Fl '(/NG ASSOCIA TlON, INC.
RECORDING NUMBER:871IJOO019, NOVEMBER 30, 1987
AS SHOWN.
JANUARY 29, 1988
, JUNE 20, 1988
, # CHANGED TO 8806200517
" JANUARY 21, 1988
~t.t.: ,JvrlN Llt.~, TERRENCE LIEN AND JULIE LIEN
(lo;.rllIJr. "'"U",.o;.· 9002091423 FEBRUARY 9 1990
9002091424: FEBRUARY 9: 1990
94111502B4, FEBRUARY 2, 1990
B908290325, AUGUST 29, 1989
9007090363, JANUARY 2, 1990
7J. LEASE
LESSEE: AERO-DYNE LEASING CORPORATION
RECORDING NUMBER: 9006110547, JUNE 11, 7990
RECORDING NUMBER: 9006110548, MARCH 29, 1985
RECORDING NUMBER: 9006110549, AUGUST I, 1985
RECORDING NUMBER 9006110550, JANUARY 4, 1988
RECORDING NUMBER: 9006111651. JUNE II, 7990
RECORDING NUMBER: 9006111650, APRIL 27, 1990
AS SHO~
72. UNRECORDED SUBLEASE
LESSEE: ELLISON FLUID SYSTEIIS
RECORDING NUMBER: 8509061285, JULY 1985
AS SHO'MJ
73. UNRECORDED SUBLEASE
LESSEE: ~LCOME CONSTRUCTION AND ERNIE
RECORDING NUMBER: 8509061285, JULY 7985
SPRIGGS DBA ELECTRONIC A VfA TlON SYSTEMS, INC.
AS SHO'Mol. SAME AS /72.
74. LEASE
LESSEE: NORTHWEST SEAPLANES, INC.
RECORDING NUMBER: 920109111J, JANUARY 9, 1992
RECORDING NUMBER: 9201091112, NOV£MBER 14, 1997
AS SHOIW
75. SUBLEASE
LESSEE: EIQiT SIXTY BUIWING, LP.
RECORDING NUMBER: 9507270768, JULY 21, 7995
RECORDING NUMBER: 9507270157, JULY 79, 7995
AS SHOWN.
76. LEASE
LESSEE: BHC, INC
RECORDING NUMBER: 9J1201l005, DECEMBER I, 1993
RECORDING NUMBER, 9J1201l006, NOVEMBER 16, 1993
AS SHO'MJ
ElCPlRES B/11jol
56, ANY PROHIBITION OF OR LIMITATION OF USE, OCCUPANCY
OR IMPROVEMENT 01" THE LAND RESULTING FROM THE RIGHTS
OF THE PUBLIC OR RIPARIAN OWNERS TO USE ANY PORTION
'NHICH IS NOW OR HAS 8EEN FORMERL Y COIlERED BY WA TER.
77. UNRECORDED LEASEHOI.D5, IF ANY; RIGHTS OF
VENDORS AND HOI.DERS OF SECURITY INTERESTS ON
PERSONAL PROPERTY INSTALLED UPON SAID PROPERTY
AND RIGHTS OF 1ENANTS TO REMOVE TRADE fiXTURES
A T THE EXPIRA nON OF THE TERM. INDEX IN SECnON 7 lk: lB, T23N, RSE, W.M.
ISUW:.VED BY: _ TftW_
,DRAWN BY: ~
; DA fE' --2L'9il
CHECKED BY
APPROVED BY,
OAT[ ~.r -1 REViSION ICK'D 14PPR
~-~ ~
RENTON/KING _
SCN['
1" 200'
CITY OF RENTON
RECORD OF SURVEY
RENTON AIRPORT WASHINGTON
I PROJECT NO.
3-1086-2203
I
DRAWJNG FILE NAMf· -
S086RS01.DWG
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUII.& .• {
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: WAIVED MODIFIED
BY: BY: COMMENTS:
Arborist Report 4 f/3J ..j?~~~ e ~ 91'
Architectural Elevations, AND.
Biological Assessment 4
Calculations 1
Colored Maps for Display 4
Construction Mitigation Description 'AND'
Deed of Right-of-Way Dedication 1
Density Worksheet 4 '-1??J
Drainage Control Plan, U
Drainage Report ,
Elevations, Architectural3AND.
Environmental Checklist.
Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) lAND.
Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) lAND.
Flood Hazard Data. h"
Floor Plans 'AND'
Geotechnical Report lAND l
Grading Elevations & Plan, Conceptual,
Grading Elevations & Plan, Detailed,
Habitat Data Report 4 PF
Improvement Deferral,
Irrigation Plan 4
'"
PROJECT NAME: rz-A--i C---~----~---------------
.II,UG 0 3 Z015 DATE: __ ,-'----I.I_'3_D---LI_, -=::::.=--___ _
1
H : \C E 0 \Data \Fo rms-Temp lates\Self -He Ip Ha ndo uts\P I a n ning\ Wa ive rs u bm itta I re qs. do e)( Rev: 02/2015
-,-'
•
LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: WAIVED MODIFIED
BY: BY:
King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site.
landscape Plan, Conceptual.
Landscape Plan, Detailed 4
Legal Description 4
Letter of Understanding of Geological Risk 4
Map of Existing Site Conditions 4
Master Application Form 4
Monument Cards (one per monument) 1
Neighborhood Detail Map 4
Overall Plat Plan.
Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis.
Plan Reductions (PMTs) •
Post Office Approval,
Plat Name Reservation.
Plat Plan.
Preapplication Meeting Summary.
Public Works Approval Letter,
Rehabilitation Plan.
Screening Detail 4
Shoreline Tracking Worksheet 4
Site Plan, AND 4
Stream or lake Study, Standard. !ifr
Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental.
Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan.
Street Profiles,
Title Report or Plat Certificate lAND'
Topography Map 3
Traffic Study,
Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4
Urban Design Regulations Analysis.
Utilities Plan, Generalized 2
Wetlands Mitigati6n Plan, Final. ttffr
Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4
""</
2
H :\ CE D\Data \ Fe rm s· T em plates \Se If -H e I p Handouts \P la n n i n g\ Wa ive rs u bm itta I rE! qs .docx
COMMENTS:
Rev: 02/2015
\,
,
---
; .~
LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITIAL REQUIREMENTS:
Wetlands Report/Delineation 4
Wireless:
Applicant Agreement Statement lAND'
Inventory of Existing Sites, AND'
Lease Agreement, Draft lAND'
Map of Existing Site Conditions lAND'
Map of View Area lAND'
Photo simulations 'AND'
This Requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services
2 Development Engineering Plan Review
3 Building
4 Planning
WAIVED MODIFIED
BY: BY:
----".
3
H: \CE 0 \Data \Forms· T em plates \Se If -H e I p Handouts \Pla n n i n g\ Waive rsu b m ittalreq s. docx
-----
COMMENTS:
!
Rev: 02/2015
o
c
B
A
~
~
M
~
~
':'
I
2
Site Plan
Al00 1"" 20'·0"
AUG 0 3 2015
3
1
Mechanical equipment with
chain link fence surround
4 5
. ~oncrele pavement, refer to S;ivil:
~
~-
6 7
2
c
Concrete loading dock structure
Concrete loading ramp structure
Dumpster area
B'~
.. \
.\
-\ I.-____ ~
Planting area -refer to landscape
Concrete pavement -refer 10 Landscape
3
Exlsbng asphalt parking to remain
Refer to Civil for area of demo
<Ii
G)
U
CU .. a. G) en .. e c
G) ~
G) U Ci.
C O:;! m .. z C ..
C C III ~
0 ._ D:: ~ .. C ... "
C • _ O!
~ »!! G) .. ::I
III:: ~ .-8
(J"
75% DESIGN
Drawing Tilja
'"" ""'"
R""fsions
Number Oe5<:npbon D~Nt
Dr.,""b~
"""'"
Cneckltdby C.....,
0 ••
-.0"
Prcj8dNo
''''''
Con.~n1 Pl'Ojed No
Own&r Project No
Dra'"""'9 No
Memorandum
July 31,2015
SRG
AUh () 3 2iJI5
PROJECT NAME: REVISED DATE; SRG PROJECT NO:
Renton Aerospace Training Center 212033
TO: FROM;
City of Renton Tim Richey
SUBJECT:
Project Narrative for Site Plan Review
DISTRIBUTION:
----------------------------------
ATTACHMENTS:
The following information provides a Project Narrative, addressing #6 on the City of
Renton Site Plan Review Submittal Requirements.
6. Project Narrative: Please provide 12 copies of a clear and concise description of
the proposed project, including the following:
• Project name, size and location of site
Renton Aerospace Training Center, 22,300 gross square-feet at 300 Rainier
Ave, Renton, Washington. The highest point of the building along Rainier
Ave is EL. +75'-4" -about 19 feet above adjacent grade. The highest point
of the building along Perimeter Road is EL. +78' -9" -about 51 feet above
grade.
• Land use permits required for proposed project
The project requires SEPA review, administrative setback variance,
landscape modification, and parking modification. A street vacation will be
requested under a separate letter, drafted by the project's owner's
representative.
• Zoning designation of the site and adjacent properties
The current zoning is 1M -Medium Industrial.
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM • Current use of the site and any existing improvements
The site is currently comprised of a surface parking area for approximately
41 cars, and the former Chamber of Commerce building, presently
unoccupied.
• Special site features (i.e. wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes)
The site includes a steep slope along its east edge, bordering W. Perimeter
Road. The site area of slope affected by the construction is approximately
12,000 sf.
• Statement addressing soil type and drainage conditions
As documented in the Geo-tech report technical memorandum, dated 9
April, 2015, the subsoils include loose fill over competent native soils. Non-
continuous perched groundwater is present near the bottom of the fill and
water-bearing sand lenses are common in native soils. Drainage systems
are recommended at the pile & lagging walls.
• Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development
A new 22,300 GSF building is proposed to provide a training center for
aerospace and manufacturing technologies. The project includes a large
shop space, classrooms, design labs, and administrative space. The project
will utilize the existing surface parking area with minor improvements.
• For plats indicate the proposed number, net density and range of sizes (net
lot area) ofthe new lots
N/A
• Access
Vehicular access is provided by the two existing curb-cuts linking Rainier
Ave to the surface parking area. Pedestrian access is by way of a small
paved plaza with connections to the existing parking and the existing
sidewalk along Rainier Ave. The access design has been done with the
future multi-use trail in mind.
• Proposed off-site improvements (i.e. installation of sidewalks, fire hydrants,
sewer main, etc.)
There are no off-site improvements, and no improvements to Rainer Ave
planned at this time.
• Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the
proposed project
The estimated construction cost is $7,800,000. The total project cost is
$12,500,000.
• Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation
is proposed
Approximately 6,530 Cubic Yards /11,020 tons of existing soil will be
removed. Approximately 1000 Cubic Yards of soil will be imported.
Page 2 of 3
MEMORANDUM • Number, type and size of any trees to be removed
(5) 6" Map cluster
(1) 6" Con.
(1) 8" Mad.
(1) 4" Mad.
(2) 4" & (1) 6" Map cluster
(1) 6" & (2) 8" Pine cluster
(1) 24" Spruce
(1) 20" Spruce
(2) 10" & (1) 12" Map cluster
(1) 6" & (2) 8" Holly cluster
(1) 20" Mad.
(3) 4" & (4) 3" Haw cluster
(1) 6" Split Haw
• Explanation of any land to be dedicated to the City
N/A
• Any proposed job shacks, sales trailers, and/or model homes
N/A
• Any proposed modifications being requested (include written justification)
For projects located within 100 feet of a stream or wetland, please include:
N/A
• Distance in feet from the wetland or stream to the nearest area of work
For projects located within 200-feet of Black River, Cedar River,
Springbrook Creek, May Creek and Lake Washington please include the
following additional information:
N/A
• Distance from closest area of work to the ordinary high water mark.
N/A
• Description of the nature of the existing shoreline
N/A
• The approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and
potential, that will have an obstructed view in the event the proposed
project exceeds a height of 35-feet above the average grade level
N/A
END OF MEMORANDUM
Page 3 of 3
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNi, (
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Print Form Reset Form
Planning Division
LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION
NAME Doug Jacobson PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
Renton Aerospace Training Center
ADDRESS 1055 S Grady Way PROJECTIADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
300 Rainier Ave N. Renton. WA 98057
CITY: Renton ZIP: 98057
TELEPHONE NUMBER (425) 430-7242 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR·S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
Parcel #: 0723059007
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME Jonathan Wilson EXISTING LAND USE(S):
Vacated Chamber of Commerce building
COMPANY (if applicable): Renton Municipal Airport PROPOSED LAND USE(S):
Aerospace Training Center
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
ADDRESS 616 W Perimeter Road, Unit A Employment Area Industrial and Urban Center -North
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
CITY: Renton ZIP: 98057 (if applicable)
NIA
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 430-7477 EXISTING ZONING:
Medium Industrial
CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):
NIA
NAME Ross Widener SITE AREA (in square feet):
65160 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
COMPANY (if applicable): Widener & Associates DEDICATED:
NIA
ADDRESS 10108 32nd Ave W, Suite D
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
N/A
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
CITY: Everett ZIP: 98204 ACRE (if applicable)
N/A
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable)
(425) 503-3629
rwidener@prodigy.net
N/A
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
N/A
1
H :\CE D\Data \Forms-T em plates\Self-Help Handouts\Pla nn ing\Maste r Appl ication.doc Rev: 02/2015
PROJECTINFORMATrIO~N~~(lc~o~n=ti~n=ue~d=j) ______________ ~
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE:
N/A $12,500,000
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): Nt A
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/ A o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL o AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO
BUILDINGS (if applicable): 22,300
0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/ A g GEOLOGIC HAZARD 24451 sq. ft.
NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft.
applicable): 22,300
0 SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft.
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW
PROJECT (if applicable): 72 students/faculty total 0 WETLANDS sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included)
SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION _7_, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE~, IN THE CITY
OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Name/s) , declare under penalty of perjury und'fLlhlllaws of the State of
Washington that I am (please check one) Uthe current owner of the property involved in this application or L..J the authorized
representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein
contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of Owner/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) SS
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and
acknowledge it to be hislher/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument.
Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print):
My appOintment expires:
2
H :\CED\Data \Forms-Templates\Self -Help Handouts\Plan ni ng\M aster Appl ication.doc Rev: 02/2015
Widener & Associates I ran'-,p(lrt~ILi()ll &. 1.11\ jr~ll1lllclllal Plallllill!2
Cayla Morgan
Environmental Protection Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue, SW
Suite 250
Renton, W A 98055
Renton Aerospace Training Center
Section 106 -No Effect Letter
July 17,2015
The City of Renton is proposing to remove the former Renton Chamber of Commerce building located at
300 Rainier Ave N, Renton, W A and replace it with a new two story 23,000 SF Renton Aerospace
Training Center. The facility would include multiple classrooms as well as administrative offices. This
project also includes the installation of a pressure-reducing pump near the airport tower, as well as the
addition ofa short soft-surface trail from the parking lot at the south end of the airport to Airport Way;
both feature locations can be viewed on the attached APE map. The project is located within Section 7 of
Range 5E, and Township 23N in northern Renton. Please refer to the attached vicinity map. Access to and
from the site from two points on Rainier Ave N would remain the same.
Demolition of the old building and construction ofthe new Training Center will require some ground
disturbing activities. Maximum extent of excavation for the construction of the building will be 25 feet.
Trenching for fiber optic cables on the north and south eastern side will be no greater than 6 feet deep. All
other excavation will average less than 3 feet. Total there will be an estimated 7,000 CY of cut and 1000
CY offill. The main haul routes for the project will be Airport Way and Rainier Avenue. This is not
expected to be more than I % of the traffic.
Upon a search ofthe Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP's) W1SAARD
database, it was determined that there are no listed register properties that will be affected within or near
the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE). The APE was submitted to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) on May 19,2015. A follow up site meeting with DAHP and interested tribes
occurred on July I, 2015. During the meeting the attached APE was approved. In addition, the attached
0505 review completed by the City on August 12, 2012 found no cultural resources within a similar APE
to the current APE, and recommended that no further surveyor monitoring would be necessary. The 0505
report's conclusion was based on excavation of subsurface shovel probes and a complete inventory of the
existing buildings. Based on the above discussion with DAHP it was determined that no further survey
activity is needed. Steven Mullen-Moses the Director of Archaeology & Historic Preservation for the
Snoqualmie Tribe responded to the APE request by stating in an email received July 8, 2015 that the tribe
has no substantive concerns with the project APE. The FAA also sought comments from the Nisqually,
Puyallup, and Muckleshoot Tribes, and invited them to the site visit, but did not hear back from them.
On behalf of the City of Renton, we request that the FAA concur with our recommendation of no effect to
historic or cultural resources. Should you have questions, please contact me at 425-503-3629.
Sincerely,
£/fv£fL
Ross Widener
Widener and Associates AUG 03 2Cl5
Widener & Associates I r;lll"p()r\<ltiOI1 &. 1',11\ irol1l1ll'lltul IJlallnilll!
," .. -\ '-', i ,
Cayla Morgan
Environmental Protection Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
1601 Lind Avenue, SW
Suite 250
Renton, W A 98055
Renton Aerospace Training Center
City of Renton
APE
, I'
May 19,2015
The City of Renton is proposing to remove the former Renton Chamber of Commerce
building located at 300 Rainier Ave N, Renton, W A and replace it with a new two story 23,000
SF Renton Aerospace Training Center. The facility would include multiple classrooms as well as
administrative offices. This project also includes the installation of a pressure-reducing pump
near the airport tower, as well as the addition of a short soft-surface trail from the parking lot at
the south end of the airport to Airport way; both feature locations can be viewed on the attached
APE map. The project is located within Section 7 of Range 5E, and Township 23N in northern
Renton. Please refer to the attached vicinity map. Access to and from the site from two points on
Rainier Ave N would remain the same.
Demolition of the old building and construction of the new Training Center will require
some ground disturbing activities. Maximum extent of excavation for the construction of the
building will be 25 feet. Trenching for fiber optic cables on the north and south eastern side will
be no greater than 6 feet deep. All other excavation will average less than 3 feet. Total there will
be an estimated 7,000 CY of cut and 1000 CY of fill. The main haul routes for the project will be
Airport Way and Rainier Avenue. This is not expected to be more than 1% of the traffic.
Upon a search of the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP's)
WISAARD database, it was determined that there are no listed register properties that will be
affected within or near the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE). On behalf of the City of
Renton, we request your assistance in obtaining approval for the APE of this project. Should you
have questions, please contact me at 425-503-3629.
Sincerely,
;( IIvtIL
Ross Widener
Widener and Associates
Vicinity Map
Renton Airport
Aerospace Training Center
City of Rento n
_II:::=--=====~ __ ~ Feet A 0 125 250 500 750
N
Renton Aerospace Training Center
City of Renton
May 19 , 2015
N _c:=_c:===== ___ Feet
A o 125 250 500 750
Photo Map
Renton Aerospace Training Center
City of Renton
May 19,2015
• •
Image 1: View of site from Rainier Ave, looking toward the parking lot to the south ea st .
Image 2: View of parking lot from Rainier Ave, looking North East , the propo sed building for removal is
obscured by the trees on the far left side of the image .
Line shows approximate
location of fiber optic
Image 3: View of bui lding from Perimeter Road , looking so uth west .
PROJECT REVIEW SHEET -EZI
IllS I ORIC & CIII IUR /\!. RLSOl IRCI SRI VII · \\
PROPE RTY / CLI E NT N AME: Fo rm e r Re nto n C ha mb er of Co mm e rce B uilding F U NDI N G
AGE NCY: Co m m unit y Ec o no mic Rev it a li za ti o n Board
Project Applicant:
Conta ct Person:
Address :
City, State:
Phone/ FAX:
E-Mail:
Funding A gency :
O r gani za ti o n :
Address :
C it y , Sta te :
Ph o ne:
C it v o f R e nt o n , Re nt o n M uni c ip a l A ir po rt
Be n Dahl e
6 16 W Pe rim ete r Rd. U nit A
Re nton Zip: 980 57 C ounty: King
425.4 30 .747 6
BDahl e0l,Re nt o nwa.!wv
Co mmunity Eco no mi c Rev it a li zati o n Boa r
PO Box 4 2525
O lympi a . W A Zip: 9 8 504-2525
(360) 725 -3 161
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF WORK TO BE COMPLETED
(Be as detailed as pOSSible to avoid haVing to provide additional Information)
(gJ Provide a detailed description of the proposed project:
Th e fo rm er Renton C ha mber o f Co mm e rc e B uildin g is p ro posed fo r re pl a c e m ent utili z in g fund s
fro m the Co mmunity Ec o n o mi c Rev it a li zat ion B oa rd, Ec on o mi c Devel opme nt , M ic ro Co mmunit y
Rev it a li zati o n a nd Co mmunity Rev it a li zati o n g ra nt prog ram. T he s tru c ture was o ri g in a ll y
const ru c te d in 196 1, w ith s ig nifi cant a lt erati ons of th e b uildin g ta kin g p la c e in 19 70 (see be low).
Th e woo d-fr a m e d s tru c ture is o utd a ted a nd un s uit e d fo r th e p ro p osed re -u se pl a n as a aerospace
tr a inin g fac ili ty. T he prese nt prop osa l wo uld util ize th e c urre nt pr o pe rt y to buil d a ne w s tructure
fo r educ at io na l u se by Re nt o n T ec hni ca l Co ll ege , o pe rati ng as Re nt o n Aeros pace T ra inin g Ce nte r.
No n ew pro pe rt y or ri g ht-of-way is ne ce ssar y fo r th e p ro posa l.
~ De s cribe the exi s ting project site condition s :
T he pro pose d building p roj ec t is locate d o n C ity of Re nto n Pro pe rt y in Kin g Co unt y , Was hin g to n .
S pe cifi call y, it is lo cated in th e NE WI. of th e N W Y. o f Se cti o n 18 , Towns hip 23 N orth , Ra n ge 5
East, Will a m ette Me ridian , o n th e R ent o n, W A (19 89), 7 .S-minute U .S. Geo lo gi ca l S ur vey
(USGS) q ua dr a n g le (F ig ur e 1). T he proj e ct is locate d in a hi g hl y deve lo pe d comme rc ia l and
in d us tr ia l use a rea o n a 30 foo t stee pl y c ut terrace ove rl ooki n g Re nt o n Ai rp o rt a nd a fo rm e r, in -
fill ed e mbayme nt of La k e Was hin g to n w he re th e Bl ac k Ri ve r a n d Ced a r Ri ve r co nflu x (Fi g ures
2-3). T he pro pe rt y co ns is ts o f th e t wo -s to ry fo rm e r c h a mb e r buildin g, a la rge paved pa rkin g lot
a nd a s m a ll pocke t pa rk a t th e south e rn e nd of th e property w hic h is no t p ro pose d fo r an y re -u se
(P ho to 1). A sm a ll amphitheatre w a s re m oved p revio usly fro m th e par k . T he buildin g foo tprint
co ns is ts o f a la rge e xc avati o n fo r a d ay li ght base me nt , a ll o win g fo r o nl y a s in g le story a bove th e
prese nt , s urro undin g, ground surface .
A fi e ld in ves ti gation for the Proj ect w as co ndu c te d by Gart h Baldwin on Au g us t 2 4 , 201 2 in cl e ar
a nd s unn y weath e r condition s. Fi e ld in vesti ga ti o n include d ped estri an s urv ey a nd limited
sub s urfa ce testin g (Pho to 2 ). Pe d estrian sur vey co nsiste d of w alkin g th e p ro pe rt y to in vesti gat e
a ny po t e nti a l sur fac e featur es th a t w o uld indic a te th e presence of an y buri e d a nd/o r a boveg round
hi storic reso ur ce s . Subs urfa ce testing in vol v e d e x cavatin g s ho ve l p ro bes (S Ps) in re present a ti ve
locati o ns a t th e property t o d ete rmine th e prese nce/a bsen ce of bur ie d c ultu ra l m a te ri al s and/o r
deposits a nd to co nfirm loca l so il profil es (Figure 2). S Ps were sized a pp rox im a te ly 40 -50 c m in
di am e te r and excavate d to a d epth o f w he re ste ril e so il s w ere ve rifi ed (Ph otos 3-4). Excavat ed so il s
we re passe d throu g h qua rt e r-in c h m esh ha rd wa re sc reen and in specte d fo r ev id e nc e of cultura l
m a ter ia ls. De ta il s regardin g th e locati o n , d e pth , soi ls, an d ge nera l se tt in g were reco rd e d fo r each
SP pri or t o bac kfillin g (Tabl e 1).
T he so il s w ithin th e project area are m a pp e d as be lon g in g t o th e Indi a n o la Se ri es (S nyd e r, et a l.
19 73). T he Indi a no la seri es is ma d e up of we ll dr a in e d so il s which we re fo rm ed in a co nife ri o us
fo rest co nt ex t . T he so il s e nco unte re d durin g s ub s ur fa c e tes tin g m atch th ose d esc rib ed fo r thi s
locati o n . T he so il is d escribe d as sand y, s tr a tifi e d , rec ess io nal g laci a l drift . as be in g co mp osed of
a n upp e r -75 c m (30") o f bro wn , d a rk ye ll ow ish -bro wn , and li g ht o li ve bro wn loam y fin e sand.
Th e so il is co m posed of g la ci a l drift . Co nstitu e nt s (ge ne ra ll y) include d p oorl y so rt ed sand , p e bbl es ,
co bbl es a nd b o uld e rs (Pho t o 5). No c ultura l ma te ri a ls we re e nc o un te re d in a ny of th e thr ee probes
excavate d .
Photo I. View north from the parking lot toward the building entra nce (and Lake Washington beyond).
Photo 2. A "iew so uth toward SP2, in process, and the north entrance of the building.
Photo 3. SPI contents, dramatic amounts of historic trash and a mixed soil profile suggest it was
previously disturbed.
Photo 4. SP3, above, was similar in content to SPI without the constituent historic trash.
Photo 5. The common constituents of the subsurface profile were poorly sorted rounded to subround
rocks in a very fine sand matrix.
T he building is locat ed on a formerl y undul a ting te rrace la nd form composed of sa nd y g lac ia l drift.
Loggi n g. far min g and indus try have dramatically a lt e red th e lan dform as is illu s tr ated in Figures
3 -4 a n d thro ug h s ub s urface excavati ons at th e property. T h e U.S. AmlY was largely re s po nsi bl e
fo r t hi s a lt e rati o n w he n. for u se in the WWII war effort. they fi ll e d in t he prese nt co nfi g ur a ti o n of
th e Ren t o n A irp ort to build B-29 Bombers . T he pre se nt projec t locatio n was cleared a nd leveled.
w hil e a la rge portion of th e lower a irp o rt p ro pe rty. includin g t he former cou rse of th e Black River.
was fi ll ed w it h material s from th e upp e r te rr ace a nd hill s id e.
T he b uildin g a t 289 Perimiter Road /300 Rainier Aven ue So uth was co ns tru c ted in 196 1 as t he
o ri g in a l Re nt o n C ha mber of Co mme rce buil ding . The building was des ig ned by Jo hn st o n-
Campa ne ll a A lA + Associates of Re nt o n, W ashin g to n . T h e building was co n stru c t ed as a s in g le
s to ry 56 -foo t by 40-foot s tru cture o n th e so uth weste rn ed gc of th e Re nt o n Muni c ip a l A irp o n. It
was repo rt ed ly constructed at a ve ry low cost. us in g inexpen s ive m ater ia ls a nd co ns tru ct io n
techniqu es. However. it s d es ig n is dis tin ct i ve. a nd representative of mid-ce ntur y bu ildin g s ty les.
The di s tin ct ive roo fline above th e east a nd wes t e levation s mimic th e sa wto o th roo flin e of th e
WWII e ra Boeing manufacturin g p lant that it faces to the east, across th e a irp ort run way. A nd th e
north and so uth e ntries o ri g inall y sa w parabo li c roo flin es. Unu s ual fo ur-li g ht di a mo nd windows.
w ith o ne a luminum casement o pe nin g pro v ide li g ht o n th e west, s treet-s id e , fa~adc . be neath eac h
gab le p eak . The C h ambe r of Co mm erce bui lding was o ri g inall y designed w ith a n ex pa ns ive
o b se rva ti o n d eck that spann e d th e e nti re eas t fa9a de and most of th e north a nd so uth facade s .
accessed by t wo se t s of s li ding doo rs o n th e east fa~ade , w hi ch cap it a li ze d o n the views of the
a irp o rt. Because of structural d efic ie nci es , th e obse r va tion deck was removed and th e s lidin g doors
were replaced w ith v in y l sas h c irca 2002 . In th e 1970s. a m ajo r a dditi o n was built at th e prim a ry
(south) entry, which highly modified the building 's design and materialsAlthough the building
exhibits some distinctive characteristics of a mid-century municipal building, it is not
recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP because it lacks integrity of de sign , material s,
workmanship , and feeling.
[8J Describe the proposed ground disturbing activities:
Ground alteration s wou ld likely be contained to the previously di st urbed so ils associated with the
construction phases of the extant structure.
[8J Check if building(s) will be altered or demolished. If so please complete a DAHP
Determination of Eligibility "EZ2 form" using our on-line Historic Property
Inventory Database for each building affected by the proposed project.
PLEASE ATTACH A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF A 7.5 SERIES
USGS QUAD MAP AND OUTLINE THE PROJECT INPACT AREA.
USGS Quad maps are available on-line at ~
Project Location
Figure 1. USGS Quad Map of project site.
Sec . 7. 18T23 N R5E
Vlnllamette B&M
King County, Washington
Renton (1994)
1 :24000 USGS Quadrangte , 280 560
UTMNAD83Z10N :==::i~~~~~ Tierra ROW. 2 01 2
o '.
Figure 2 Shovel probes illustrated on the relevant USGS Quad map.
Table I. S hovel Probe data
S hovel Probe I
eM Below S urface Sediments Co mm e nt s
0-17 No sod, old driveway po ss ibly . Light bra\-vn to tan , Modern tra s h. pl as tic container
very rock y( < 3 em diameter). com pa cte d. fra g me nt
17-38 Ye llow , variegated compact , co bbl es (.::: 9c m No cultural materi als diameter), s ilt y c laye y s and
No res. UTM 10 , N AD83 . E05557 14!N5373 092.
Sh()\'el P r obe 2
e M Below S urfa ce Sedim e nt s Co mm e nt s
Brown topsoi l. sa nd y loam without pebb les.
0-30 Sediment is moderatel y de nse an d dry Int e rfa ce No c ultural material s with the s ub soil is abrupt a nd lin ear . Loose
compact ion.
3 0-70 Ye ll ow-gray variegated very fin e si lt y san d. No cu ltu ral mate rial s
No res : UTM I 0 , NA D8 3. E0 5556 87!N5373 I 77.
Shovel Probe 3
e M Below S ur face Sediment s Co mm e nt s
Brown topsoil. sa nd y loam without pe bble s.
0-30 Sediment is modera tely de nse and dry . Int erface No cultura l m aterial s
\\-'ith th e sub so il is abrupt and lin ea r.
30-46 Gra y grave l sand matrix with rounded pebble s to --2 No cultural mat e ri a l. e m. No s ilt , pOSS. fl ood uravel.
46 -62 Yell ow -gray variegated ver y fine silt y sand . No c ultur a l mater ia ls
Nores. U TM 10 , NA D8 3 , E0555662!N53 73088.
11 • ..
Figure 3. An adaptation of the 1903 T -Sheet approximating the subject property.
Figure 4 A portion o f a 1936 aerial ph ot o, courtesy o f C it y of Re nton , adapted to illu s trate the project locat io n .
••• • ••••••••••••• ••••• •••• ••••••••••••• • •••••••• •••• • •••••••••• •••••••••••• ••••• • ••••••• •
.-Jrchae%gist. /JANf'
Mail this form to: Dt;pa rt m c nt of Archaeo log y and I-l istoril.: Pr t;sc rv ati on
Robert \\i hi tlalll. Ph . I).
1063 S. Capitol WHY. Sui te 106
P.O. Box 4X 34J
O lvmpia. II' A 98504 -X 343
rob \\ hi(l;lI1l (/ Jalln. \\ i1.!..!O\
to :
State
(360) 586-3080
(Within 30 days DA J-I? will mail th e ir opinion ba c k to you.)
DEPARTMENT OF COMIV._.JTY
AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the env·lronmental
impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if
available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the
probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to
further analyze the proposal.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: ~
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may
need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may
use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and
not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional
studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the
SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help
describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this
checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably
related to determining ifthere may be significant adverse impact.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEAD AGENCIES:
Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated
aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first
but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold
determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the
completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
1
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\envchecklist,doc Rev; 02/2015
•
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: ~
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs). complete the
applicable parts of sections A and B even though questions may be answered "does not apply".
In addition the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project",
"applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proponent", and "affected
geographic area" respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part
B -Environmental Elements -that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the
proposal. For help go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html
A. BACKGROUND ~
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ~
Renton Aerospace Training Center
2. Name of applicant: ~
Jonathan Wilson -Airport Manager
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: ~
Renton Airport I Clayton Scott Field
616 W Perimeter Road. Unit A
Renton, WA 98057
Office: (425) 430-7477
4. Date checklist prepared: ~
6/25/15
5. Agency requesting checklist: ~
City of Renton
6, Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): ~
Construction is planned to start in December 2015, substantial completion is
scheduled for September 2016,
2
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\envchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
7, Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain, ~
None are proposed currently,
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal. ~
Report of Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Aerospace Training Center.
(November 8,2012)
Cultural resources report
Drainage plan and report
Landscape plan and report
9, Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. ~
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently in the process of
reviewing the proposal under NEPA
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known,
~
Section 106
05-05 Compliance
SEPA
NEPA
Land Use
Building Permit
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of
the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on
project description.) ~
The project proposes to remove the former Renton Chamber of Commerce
and replace it with the new two-story, 23,000 SF Renton Aerospace Training
Center building.
3
H :\CE D\Data IFo rms-T emplates\5elf-Hel p Ha ndout,\Pla nningle nvchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township,
and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you
are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist. ~
The project will be located at 300 Rainier Ave, on the site of the vacated Renton
Chamber of Commerce. This site is located in Section 7&18 of range 5E, and
township 23N in northern Renton.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ~
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site ~
(check or circle one):
Flat, D
rolling, D
hilly, D
steep slopes, [{]
mountainous,D
other _____ _
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? ~
The average inclination of the steepest slope on the site is 75%.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in
removing any of these soils. ~
The site is underlain by sand, gravel, and hard silt.
4
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\envchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.~
The slope on site, according the the geotechnical report performed by Soil &
Environmental Engineers, INC. is relatively stable, but is at a high risk of
sliding during a strong earthquake.
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area
of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. ~
Demolition of the old building and construction of the new building will require ground disturbing activities on .89
acres (38,935 SF). The maximum extent of excavation for construction of the new building will be 25 feet.
Trenching for fiber optic cables will be no greater than 6 feet. all other excavation will average less than 3 feet. The
estimated total amount of cuUfili will be 7000 CY and 1000 CY, respectively. The source of fill is undetermined at
this time, pending selection of a general contractor.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
~
Erosion could occur as a result of clearing/construction. Erosion control
BMPs including but not limited to silt fence, straw wattle, and straw mulch will
be utilized to minimize sediment transfer off site during clearing/construction.
Erosion is not expected to occur as a result of building use.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? ~
About 72% (0.446 acres) of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces
after project construction.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
2. AIR
~
Erosion and sediment control BMPs will be implemented during
clearing/construction.
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction.
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and
give approximate quantities if known. ~
During construction. exhaust from construction equipment would be generated when the
equipment was operating. Dust would be created when clearing and grubbing activities occurred
during dry periods. These emissions would be temporary, only occurring during project
construction activities. No significant emissions are expected to result once the project is completed.
5
H :\CE D\Data\Forms-Templates \Self -He Ip Ha ndouts\Pla nn i ng\envcheckl ist,doc Rev: 02/2015
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe. ~
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: ~
During construction, measures will be taken to limit the amount of idling time
of construction equipment and vehicles. Erosion control BMPs such as
spraying exposed ground with water, will be implemented during
clearing/construction.
3. WATER
a. Surface Water: ~
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. ~
No, there are no surface water bodies on/in the immediate vicinity of the site.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. ~
N/A
3) Estimate the amount offill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source offill material. ~
N/A
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ~
No.
6
H : \ CE D\Data \F 0 rms-T em plates \Se If -H e I p Han douts \PI ann i ng\e nyc hec kl ist. doc Rev: 02/2015
5) Does the proposal lie within a lOO-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. I.b.s@l
No.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. I.b.s@l
No.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If
so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities
withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. I.b.s@l
According to the geotechnical report prepared for the site, a perched groundwater table is located on site, the
depth of which would depend on season and precipitation. Therefore, groundwater may be encountered during
trenching for the fiber optic lines. If dewatering is necessary, water will be treated according to applicable
applicable federal, state, and local laws, and then discharged to storm water or sanitary sewer systems.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals. ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. I.b.s@l
N/A
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
7
H :\CE D\Data \Forms-Templates \Self-He Ip Ha ndouts\Pla nning\e nvchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.l.I::@Q}
Storm water runoff is the only source of runoff known in the area. Water on site flows into a
catchment basin in the parking lot which is transmitted through the airport's storm water
collection system into the Cedar River. Add~ionally, water may flow to storm water and sanitary
sewer systems on Rainier Ave N and Perimeter Road. A drainage plan and report will be
prepared as part of the proposal.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.l.I::@Q}
Petroleum products are used to fuel and maintain construction equipment so there is a risk of soil
contamination. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan will be developed and to
minimize the risk of contamination. Along with the SPCC plan, BMPs relating to spill prevention, control,
and clean-up will be utilized. No other discharges of waste to ground or surface waters is expected.
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of
the site? If so, describe.
Drainage patterns are expected to remain relatively the same. A drainage
plan and report will be developed as part of the proposal.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage
pattern impacts, if any:
During construction there may be temporary impacts to water quality. These
will be mitigated through development of an SPCC plan, the use of erosion
and sediment control BMPs, and water pollution prevention/control/clean-up
BMPs.
4. PLANTS l.I::@Q}
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: l.I::@Q}
[Z] deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
E-evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
~shrubs
~rass
ilpasture
ilcrop or grain
ilorchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.
ilwet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
8
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\envchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
ilwater plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
ilother types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? l.b..@!Qj
Landscaped vegetation on site will be altered or removed and replaced per
the conceptual landscape plan that will be developed in accordance with
RMC 4-8-120D.12. 11 trees will be removed around the existing building.
c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.l.b..@!Qj
None are known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any: l.b..@!Qj
All existing vegetation outside the clearing and grubbing limits would be preserved. The clearing
and grubbing limits will be surveyed and staked prior to construction. Additionally, a landscape
plan is being prepared to replace and enhance the vegetation that is removed during clearing
and grubbing.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus)
English ivy (Hedera helix)
Knotweed (spp.)
Butterfly Bush (Buddleja davidii)
Bindweed
Poison Hemlock (COnium maculatum)
Old Man's Beard (Clematis vitalba)
5. ANIMALS
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: l.b..@!Qj
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: hawk, eagle, songbirds
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ____________ _
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _________ _
b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.l.b..@!Qj
No critical habitats for threatened or endangered species are within the
project site.
9
H :\CED\Data \Forms-T emplates\Setf-Help Handouts\Pla nning\e nvchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. [b§!Q].
Yes, the site is located within the Pacific flyway.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance Wildlife, if any: [b§!Q].
An spec plan will be developed and the appropriate BMPs will be utilized to
minimize environmental impacts. No specific measures to preserve wildlife are
proposed.
e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
None are known.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc. [b§!Q].
Electricity and natural gas will be used for lighting and heating in the
completed building.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe. [b§!Q].
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: [b§!Q].
The facility is being designed to meet or exceed the requirements of ASH RAE standards, the
requirements of the Washington State Energy Code; the project may pursue additional energy
conservation measures in pursuit of U.S. Green Building Council LEED Silver Certification.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result ofthis proposal?
If so, describe. [b§!Q].
10
H :\CED\Data \Forms-Templates\Self-Help Ha ndouts\Pla nnlng\e nvcheckllst.doc Rev: 02/2015
There will be concrete work and heavy construction equipment used, so
there is the potential for spill of concrete or petroleum products,
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.
No sites with reported contamination are present on site, or directly adjacent
to the site. Since 1961, this site has been the site of the Renton Chamber of
Commerce, therefore, unknown contamination on site is not probable.
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas
transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
None are known.
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced
during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the
operating life of the project.
Concrete and petroleum products may be used and stored during the
project.
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No special emergency services would be required upon project completion.
Local emergency services would be accessed as necessary during project
activities.
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
A SPCC plan will be developed and approved prior to construction. Spill cleanup and
containment materials will be on site at all times. All waste materials will be fully contained
and disposed of off site in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)? ~
The project is located in a highly developed area. Traffic from Rainier Ave
North and the Renton Municipal Airport are the two largest contributors to
noise on the site.
11
H :\CE D\Data \Fo rms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts \Plann ing\envchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Ib§Q]
Temporary noise increases due to the operation of construction equipment are expected
during normal business hours. There are no long-term noise increases anticipated since
the project would not increase traffic or create a source of noise during operation.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Ib§Q]
Construction will occur during normal business hours.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect
current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Ib§Q]
Currently. the site has been vacated. though previously it was the site of the Renton Chamber of
Commerce. Nearby properties are mainly commercial or industrial. The project would not affect current
land uses on nearby or adjacent properties.
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so,
describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will
be converted to other uses as a result ofthe proposal, if any? If resource lands have not
been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted
to nonfarm or non-forest use? Ib§Q]
No the project site has not been used as working farmlands or working forest
land.
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land
normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of
pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site. Ib§Q]
Currently, the former Renton Chamber of Commerce building (2972 SF) and
associated parking lot are the only structures on site.
12
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\envchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? ~
The former Renton Chamber of Commerce building will be demolished to
make room for the proposed Renton Aerospace Training Center.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? ~
The site is zoned as Medium Industrial.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? ~
The site is designated as Employment Area Industrial and Urban Center -North.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? ~
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so,
specify.~
The slope on the eastern side of the site has been designated by the City of
Renton as a "sensitive and protected" slope according to COR Maps.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? l!J.§!QJ
Approximately 72 students and faculty will occupy the completed facility.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? ~
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: ~
N/A
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any: ~
The project is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans.
13
H :\CED\Data \Forms-T em plates\Self -Help Handouts \Plan ning\envchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and
forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any:
N/A
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.l.b.@!Q}
N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.l.b.@!Q}
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: l.b.@!Q}
N/A
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s). not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed? l.b.@!Q}
The highest point on the proposed roof is elevation 78'-9" which is 51 feet above
Perimeter Road. The principal exterior building materials are coated steel siding
and glazing.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? l.b.@!Q}
No views are expected to be negatively impacted. Views of the airport from Rainier
Ave N will be altered slightly due to the larger building footprint than existing.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: l.b.@!Q}
The new building is designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
14
H:\CED\Data\Forms·Templates\Self·Help Handouts\Planning\envchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occu r? I.b.§QJ
The proposed project will not produce any significant additional light or glare.
If any occurs, it will be at night due to indoor and outdoor illumination.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
I.b.§QJ
The project will not produce enough light or glare for it to be a safety hazard
or interfere with views.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? I.b.§QJ
The Renton Municipal Airport is located next to the site which would be the
largest source of light or glare nearby.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: I.b.§QJ
Full cut-off fixtures on all exterior lights are proposed as a part of the project.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
I.b.§QJ
The Kiwanis Bicentennial Air Park is located adjacent to the project site. This
park has scenic views of the airport and Cascade Mountains.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. I.b.§QJ
The proposed project would not displace any existing recreational uses, however
there may be temporary impacts associated with construction on the park.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: ~
15
H :\CED\Data \Forms-T emplates\Self-He Ip Ha ndouts\Pla nning\e nvchecklist.doc Rev:02/201S
None are proposed,
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a, Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45
years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers
located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe, Illiill2l
The former Renton Chamber of Commerce is older than 45 years old,
however it is not recommended as eligible for listing.
b, Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Is there any material
evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any
professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources, Illiill2l
A cultural resources report will be prepared to check for the presence of significant
resources on site,
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic
resources on or near the project site, Examples include consultation with tribes and the
department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic
maps, GIS data, etc, Illiill2l
Consultation with DAHP and interested tribes, cultural resources report,
d, Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and
disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be
required.
Consultation with DAHP and interested tribes (05-05 compliance), and cultural resources
report (section 106) will be prepared to avoid disturbance of cultural resources.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Illiill2l
Currently, access to Rainier Ave N is provided through the existing parking lot at two
points, one at the north end, and one at the south, The proposal will condense these two
points into one point of access towards the middle of the parking lot.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally
describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Illiill2l
Yes, the area is served by public transit. The closest bus stop is located only
two blocks away,
16
H : \ CE D \Dala \ Fo rms· T em p lales \Se If -Help Ha ndo uls \P la n n i ng\e nvchec kl iSI, d oc Rev; 02/2015
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project
proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? ~
The proposal will not eliminate any of the 41 parking spaces currently
available.
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian,
bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private). ~
The proposal does not require any new improvements to existing roads, streets,
pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities beyond improvements to
driveways.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe . .lb.rlI:U
The site is located on eastern side of the Renton Municipal Airport property.
No impacts to airspace are anticipated.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or
proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the
volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or
transportation models were used to make these estimates? ~
No significant increase it traffic is expected to take place as a result of this
proposal.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and
forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
No.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: ~
None are proposed.
1S. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.~
17
H : \ CED \ Data \Fo rms-T e m p la tes \Se If -H el p Han dout, \P la n n i ng\e nvc h ec k I i'l.d oc Rev: 02/2015
Increased need for public services is not expected as ~ result of this
proposal. The proposed facility itself is a school, other existing public
services should be adequate to serve the project site during construction and
operation.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.~
None are proposed.
16. UTILITIES
a. Check or circle utilities currently available at the site:~
electricity, 0
natural gas, 0
water, 0.f'
refuse service, 0
telephone, 0
sanitary sewer, 0
septic system, 0
other ____________________________ _
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might
be needed. I.b.@!2l
Trenching for fiber optic cables will be performed as a part of the project.
Additionally, a pressure reducing valve (PRV) will be installed at the airport
tower to provide additional flow to the water main servicing the site.
c. SIGNATURE I.b.@!2l
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Proponent Signature: __________________________________________ _
Name of Signee (printed): ______________________________________ __
Position and Agency/Organization: ________________________________ _
Date Submitted: __________________ __
18
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\envchecklist.doc Rev: 02/2015
PREAPPlICATION MEETING FOR
RENTON AEROSPACE TRANING CENTER
PRE 15-000030
CITY OF RENTON
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
February 12, 2015
Contact Information:
Planner: Rocale Timmons, 425.430.7219
Public Works Plan Reviewer: Kamran Yazdidoost, 425.430.7382
Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430.7024
Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430.7290
Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider
giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the
project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use
and/or environmental permits.
Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and
schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before
making all of the required copies.
The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on
the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The
applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the
proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project
submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or
concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director,
Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development
Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council).
FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ....... <:it"n!' -------M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
DATE: February 12, 2015
TO:
FROM:
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector
SUBJECT: Renton Aerospace Training Center
1. The preliminary fire flow is 2,500 gpm. A minimum of one hydrant is
required within 150-feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are
required within 300-feet of the structure. One hydrant shall be within 50-
feet of the required fire department connection. It appears adequate fire
flow is available in this area.
2. Fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $0.45
per square foot of commercial space. This fee is paid at time of building
permit issuance. Credit will be granted for the removal of the existing
building.
3. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout
the building. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department.
Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser room. Fully
addressable and full detection is required for the fire alarm system.
4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-
feet of all points on the building. Fire lane sign age required for the on site
roadway. Required turning radius are 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside.
Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Roadways shall support a
minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading.
5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire
planning purposes.
6. The building shall comply with the City of Renton Emergency Radio
Coverage ordinance. Testing shall verify both incoming and outgoing
minimum emergency radio signal coverage. If inadequate, the building shall
be enhanced with amplification equipment in order to meet minimum
coverage. Separate plans and permits are required for any proposed
amplification systems.
7. Applicant shall provide a complete Hazardous Material Inventory
Statement prior to building permit issuance. Use of City of Renton form or
equivilant is required.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 2015
Rocale Timmons
Kamran Yazdidoost, Plan Reviewer
Renton Aerospace Training Center
300 Rainier Ave S
PRE 15-000030
NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-
binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. Review
comments may also need to be revised based on site planning, code changes, and other design changes
required by City staff or made by the applicant.
I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced proposal. The following comments are
based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant.
The proposed development is within the City of Renton's 196 pressure zone water service area.
There is an existing 12-inch water main in on the west side of Rainier Ave N and also a 12-inch water
main in on the west side of West Perimeter Road. The maximum flow rate of the water system in this
area is limited to 2,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure due to restrictions from smaller pipes feeding the
system.
The static water pressure on the Rainier Ave N side of the building (at floor elevation 56 ft.) is
approximately 60 psi and on the West Perimeter Rd side of the building (at floor elevation 31 feet) is
approximately 70 psi.
There currently is a3/4-inch meter serving the existing building on the property from the 12-inch water
main on West Perimeter Rd.
A minimum of 7-foot of horizontal separation shall be maintained between the existing 12-inch water
line and the footing, foundation or wall of the proposed building. Existing thrust blocks and bearing soil
behind the water line must not be disturbed otherwise the concrete blocks must be re-poured.
According to Renton Fire Department review comments, the preliminary fire flow demand for the
proposed building is 2,500 gpm based on a fully fire sprinklered building. Since the existing water
system in the vicinity of this project has a limited capacity of 2,000 gpm, the following additional water
main improvements will be required to increase the system capacity to provide the fireflow demand of
2,500gpm.
Option 1:
Replacement of a 150-ft section of existing 8-inch water line across Airport Way S from Lake Ave S to W.
Perimeter Rd with a new 12-inch water line.
Or Option 2:
Installation of a 10-inch pressure reducing valve (PRV) assembly in an underground vault to be located in
the vicinity of the parking lot by the current airport tower to allow additional flow to come from the 12-
inch water main in the 320-pressure zone and to feed the existing 12-inch 196-zone water main in W.
Perimeter Road.
And:
1. Installation of fire sprinkler stub with a detector double check valve assembly (DDCVA) for backflow
prevention. The DDCVA shall be installed in an outside underground vault per City standard plan no.
360.2. The DDCVA may be installed inside the building sprinkler room if it meets the City's standard plan
no. 360.5.
2. Installation of additional hydrant(s) as required by Renton Fire Prevention Dept.
3. Installation of domestic water meter with a reduced backflow prevention assembly (RPBA). The RPBA
shall be installed behind the meter and inside a heated enclosure ("hot-box") per City standard plan.
Sizing of the meter shall be done per Uniform Plumbing Code meter sizing criteria.
4. Installation of landscape irrigation meter and double check valve assembly (DCVA).
5. Civil plans for the water main improvements will be required and must be prepared by a registered
professional engineer in the State of Washington.
6. The development is subject to water system development charges and meter installation fees based
on the sizes of the meters and of the fire sprinkler feed. Credit will be given to the existing connection.
Sanitary Sewer
i-Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in W perimeter
Road. There is an existing side sewer connected to the existing building. The existing sewer stub must be
capped before demolition. New building can be connected to the existing sewer stub in W perimeter
Road.
2-System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new water meter. Credit will be given to
the existing connection.
Storm Drainage
1. There is a drainage conveyance system in W perimeter Road.
2. A drainage report complying with the City adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City
Amendments will be required. Based on the City's flow control map, the site lies within the Peak Rate
Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions). Refer to Figure 1.1.2.A -Flow chart for determining
the type of drainage review required in the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual
Amendment. Stormwater BMPs applicable to the development must be provided. The drainage report
must account for all the improvements provided by the project. Stormwater improvements based on
the drainage report study will be required to be provided by the developer.
3. A drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall
comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the 2009 City of Renton
Amendments to the KCSWDM, Chapter 1 and 2. All core and any special requirements shall be contained
in the report.
4. A geotechnical report for the site is required. Information on the water table and soil permeability
with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options with typical designs for the site from
the geotechnical engineer shall be submitted with the application.
5. Surface water system development fees of $0.540 per square foot of new impervious surface will
apply. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit.
6. A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required if clearing and grading of
the project exceeds one acre.
Transportation!Street
1. This project fronts Rainier Ave S. Frontage improvements along Rainier Av will be constructed
under a transportation improvement project which requires minimum of 22 feet ROW/clear from
existing cement concrete curb to construct 8-foot planter strip, 12-loot sldewa /bike path and 2·loot
behind sidewalk. <S\t,iVl. lot' \"": \t\t%
2. Transportation impact fees of $1.67 per square foot of new impervious surface will apply. These fees
are payable prior to building permit issuance.
3. 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
I periods. A peak hour volume 0120 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.
l -
4. All utilities serving the site are required to be undergrounded.
General Comments
1. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan
submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a
licensed Civil Engineer.
2. Separate permit and fees will be required for the water meter installation, side sewer connection and
storm water connection.
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 12, 2015
TO: Pre-Application File No. 15-000030
FROM: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Renton Aerospace Training Center
General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-
referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting
issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant
and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information
contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official
decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator,
Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City
Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other
design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to
review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are
available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall
or online at www.rentonwa.gov
Project Proposal: The subject property is located at 300 Rainier Avenue. The project is located
at the Renton Municipal Airport. The Airport site totals 167 acres in area and is located within
the Medium Industrial (1M) zone. The pre-application packet indicates that the proposal is to
remove the existing building and build a new two-story 23,000 SF Renton Aerospace Training
Center. The facility would include multiple classrooms and high bays large enough to include
large plane parts such as wings and fuselages. In addition to the classrooms administrative
offices would be provided. It appears access to the site would remain the same with two access
points via Rainier Ave N. Additionally, the proposal would maintain the existing parking area.
Current Use: The subject site used to be the location of the Renton Chamber of Commerce. The
existing building is proposed to be removed.
Zoning: The property is located within the Employment Area Industrial (EAI) land use
designation and the Medium Industrial (1M) zoning designation. Trade or vocational schools are
outright permitted uses within the 1M zone.
Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-130A, "Development
Standards for Industrial Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application
(noted as "1M standards" herein).
h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\2015 preapps\15-000030.rocale\15-000030 lim renton
aerospace training centerl.doc
Renton Aerospace Training Center, PRE15-000030
Page2of6
February 12, 2015
Minimum Lot Size. Width and Depth -There are no minimum requirements for lot width or
depth within the 1M zone, however, there is a minimum lot size requirement of 35,000 square
feet which is not applicable to the proposal.
Lot Coverage -There is no minimum lot coverage requirement within the 1M zone.
Setbacks -Setbacks are the distance between the building and the property line or any private
access easement. The required setbacks in the 1M zone are as follows: 20 feet for a front yard;
zero for the rear yard; and zero for the interior side yards. Based on the provided application
materials and comments from the Citv's Property Services Division. the existing building Is
iocated in the right-of-way. The provided project narrative identified a street vacation would
be requested. !f a street vacation is approved by Renton City Council, the above setbacks would
be assessed from the new front property line. The right-of-way vacated would be determined
on the right-of-way needed for the Rainier Ave N street improvement project.
If resulting setback is less than 20-feet the proposal would either be required to be revised to
comply with the 20-foot front yard setback or an Administrative Front Yard Setback Variance
would be required to be requested and approved. If a variance is requested compliance with
the following criteria would be required to be demonstrated.
a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the
variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and
the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of
rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under
identical zone classification;
b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which
subject property is situated;
c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
property is situated;
d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
Building Height -There is no maximum building height requirement within the I M zone.
Although the subject site is located within the Airport influence area, Safety 20ne 5 "Sideline
Approach/Departure Zane". Height is restricted in this area by the FAR Part 77 surface area,
as such the applicant shall verify at time of land use application and building permit that the
height of the proposed structure does nat penetrate the FAR Part 77 surface area.
Screening -Screening must be provided for all surface-mounted and roof top utility and
mechanical equipment. The building permit application will need to include elevations and
details for the proposed methods of screening.
Refuse and Recycling Areas -Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements of RMC
4-4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards" (enclosed). For office, educational and
institutional developments a minimum of 2 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building
gross floor area shall be provided for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 4 square feet
per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas with
a total minimum area of 100 square feet.
Renton Aerospace Training Center, PRE15-000030
Page 3 016
February 12, 2015
Refuse and Recycling information as not provided with the application. This information shall
be provided at building permit application.
Landscaping -New development shall comply with the City of Renton Landscape requirements.
Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered bV structures,
required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-
resistant vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious areas within
the propertv boundaries be landscaped. The minimum on-site landscape width required along
street frontages is 10 feet, except where reduced through the site plan development review
process.
All parking lots are required to have perimeter landscaping. Surface parking lots with more than
14 stalls shall be landscaped with interior parking lot landscaping. The proposed parking lot
would have 46 parking stalls; as such 15 SF of landscaping is required per parking stall for
interior parking lot landscaping. Based on the provided site plan, it appears perimeter parking
lot landscaping is proposed; however no interior parking lot landscaping was shown.
Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for additional general and specific
landscape requirements (enclosed). A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis
meeting the requirements in RMC 4-8-120D.12, shall be submitted at the time of application
for building permit application.
Fences -If the applicant intends to install any fences as part of this project, the location must be
designated on the landscape plan. A fence detail should also be included on the plan as well.
ParkinI'! -The following ratios would be applicable to the site'
Use Emp./o't,ees & Students Ratio Required Spaces
Colleges and Unknown A minimum and maximum Min/Max: Unknown,
universities, of 1 per employee plus 1 not enough
arts and crafts for every 3 student information
schools/studio rooming units, plus 0.5 provided with the
s, and trade or space for every full-time application
vocational student not residing on
schools: campus. In addition, if
buses for transportation
of students are kept at the
school, 1 off-street
parking space shall be
provided for each bus of a
size sufficient to park each
bus.
-~
Bicycle Unknown 10% of the number of Unknown
Parking required off-street parking
spaces.
Based on the mformatlon provIded staff was unable to determme the reqUired number of
parking stalls for the facility. The applicant will be required at the time of building permit
application to provide a parking analvsis of the subject site and provide detailed parking
Renton Aerospace Training Center, PRE15-000030
Page 4 016
February 12, 2015
information (i.e_ stall and drive aisle dimensions) and calculations of the subject site and the
overall campus use_
It should be noted that the parking regulations specify standard stall dimensions. Surface
parking stalls must be a minimum of 9 feet x 20 feet, compact dimensions of 8Y, feet x 16 feet,
and parallel stall dimensions of 9 feet x 23 feet; compact surface parking spaces shall not
account for more than 30 percent of the spaces in the surface parking lots.
ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent
access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. The appropriate amount of ADA
accessible stalls based on the total number of spaces must be provided. Sur/ace parking lots
with 15 or more stalls shall provide a minimum of 15 square feet of landscaping per parking
space. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further general and specific
landscape requirements (enclosed).
Modification of either the minimum or maximum number of parking stalls for a specific
development requires written approval from the Department of Community and Economic
Development.
A twenty five percent (25%) reduction or increase from the minimum or moximum number of
parking spaces may be granted for nonresidential uses through site plan review if the applicant
can justify the modification to the satisfaction of the Administrator. Justification might include,
but is not limited to, quantitative informatian such as sales receipts, documentation of customer
frequency, and parking standards of nearby cities.
In order for the reduction or increase to occur the Administrator must find that satisfactory
evidence has been provided by the applicant. Madifications beyond twenty five percent (25%), or
if Site Plan Review is not applied for, may be granted per the criteria and process of RMC 4-9-
250.0.2.
Tree Preservation - A tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention
worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must
show preservation of at least 10 percent (10 %) of significant trees, and indicate how proposed
building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would
be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper
trees at a rate of six to one.
Access and Driveways -It appears access to the site would remain the same with two access
points off of Rainier Ave.
Driveways shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the street frontage. The Width of any
driveway shall not exceed fifty feet (50') exclusive of the radii of the returns or taper section, the
measurement being made parallel to the centerline ofthe street roadway.
Pedestrian Access - A pedestrian connection shall be provided from all public entrances to the
street, in order to provide direct, clear and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building
entries and internally from buildings to abutting properties. A pedestrian connection is
required between the building entrance and the abutting street.
Critical Areas: The City of Renton's Sensitive Areas maps Indicate the presence af "protected
slopes n an the subject site_ Protected slopes are defined as topographical features that slope in
excess of 40% and have a vertical rise of 15 feet or more. If any work is planned on a "protected
slope" a Variance and/or Modification from the Critical Areas regulations would be required.
Renton Aerospace Training Center, PRE15-000030
Page 5 of 6
February 12, 2015
Staff understands that the protected slopes at the subject site were created as a result of airport
and Rainier Ave construction; as such the project may qualify for an exemption through
modification. The Department Administrator may grant a modification for the following
circumstances:
(a) Regrading of any slope which was created through previous mineral and natural resource
recovery activities or was created prior to adoption of applicable mineral and natural resource
recovery regulations or through public or private road installation or widening and related
transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement, or public or private
utility installation activities;
(b) Filling against the toe of a natural rock wall or rock wall created through mineral and natural
resource recovery activities or through public or private road installation or widening and
related transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement or public or
private utility installation activities; and/or
(c) Grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound or to allow reconfiguration
of protected slopes created through mineral and natural resource recovery activities or public or
private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements, railroad track
installation or improvement, or public or private utility installation activities.
The following procedures shall apply to any of the above activities:
(1) The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report describing any potential impacts of the
proposed regrading and any necessary mitigation measures;
(2) All submitted reports shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the
City at the applicant's expense;
(3) The Department Administrator may grant, condition, or deny the request based upon the
proposal's compliance with the applicable modification criteria of RMC 4-9-250D; and
(4) Any slope which remains forty percent (40%) or steeper follOWing site development shall be
subject to all apl'llicable geologic hazard regulations for steep slopes and landslide hazards, in
this Section.
(5) In addition to the criteria of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, the following criteria
shall apply: The proposed modification is based on consideration of the best available science as
described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the
steps in RMC 4-9-2S0F are followed.
The subject site is located in area of known Cultural Resources. Based on the possible presence
of archeological discoveries within the vicinity of the subject site a SEPA mitigation measures
would likely be applied to the subject project.
Environmental Review
It appears the subject project would be subject to SEPA Environmental Review as a result of
the square footage of the building to be demolished, the proposed new building, and/or an
Renton Aerospace Training Center, PREI5-D00030
Page 6 016
february 12, 2015
additianal 20 parking stalls may be proposed. Therefore an environmental checklist is a
submittal requirement. An environmental determination will be made by the Renton
Environmental Review Committee. This determination is subject to appeal by either the project
proponent, by a citizen of the community, or another entity having standing for an appeal.
Permit Requirements
The proposal would require Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Setback Variance,
landscape modification, and a parking modification if the requested change is over 2S%. All
applications can be reviewed in an estimated time frame of 6-8 weeks once a complete
application is accepted. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is
$1,000. The application fee for the Variance would be $1,200. The Street Vacation request
would be $500 and all modification requests would have a fee of $150 each. There is a
technology fee, of 3 %, based on the total land use application fees for the project. Detailed
information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts.
In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permits
would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of
the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods.
Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, impact fees are required. Such
fees apply to all projects and would be calculated at the time of building permit application and
payable prior to building permit issuance. The fees for 2015 are as follows:
• Transportation Impact Fee -fee to be determined;
• Fire Impact Fee -See fire comments; and
A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Please
note that all impact fees will increase in 2016.
N
0 ~ ,
~ ~
~ , ~ ~ ~ 0
~
, ~ .~ a
0
:::l.
"" 0
OJ
~
Cil
OJ
(f)
0-
-0
CD
(f)
~~ • ~~
§
I~
"
j '~
,
r
" z
~ J 11!i1l1 II ~l
o'l! 'I ' ...... . ,
• "
I !
I 11m
1m! l:l
II j
11 !
~
o o
Renton Aerospace Training fJ)
Center ~= ~ _~Iatr"'_ ~~
~~
Construction Mitigation Description (Item #10)
This narrative is provided to satisfy item #10 of the City of Renton's land use application
package and will address the proposed construction timing and mitigation measures,
Proposed construction dates:
November 23, 2015 -September 23, 2016
Hours and days of operation:
Construction will be conducted during normal business hours, Monday through Friday.
Proposed hauling/transportation routes:
AUG 0 3 2iJI5
Hauling/transportation routes may follow Rainier Ave, south from the work site, to access 1-405.
Alternatively, trucks may follow Airport Way and Logan Ave N to reach NE Park Drive which
accesses 1-405 at a point further north than the previously mentioned route.
Measures to be implemented:
Prior to construction, appropriate temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) best
management practices (BMPs) and other mitigation measures will be installed/implemented.
These will be maintained throughout construction. The measures include:
• Marking the clearing limits with stakes and tape, or high visibility fence where
appropriate.
• Silt fencing
• Providing straw mulch, silt fence, plastic sheeting, and oil absorbent material on site at
all times and used as needed.
• If necessary, a wheel wash area will be designated on site to prevent sediment from
being tracked onto roads. All wheel wash wastewater will be handled and disposed of
properly.
• All exposed soils and stockpiles will be protected and stabilized with the appropriate
TESC BMPs (plastic sheeting, straw mulch, and straw wattle) to prevent erosion and
sediment deposition.
• Spraying water if needed to reduce dust.
• Any existing storm drain inlets, or inlets made operable during construction will be
protected with an appropriate inlet protection BMP.
• Staging area will be kept neat and all construction equipment/materials, chemicals,
petroleum products etc. will be secured.
• Operating during normal business hours to reduce noise impacts to nearby businesses
and residences.
• Restoring of disturbed areas with seeding and plantings.
Any special hours proposed:
None are proposed at this time.
Preliminary traffic control plan:
No special provisions for traffic are expected to be needed. Construction activities will not
require any road or lane closures and/or detours. Traftie associated with construction is not
expected to contribute more than 1 % of existing traffic.
Edited for Renton Aerospace Training Center Site Plan Review
PLANNING DIVISION
DESIGN DISTRICT "D" CHECKLIST
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST:
Ensure compliance with design review regulations located in the Renton Municipal Code in
order to:
a. Maintain and protect property values;
b. Enhance the general appearance of the City;
c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; AUG 03 2015
d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and
e. Consider the individual merits of proposals.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
This design district checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
The City will use this checklist to determine whether the your proposal complies with the Urban
Design Regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-100). Answer the questions briefly,
with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
There are two categories that have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be
met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Planning Director in
determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines.
If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do
not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary
delays later.
A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the
Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that
businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity
throughout the district.
1. Site Design and Street Pattern:
Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center
Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future
development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe,
convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service
to businesses.
Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to
public arterials.
Page 1 of24
Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that
promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway
system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest):
(a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design
treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function.
(b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial
Street Plan.
(c) Pedestrian-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration
of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes,
on-street parking, and wide sidewalks.
(d) Internal or local roads (public or private).
SRG -The Renton Aerospace Training Center is located on a narrow strip of Renton
Airport property between Rainer Avenue and West Perimeter Road. The building design
addresses the alignment of both streets, but does not aim to create new streets.
2. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is
facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to
other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within
the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land
uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street.
Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk.
Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but
instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian-only courtyard.
Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above
street level for residents' privacy.
SRG -The Renton Aerospace Training Center is located on a narrow strip of Renton Airport
property between Rainer Avenue and West Perimeter Road. The building design
addresses the alignment of both streets, but does not aim to create new streets
3. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that
building entries further the pedestrian nature ofthe fronting sidewalk and the urban character
ofthe district.
Page 2 of24
Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade
facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the
public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements.
Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous
network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a
directed view to building entries.
Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an
open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street.
Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather
protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property
edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops.
Guideline Standard: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide
transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch,
landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature.
Guideline Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be
oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals,
landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street-oriented
facade.
Guideline Standard: Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies,
architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots
should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District 'A'.
The primary building entry faces south, opening to a small pedestrian-scaled plaza with
planting, a seat wall, and a view overlooking the airport runway. The entry is highly visible
from the street, surrounded by generous glazing and a dramatic roof profile that provides
a deep overhang for weather protection. The paved plaza extends to the west to meet the
sidewalk along Rainier Ave, and will connect to the future multi-use trail.
Page 3 of24
4. Transition to Surrounding Development:
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long·
established, existing neighborhoods are preserved.
Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a
compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms
of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be
considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing
Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight
reaches adjacent yards;
b. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels;
c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller
increments; or
d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and
transition with existing development.
The Aerospace Training Center is designed to draw inspiration from the commercial
scale of Rainier Avenue and the character of the adjacent Renton Airport. The building's
largest face addresses the enormous scale of the airport runway, while the west fa,ade
facing Rainier Ave is limited to one story and includes a setback from the street at its
mid-point.
S. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles,
loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas,
and screening them from view in high visibility areas.
Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the
impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be
concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for
tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e).
Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed,
consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095,
Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations.
Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened
around their perimeter by a wallar fence and have self-closing doors (see illustration,
RMC 4-3-100E7f).
Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited.
Page 4 of24
Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-
oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3
sides of such facility,
Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or
wood, or some combination of the three,
The service access and trash & recycling dumpster area are located facing the airport
property and 24-feet below the building's public face, They are not visible from the public
at Rainier Ave or the future multi-use trail.
6. Gateways:
Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special
design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways. while they
are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and
scale.
Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with
visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g).
Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both
pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100,E7h),
Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the
following:
a, Public art;
b. Monuments;
c, Special landscape treatment;
d. Open space/plaza;
e, Identifying building form;
f, Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards;
g, Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo);
h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs
are not allowed),
The Aerospace Training Center is not located at a district gateway,
Page 5 of24
B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village;
incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce
traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while
encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian
environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along
sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access
streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district.
1. Location of Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots
primarily in back of buildings.
Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front
property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot.
Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended.
The Aerospace Training Center will utilize the existing parking on site. The parking is south
of the bUilding, allowing the building to front Rainier Ave in a more urban fashion.
Pedestrians will be able access the building entry without walking through the parking
area,
2. Design of Surface Parking:
Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the
impact of parking lots wherever possible.
Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties
(see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSb).
Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual
impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements).
Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected
by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts.
Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets
with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles.
Page 6 of24
Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate
and minimize their impact on the streetscape.
The Aerospace Training Center will utilize the existing parking on site. A permanent
parking and landscape solution is not economically practical until the Multi-use trail is
complete.
3. Structured Parking Garages:
Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured
parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate
parking garages with other uses; and. reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they
are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along
street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration,
subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c).
(b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade.
Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non-Pedestrian-Oriented Streets:
(a) Parking structures fronting non-pedestrian-oriented streets and not featuring a
pedestrian-oriented facade shall be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature
substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees,
shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high
visibility streets.
(b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully
demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of
these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include
landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the
architectural design of the building:
(1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars);
(2) Decorative artwork;
(3) Display windows;
(4) Brick, tile, or stone;
(5) Pre-cast decorative panels;
(6) Vine-covered trellis;
(7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or
(8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard.
(c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to
avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures
Page 7 of24
shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements
and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d).
Minimum Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial
uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75 percent of the frontage width (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c).
Minimum Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade.
Minimum Standard: Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a
human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use
parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other
architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d).
Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not
subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the
primary street, to either the side or rear of the building.
Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape.
Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should
minimize the apparent width of garage entries.
Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any
combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping.
Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent
buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages.
Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street
edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks.
The Aerospace Training Center project does not include structured parking.
Page 8 of24
4. Vehicular Access:
Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or
eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated
pedestrian-oriented streets.
Guideline: Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets.
Guideline: Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of-way, but not
impede pedestrian circulation on-site or to adjoining properties. Where possible, minimize
the number of driveways and curb cuts.
The project will utilize the existing parking on site. For the interim condition, before the
multi-use trail is complete, the existing curb cuts that provide access to the parking will
remain. It is not economically practical to modify the parking edge or curb cuts until the
multi-use trail is complete.
C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center
Village by crearlng pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to
building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable,
and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access pOints, and through
parking lots; and promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to
reduce other vehicular traffic.
1. Pathways through Parking Lots:
Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and
parking lots.
Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall
be provided throughout parking areas.
Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided
perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart
(see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a).
2. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience
and enhance the pedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation
system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street
sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b).
Page 9 of24
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised
above the level of vehicular travel.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be
differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration,
subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c).
Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of
sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
(a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or
more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in
width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and
street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d).
(b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to
major building entries shall be allowed.
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to
accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 -12 foot pathway, for example, can
accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one
another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas
a smaller S - 6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals.
Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping
shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries.
Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface
unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development.
Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such
as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment.
Guideline: Mid-block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can
be established.
Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed
when appropriate to the situation.
Page 10 of24
3. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are
inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for
a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions.
Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of
awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum
of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a
maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above
ground level.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable,
vandal· and weather·resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be
reasonably maintained over an extended period of time.
Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian
access to public spaces or building entrances.
Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street
furniture should be provided.
Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public
art should be provided.
Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade· mounted
planting boxes or trellises or ground-related or hanging containers are encouraged,
particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along
pedestrian·oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4·3·100.G4f).
The project includes clear and safe pedestrian access to the main building entry. A paved
entry plaza extends to the existing sidewalk (and future multi·use trail) to provide direct
access to and from the street edge. The project will also reuse the existing pedestrian walk
that runs the length of the parking area, along the top edge of the slope, protected from
vehicles by a continuous concrete wheel stop. This pedestrian walk leads visitors directly
to the entry plaza and front door.
Page 11 of24
D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of
pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the
community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers,
and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and
provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to
encourage such activity.
1. Landscaping:
Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide
visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical
areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by
the community.
Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070.
Landscaping).
Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge
and building, as determined by the City of Renton.
Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, street trees shall be
installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as
determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a).
Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent
and program ofthe building, the site, and use.
Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed
landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the
architecture or concept of the development.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to
reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements).
Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see
illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b).
Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of
street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35
feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as
measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively.
Page 12 of24
Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped
area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between
three and four feet.
Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at
least 90 percent coverage ofthe landscaped area within three years of installation.
Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to
occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure
required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation.
Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as
follows:
(1) Required Amount·
Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area'
15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space
51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space
100 or more 35 square feet/parking space
, Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude
perimeter parking lot landscaping areas.
(2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot
landscape areas.
(3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are
those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at
planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top
of the root ball) respectively.
(4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall
be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and
four feet.
(5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous.
(6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three
years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete.
(7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area.
Page 13 of24
Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials
are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced.
Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all
landscape areas.
Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings.
Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of
unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views.
Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought-resistant landscape material is encouraged.
Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be
available.
Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at
building entries and in publicly accessible spaces.
Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting
feature elements should be made of weather-resistant materials that can be reasonably
maintained.
Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or
neighboring properties.
The project includes a minimum amount of new pervious area - a lOOO-sqaure foot entry
plaza. The plaza area is framed by two permanent landscape areas and a concrete seat
wall. The permanent landscape areas include automatic irrigation system.
Due to the future construction of the multi-use trail, street trees or permanent
landscaping treatments along Rainier Ave. have not been included at this time.
Page 14 of24
2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space:
Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by
residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended
activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is
accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian-oriented streets
particularly at street corners.
Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments often or
more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area
equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide
usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or
recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open
space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may
require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100
units.
(a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces;
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above
the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are
provided as an asset to the development;
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the
public street system;
(d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming
POO/SI exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or
(e) Children's play spaces.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required
landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward
the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or
common use areas.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required
yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless
such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties)
courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to
create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration,
subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3c).
Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall
not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other
required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as
pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space
requirement.
Page 15 of24
Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of
nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-
oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d) according to the following
formula:
1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian-
oriented space
Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian-oriented space, the following must be
included:
(a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures
from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard;
(b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving;
(c) On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on
the ground; and
(d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60
square feet of plaza area or open space.
Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian-oriented space
(see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3e) and may be required by the Director:
(a) Provide pedestrian-oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian-
oriented space.
(b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide
interest and security -such as adjacent to a building entry.
(c) Provide pedestrian-oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space.
(d) Provide movable public seating.
Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented space:
(a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots;
(b) Adjacent chain link fences;
(c) Adjacent blank walls;
(d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and
(e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not
contribute to the pedestrian environment.
Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian-
oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum
requirements, the area may count as pedestrian-oriented space if the Director determines
such space meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space.
Page 16 of24
Minimum Standard: Commercial Arterial Zone Public Plazas.
At each corner of the intersections listed below, there shall be provision of a public plaza
of no less than 1,000 square feet with a minimum dimension of 20 feet on one side
abutting the sidewalk. The public plaza must be landscaped consistent with RMC 4-4-070,
including at minimum street trees, decorative paving, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and
seating. These public plazas are to be provided at all of the following intersections:
i. Benson Area: Benson Drive S'/108th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 176th.
ii. Bronson Area: Intersections with Bronson Way North at:
(a) Factory Avenue N. / Houser Way S.;
(b) Garden Avenue N.; and
(c) Park Avenue N. and N. First Street.
iii. Cascade Area: Intersection of 116th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 168th Street.
iv. Northeast Fourth Area: Intersections with N.E. Fourth at:
(a) Duvall Avenue N.E.;
(b) Monroe Avenue N.E.; and
(c) Union Avenue N.E.
v. Grady Area: Intersections with Grady Way at:
(a) Lind Avenue S.w.;
(b) Rainier Avenue S.;
(c) Shattuck Avenue S.; and
(d) Talbot Road S.
vi. Puget Area: Intersection of S. Puget Drive and Benson Road S.
vii. Rainier Avenue Area: Intersections with Rainier Avenue S. at:
(a) Airport Way / Renton Avenue S.;
(b) S. Second Street;
(c) S. Third Street / S.W. Sunset Boulevard;
(d) S. Fourth Street; and
(e) S. Seventh Street.
viii. North Renton Area: Intersections with Park Avenue N. at:
(a) N. Fourth Street; and
(b) N. Fifth Street.
ix. Northeast Sunset Area: Intersections with N.E. Sunset Boulevard at:
(a) Duvall Avenue N.E.; and
(b) Union Avenue N.E.
Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects
should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and
usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units.
Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding
features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or
architecture, and solar exposure.
Page 17 of24
Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space
should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas
like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas.
The project is not residential or mixed use, and does not occupy one of the designated
Commercial Arterial Zones for public plazas. However, the project is provided a 1000
square-foot public plaza and is adjacent to the future multi-use trail.
E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a
human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest
climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture.
1. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and
ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at
intervals of no more than forty feet (40').
Guideline: Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural
elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add
visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood.
Guideline: Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale
important to residential buildings.
Guideline: A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual
interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects.
Guideline: Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet deep, 16 feet in height,
and eight feet in width.
Guideline: Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade
elements, off-set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered; provided, that the
intent of this Section is met.
The project includes a setback from Rainier Ave, multiple finish materials and colors that
add interest and character to the facades, and a dramatic roof line inspired by the
building's proximity to the airport.
Page 18 of24
2. Ground-Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human·scale
character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or
distant public view have visual interest.
Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or
interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and
retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if:
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height,
has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door,
building modulation or other architectural detailing; or
(b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or
greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other
architectural detailing.
Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be
treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15d):
(a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen
ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
(b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special
detailing that meets the intent of this standard;
(d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
(e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall.
Minimum Standard: Provide human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or
other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor.
Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall have at least
75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true
elevation facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street) comprised of transparent
windows and/or doors.
Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following:
(a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building.
However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum
amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent.
Page 19 of24
(b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than
permanent displays.
(c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing.
(d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited.
Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by
incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each
category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15e):
(a) Facade Features:
(1) Recess;
(2) Overhang;
(3) Canopy;
(4) Trellis;
(5) Portico;
(6) Porch;
(7) Clerestory.
(b) Doorway Features:
(1) Transom windows;
(2) Glass windows flanking door;
(3) Large entry doors;
(4) Ornamental lighting;
(5) Lighted displays.
(c) Detail Features:
(1) Decorative entry paving;
(2) Ornamental building name and address;
(3) Planted containers;
(4) Street furniture (benches, etc.).
Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork,
sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground-level detail.
Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building
walls are encouraged.
The building's facades have been designed to avoid "blank walls." Clear glass is used in all
the fenestrations. Fenestrations are positioned to take advantage of daylight and views
where most appropriate to the interior program and building function. Windows have not
been incorporated in areas that may present a safety or security concern.
Page 20 of24
3. Building Roof lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an
urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create
varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f):
(a) Extended parapets;
(b) Feature elements projecting above parapets;
(c) Projected cornices;
(d) Pitched or sloped roofs.
Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the
equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level.
Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the
building, consistent with RMC 4-4-09SE, Roof-Top Equipment.
Minimum Standard: Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of
exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from
higher elevations.
The project's dramatic roof line provides a distinctive profile and visual interest. There is
no roof-top mechanical equipment. To ensure that the mechanical equipment is screened
from view, it has been mounted at-grade on the east side of the building, not visible from
the public right-of-way.
4. Building Materials:
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the
use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of
materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood.
Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or
open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and
color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive
texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades.
Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained.
Page 21 of24
Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or
metal banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more
traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally
colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast-in-place
concrete.
Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap-tie patterns,
coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted
surfaces, mosaics, or artwork.
Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks
and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials.
Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other
more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings
between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above.
The project includes a palette of prefinished metal panels, in smooth and ribbed textures.
The materials have been chosen for their appearance, durability, and high-quality,
consistent with an urban environment.
F. SIGNAGE:
Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional
assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project;
encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center
Village; and create color and interest.
Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the
building.
Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their
location.
Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-
100.J3a):
i. Pole signs;
Page 22 of24
ii. Roof signs;
iii. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated
cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are
permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back-lit.
Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated
with the overall building design.
Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of
primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support
structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs)
to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may
incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director.
Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be
garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and
interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged.
Guideline: Front-lit, ground-mounted monument signs are the preferred type of
freestanding sign.
Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are
mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian-oriented streets.
Signage will be incorporated by the tenant at the conclusion of the project's construction.
Two areas near the entry have been identified as possible locations that are consistent
with the guidelines above.
G. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such
as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and
increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located
in RMC 4-4-075. Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
Page 23 of24
Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not
be allowed to directly project off-site.
Minimum Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and
aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building
facades, and at pedestrian-oriented spaces.
Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art,
and significant landscape features such as specimen trees.
Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may
include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting, decorative street
lighting, etc.
Overhead lighting at the underside of the roof overhang is provided at the main entry.
Secondary egress doors will have security lighting.
Page 24 of24
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1.
TREE RETENTION
WORKSHEET
Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
Total number of trees over 6" diameter', or alder or cottonwood
trees at least 8" in diameter on project site 36
2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation:
Trees that are dangerous 2
Trees in proposed public streets
Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts
Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers
Total number of excluded trees: 14
3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 22
0
0
0
14
4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained', multiply line 3 by:
0.3 in zones RC, R-l, R-4, R-6 or R-8
0.2 in all other residential zones
0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones 2.2
5. List the number of 6" in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees
over 8" in diameter that you are proposings to retain4 : 11
6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced:
(if line 6 is zero or less, stop here. No replacement trees are required) -8.8
7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: N/A
8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement:
trees
trees
trees
trees
trees
trees
trees
trees
trees
trees
inches
(Minimum 2" caliper trees required) N/A inches per tree
9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 :
(If remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) N/A trees
1 Measured at 4.5' above grade.
2 A tree certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed
landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City.
3 Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in RMC 4-3-050.
4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers.
:, The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a.
6 When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least
six feet (6') tall, shall be planted. See RMC 4-4-130.H.1.e.{ii) for prohibited types of replacement trees.
1
\\Central_files\w&a central files2\Projects\King County\City of Renton\Airport Training Bldg\Land Use Submittal\RATC TreeRetentionWorksheet.docx 03/2015
Minimum Tree Density
A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot (exempting single-family
dwellings in R-l0 and R-14). The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, or a
combination.
Detached single-family development': Two (2) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot
area. For example, a lat with 9,600 square feet and a detached single-family house is required to have four (4)
significant trees or their equivalent in caliper inches (one or mare trees with a cambined diameter of 24"). This
is determined with the following formula:
(
LotArea ) .. x 2 = Mmlmum Number of Trees
5,OOOsq.jt.
Multi-family development (attached dwellings): Four (4) significant trees 8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq.
ft. of lot area.
(LotArea )
\S,OOOSq.jt. x 4
Minimum NumberofTrees
Example Tree Density Table·
Lot Lot size Min significant New Trees Retained Trees Compliant
trees required
1 5,000 2 2 @ 2" caliper a Yes
2 10,000 4 a 1 tree (24 caliper Yes
inches)
3 15,000 6 2 @ 2" caliper 1 Maple-15 Yes
caliper inches
1 Fir - 9 caliper
inches.
7 Lots developed with detached dwellings in the R-IO and R-14 zoned are exempt from maintaining a minimum number of significant trees onsite,
however they are not exempt from the annual tree removal limits.
B Or the gross equivalent of caliper inches provided by one (1) or more trees.
2
\\CentraUiles\w&a central files2\Projects\King County\City of Renton\Airport Training Bldg\Land Use Submittal\RATC TreeRetentionWorksheet.docx 03/2015
•
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
PROPOSED AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
300 RAINIER AVE N., RENTON, W A
S&EE JOB NO. 1234B
APRIL 20, 2015
AUG 0 3 2015
, '
S&EE
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
16625 Redmond Way. Suile M 12"'J~~!!J!!o_n<!". Washington 98052. ", ,', ',', "q,' ", ""q',;',,'> V'W' ill,5) 86~-S868 ____ ._
Mr. J:l\naI ThiIme, AlA
SRG Partnership,lnc.
I 10 Union Street #300
Seanle. WA 98101
Dear Duncan:
April 20, 2015
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Proposed Aerospace Training Center
Renton. WA
We are pleased to present herewith our Geotechnical Report for the referenced project. Our services were
authorized by you on March 13, 2015 and have been perfonned according to our proposal dated January 21,
2015. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any questions regarding the
contents of this report or require additional infonnation, please let me know anytime.
Very truly yours,
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E.
President
Job No. 12348 S& EE
S&EI:'
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
___ ----'1"'66,..2"'-5, Redmond Wal,5uite M~,2'!,~edmond. W'ashington_9805L.· .. ,,'. "",I, " ,",'.,',,,,, C.,!,,,,,, (425) 868-5868
Mr. I:lun<3t Thieme, AlA
SRG Partnership,lnc,
110 lJnion Street #300
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Duncan:
April 20, 2015
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Proposed Aerospace Training Center
Renton. WA
We are pleased to present herewith our Geotechnical Report for the referenced project. Our services were
authorized by you on March 13, 2015 and have been performed according to our proposal dated January 21,
2015. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any questions regarding the
contents of this report or require additional information, please let me know anytime.
Very truly yours,
SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E.
President
Job No, 12348 S<~ FE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTlO" & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... I
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................................ 2
3.0 SITE CO"DITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 GEOLOGIC INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 COAL MINE, LANDSLIDE, EROSION, AN D SEISMIC HAZARDS............................. .. .......... 3
3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDlTlONS ................................................................................................................... 4
4.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 6
4.1 SHORING EXCA V A TIONS ........................................................................................................................ 6
4.1.1 Soldier Piles ..................... ......... ..... .. ...... ............ ......... ........... ...... . .... 6
4,1,2 Lagging......... .. ........................................................... , ..................................................... 8
4,1,3 Tiebacks...... ..................... ................ . ................................................ '" ..................... .. 8
4,2 FOUNDATION SUPPORTS, ... , ........ ,.,., .......... ,.,.,.,.,.,.... . ........... ,.,.,., ... , .... ,.,',., .. ,.,""', .. ,',.,.,.,. 10
4,3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ON PERMANENT RETAINING WALLS , .......................................... 11
4,3. I Surcharge Induced Loads...... ................................................... ................ . ............ I I
4,3,2 Seismic Induced Lateral Loads ........... ................ ....................... ....................... 12
4,3,J Backfill in/ront o/Retaining Walls..... .. .............................................................. 12
4.3.4 Backfill behind Retaining walls............ , .. , ............................ .............. ... 12
4.3.5 Drainage behind Retaining Walls.... ............... .. .................................. 12
4.4 STRUCTURAL FILL ................................................................................................................................. 13
4.5 SITE PREPARATION AND DRAINAGE .............................................. , ................................................. 13
4.6 SLAB-ON-GRADE. . ................................... , ... ,., .... ,.,.,., .... ,.,., .... ,.,.,.".,"""',.,.,.,., ........ ,.,., ...... ,., ....... 14
4.7 UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONSTRCCTION .............................................. , ......................................... 15
4,8 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS .......................................................................................... , ...................... 15
4.9 SEISMICCONSlDERATIONS .................................................................................................................... 16
4.10 ADDlTlONAL SERVICES ............................................................................ , .......................................... 17
5.0 CLOSURE ........................................................................................................................................................ 18
FIGURE I: SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2: SITE & BORING LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 3A & 38: THE STRUCTURAL LOADS
FIGURE 4: FAULT MAP
FIGURE 5: SECTION AA
FIGURE 6: SECTION BB
FIGURE 7: LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS
FIGURE 8: CALCULATION OF LATERAL LOADS DUE TO SURCHARGE LOADS
FIGURE 9: TIEBACK GEOMETRY
TABLE I: SOIL PARAMETERS SUMMARY
APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION AND LOGS OF BORINGS
Job No. 12348
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED AEROSPACE TRAINING CENTER
REC'iTON, WA
For
SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We present in this report the results of our geotechnical study for the proposed aerospace training
center. The site is located at 300 Rainer Avenue North, Renton, W A. A Site Location Map is shown in
Figure I and a Site & Exploration Plan is shown in Figure 2, both are included at the end this report.
We understand that a building for Aerospace Training Center is being planned at the site. The project
scope involves demolition of the existing building and construction of a new one. S&EE has
previously performed a geotechnical investigation for a new single story building for Aerospace
Training Center in 2012. Since then the design has been revised. The new design includes a single-
slory (west) building, and a single-story (east) building. The latter has a 25-foot-high, two-level
basement day lighting to the east. We understand that the new buildings will be steel-framed. The
foundation loads are provided by the structural engineers, Magnusson Klemencic Associates, and
shown in Figures 3A and 3B.
S&EE has performed additional geotechnical investigations for the new design. A brief summary of
our geotechnical recommendations are presented below.
1. Loose, random till varies from minimal to 14 feet in thickness is present throughout the site,
including the existing slope.
2. Due to space restraint, open cut is not feasible for the basement construction. We recommend
that soldier pile and timber lagging walls be constructed for excavation shoring.
3. We recommend that the proposed buildings be supported on conventional spread footings and
slabs be soil-supported. Footing and slab subgrades should be prepared per recommendations
presented in this report.
1234B-rpt
4. The majority of the subgrade soils at the bottom of the east building are dense to very dense
native soils. However, loose random till, up to 8 feet in maximum thickness, will be exposed
in the eastern portion of the building footprint (see Figure 6). We recommend that this fill be
removed by over-excavation, and the over-excavation be backfilled with structural fill.
5. Existing random till may be present at the footing subgrade of the west building (see Figure
6). We recommend that this fill under the new footings be removed by over-excavation, and
the over-excavation be backfilled with structural fill.
6. Existing fill may be present at the ground surface in the crawl space of the existing building.
If the fill is not wet, soft or organic, it could be compacted in place. Otherwise it should be
removed by over-excavation. The over-excavation and the crawl space should be backfilled
with structural fill. To prevent built-up of hydrostatic pressure, backfill within 2 feet from the
back (west) side of the basement wall should be free-draining granular fill (less than 5% fines).
2,0 SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of our servIces IS to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and
construction of the project. Specifically, our scopes have included the followings:
I. Review of existing boring information.
2. Perfonnance of subsurface investigations by drilling of three additional exploration borings.
3. Recommendation regarding type offoundation support.
4. Recommendations regarding seismic design; evaluation of liquefaction potential and
mitigation recommendations.
5. Recommendations regarding passive, active and at-rest earth pressures and coefficient of
friction for the resistance of lateral loads.
6. Recommendations regarding shoring design.
7. Recommendations regarding site preparation, angles of temporary slopes, suitability of onsite
soils for use as fill, types of suitable imported fill, fill placement techniques, and compaction
criteria.
8. Preparation of this geotechnical report which contains a site plan, boring logs, a
description of subsurface conditions, and our findings and recommendations.
1234B,rpt 2
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The project site is located at the southwest corner of Renton Municipal Airport. The site is long and
narrow in the north-south direction, and is bordered to the west by Rainer Avenue North and to the
east by West Perimeter Road. The site is currently occupied by a building that used to be Renton
Chamber of Commerce Building. There is surface parking to the south of the existing building, and
grass lawn to the north of the building.
The site for the new west building is located on a level bench that overlooks Renton Airport. The
building footprint overlaps most of the existing building (see Figure 2). This is a single-story, wood-
framed building with a daylighted crawl space opening to the east. The topographic information
suggests that the maximum height in the crawl space is about 8 feet. We understand that the existing
building is supported on spread footings.
The footprint of the new east building overlaps the existing onsite slope. The majority of the basement
footprint is on a slope that drops about 26 feet to West Perimeter Road. The slope is relatively steep,
about 75% inclination in average. At the time of this report, the slope is covered with thick vines. The
slope face is relatively even, and there is no obvious sign of slope movements such as slumps or
hummocky terrains.
3.2 GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Published geologic information (The GeologiC Map of The Renton Q1Iadrangle, King County,
Washington, by D. R. M1IlIinea1lx, 1965) indicates that the site area is underlain by artificial fill which
is in turn underlain by sedimentary rock with fragments of volcanic rock. The rocks are mainly
sandstone, siltstone, and may locally weathered to clay.
3.3 COAL MINE, LANDSLIDE, EROSION, AN D SEISMIC HAZARDS
Sensitive Areas Map published by King County indicates no landslide and erosion hazards at the
project site. The map also shows that the nearest coal mine hazard area is about 1.5 miles from the
site.
1234B·rpt 3
Figure 4, which is included at the end of this report, shows that Seattle Fault is the prominent active
fault closest to the site. The fault is a collective term for a series of four or more east-west-trending,
south-dipping fault strands underlying the Seattle area. This thrust fault zone is approximately 2 to 4
miles wide (north-south) and extends from the Kitsap Peninsula near Bremerton on the west to the
Sammamish Plateau east of Lake Sammamish on the east. The four fault strands have been
interpolated from over-water geophysical surveys (Johnson, et aI., 1999) and, consequently, the exact
locations on land have yet to be determined or verified. Recent geologic evidence suggests that
movement on this fault zone occurred about 1,100 years ago, and the earthquake it produced was on
the order of a magnitude 7.5.
3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by the drilling of 3 exploratory borings B-1, B-2,
and B-3 in 2012 and 3 exploratory borings B-4, B-5 and B-6 in 2015. B-1 and B-2 were advanced
using a truck-mounted drill rig. As the grass lawn at B-3 was softened by rain at the time of drilling
and could not support the drill rig, B-3 was drilled with a hand auger. B-4, B-5 and B-6 were advanced
using a track mounted drill rig. The approximated exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. Details
of the exploration and logs are included in Appendix A of this report. A Soil Classification Chart and
Key to Logs is shown at the end ofthe appendix.
In general, the subsoils include loose till over competent native soils. Based on the visual classification
and the blow count data, we believe that the fill was placed randomly and without compaction. The
native soils below the fill include alluvial soils over glacially deposited materials. Figures 5 and 6
shows our interpretation of the subsurface soil conditions at the site. The soil parameters developed
based on the available geotechnical data are provided in Table 1. Detailed description of subsoil
conditions at each boring location are presented below.
Boring B-1 was drilled near the top edge of the site slope to the south of the proposed buildings and
found 13.5 feet of fill soil. The fill consists of loose to medium dense silty sand and gravel, and is
underlain by a medium stiff silt. This silt contains trace organics and has the appearance of alluvial
deposits. We believe that a swale or creek was once occupied the area. A hard silt is found below the
alluvial soil. This silt becomes very hard below the depth of 24 feet and the auger was refused at 25
feet.
1234B-rpl 4 S,\-/I:"
Boring B-2 was drilled near the southwestern corner of the proposed building. The boring encountered
7 feet thick of very dense sand at the ground surface. The sand is underlain by a medium dense to
dense silty sand that has the appearance of an alluvial soil. Similar to the condition at B-1, the alluvial
soil is underlain by a hard silt. B-2 also encountered very hard silt at a depth of 24 feet and the silt
became so hard that the auger could not be advance beyond the depth of 25 feet.
Boring B-3 encountered about 10 feet thick of medium dense to dense sand. Like B-I and B-2, boring
B-3 found alluvial-like silt below the upper sand. This silt is very stiff and prevented drilling below a
depth of 10.5 feet.
Boring B-4 was drilled near the top edge of the of the east slope towards north side of the proposed
buildings. The boring encountered 10.5 feet of fill. This fill consists of loose silty sand with organic,
and is underlain by a medium dense to dense sand and has an appearance of alluvial soil. The alluvial
soil is underlain by hard silt and very dense sand and silty sand.
Boring B-5 was drilled near the toe of the slope. The boring encountered 5.5 feet of fill. The fill is
underlain by very dense sand and hard silt.
Boring B-6 is also located near the toe of the slope and near the northeastern comer of the proposed
building. This boring encountered one foot of surficial fill underlain by medium dense to dense sand
and very stiff silt that has the appearance of alluvial soil. The alluvial soil is underlain by very dense
sand to silty sand.
Borings B-1, 13-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6 did not encounter any groundwater table, however, the sand
lenses in the native soils are water-bearing. Boring B-2 encountered a groundwater table at a depth of
8.5 feet. Based on the moisture conditions of the subsoils, we believe the groundwater at B-2 is a
perched groundwater table over the relatively impervious alluvial silt. We further believe that the
depth of this perched groundwater table will vary with season and precipitation.
All soil samples retrieved from borings B-1 and B-2 were screened by a PIO (photoionization detector)
which did not detect any organic vapor. Based on our experience with the subsoils, it is our opinion
that the alluvial soils are slightly corrosive.
1234B-rpt 5
4.0 ENGINEERI!'iG EVALUATIONS AND RECOMME"iDATIONS
4.1 SHORING EXCAVATIONS
The construction of the proposed basement will require temporary shoring at the north, west and south
sides of the basement. We recommend that cantilevered and tied-back soldier piles with timber
lagging be considered for the shoring walls. We offer the following design and construction
recommendations concerning soldier piles, lagging, and tiebacks.
4.1.1 Soldier Piles
Applicability: In our opinion, soldier piles can be used in either a cantilevered or a tied-back
configuration (depending on wall height) for shoring the proposed excavation sidewalls.
Pile Embedments: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the final excavation
level to provide adequate "kick-out" resistance to horizontal loads. We recommend a minimum
embedment of 10 feet below the excavation base, or 5 feet below any excavations located within about
10 horizontal feet of the pile, whichever is greater. However, deeper embedments might be needed to
develop adequate vertical capacity or passive resistance at specific locations.
Drilling Conditions: Based on our explorations, we predict that medium dense to very dense silty
sand to sandy silt will be encountered in all soldier pile holes. Fill and medium dense soils can likely
be drilled without difficulties except at the locations of gravel presence. The dense to very dense soils
will likely yield slow drilling rates for the conventional auger. Although none of our explorations
encountered cobbles or boulders, it should be realized that such obstructions can exist at random
locations within the subsoils. Also, rubble could be present within the fill soils.
Applied Loads: Soldier piles should be designed to resist the various applied loads, which can be
classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. Our
recommended design pressures for the flexible soldier pile walls (using active pressure) are presented
graphically on the enclosed Lateral Earth Pressure Diagrams (Figure 7) and are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Static Pressnres: Static lateral earth pressures are assumed to act over the entire height of each
soldier pile. From the top of the pile downward to the bottom of excavation elevation, this static
12348-rpt 6
pressure should be applied over the soldier pile spacing; below this level, the pressure need be
applied over only one pile diameter. For cantilever walls or walls having one row of tiebacks, we
recommend using an active earth pressure modeled as the series of equivalent fluid unit weights
shown on Figure 7. For walls having two or more rows of tiebacks, we recommend using an active
earth pressure modeled as the uniform distribution shown on Figure 7. In the special case of walls
that are located adjacent to existing structures or sensitive utilities, we recommend using an
appropriate at-rest earth pressure per Table I; this wiII minimize both lateral deflections of the
soldier piles and vertical settlements of the backslope surface.
Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to
account for any surcharge loadings from any traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles,
or structures that are located within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height. For simplicity, a
traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 62.5 psf acting over the length of
wall. The enclosed Surcharge Pressure Diagrams (Figure 8) illustrate methods of calculating other
surcharge loads.
Seismic Pressuresi Lateral earth pressures acting on permanent soldier piles should be increased
to account for seismic loadings, which are applied over the piles in the same manner as the static
pressures. For a design acceleration coefficient of 0.31 and a wall height of "H" feet, we
recommend that these seismic loadings be modeled as the uniform horizontal pressures shown on
Figure 7.
Hydrostatic Pressures: If adequate drainage is provided behind the shoring wall, we expect that
hydrostatic pressures will not develop.
Resisting Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth
pressure acting over the embedded height of each soldier pile, neglecting the upper 2 feet. This passive
pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile spacing or twice the pile diameter,
whichever is less. For a level foreslope, the allowable passive pressure can be modeled as the
triangular distribution shown on Figure 7.
Pile Capacities aud Deflections: Appropriate side-friction and end-bearing capacities can be used to
determine total vertical capacities of soldier piles, whereas appropriate subgrade reaction moduli can
be used to estimate vertical and lateral deflections. For the portion of a pile extending into medium
dense to very dense silty sand to sandy silt, our recommended allowable values are shown in Figure 7.
1234B-rpt 7
Subgrade reaction modulus to estimate the deflections are provided in Table I.
4.1.2 Lagging
Applicability_, We recommend that lagging be installed between all adjacent soldier piles to reduce
the potential for soil failure, loss of ground, and hazardous working conditions.
Laggillg Materials: In our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or reinforced shotcrete
could be utilized as lagging at the site. For permanent applications, we recommend that all
wooden timber lagging be pressure-treated.
Lateral Pressures: Due to soil arching effects, temporary lagging that spans 8 feet or less need be
designed for only 25 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile
design. Permanent lagging, on the other hand, should be designed for 50 percent of this same lateral
earth pressure.
Backfilling: We recommend that any voids behind the lagging be backfilled, but the backfill
material should not prevent groundwater flow. If no drainage is provided behind the lagging,
hydrostatic pressure would result. For this reason, sand or pea gravel provides an effective lagging
backfill material, whereas concrete, controlled-density fill, or other impermeable materials are
not suitable.
Drainage Systems: We recommend that the drainage system should be provided as shown in
Figures 7 and 9. All lagging backfill material should be connected to a continuous horizontal
gravel-filled ditch located in front of the wall. This can be accomplished either by extending gravel
under the lagging or by providing weepholes through the lagging. Drain mat (such as Miradrain)
should be installed to each lagging bay and then covered with plastic sheeting.
4.1.3 Tiebacks
Applicability: We anticipate that tieback anchors will be needed to support any soldier pile walls
having an exposed height greater than about 15 to 20 feet.
Conflicts and Easements: Because tiebacks typically extend about 30 to 60 feet behind the
excavation face, conflicts with underground utilities and adjacent structures often arise. The project
1234B-rpl 8 s& rT
structuml engmeer should carefully consider the locations of such obstructions, including any
foundations of nearby structures, when laying out all tiebacks, Easements might be required for any
tiebacks that extend onto the properties beyond the site property boundaries,
Installation Methods: All tiebacks should be installed in a manner that mmlmlzes cavmg and
associated ground subsidence, Typically, this involves drilling with a full-length casing or
continuous flight auger, as well as pumping grout from the bottom of each tieback hole with a
tremie.
No-Load_Zone: The anchor portion of all tiebacks must be located a sufficient distance behind the
retained excavation face to develop resistance within a stable soil mass, We recommend that the
anchorage be obtained behind a "no-load zone" dell ned by a plane projected upward at a 60-
degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the excavation face a horizontal
distance equal to 25 percent of the face height, as shown on Figure 9,
Anchor Length and Spacing: The anchor portion of the tieback (that portion behind the no-load
zone) should have minimum length of 20 feet and should be located at least 10 feet below the
ground surface, as shown on Figure 9. To avoid interactions between adjacent tiebacks, we
recommend that a clear spacing of at least 5 feet be maintained along the anchor zones.
E:.stimated Adhesion: If properly grouted, we estimate that an allowable concrete/soil adhesion
values as shown in Figure 9 be assumed for the anchor portion of a tieback. However, the actual design
values will depend on the installation method and should be confirmed by load-testing all tiebacks in
the field.
Load Testing: We recommend that all tiebacks be subjected to a comprehensive testing program
that will verify the integrity of individual tiebacks and provide information regarding their long-term
creep characteristics. We recommend that the adhesion be verified with I 33-percent proof tests on
all the tiebacks. We also recommend that two, 200-percent verification tests be performed. Prior to
wall construction, S&EE can supply details for conducting these tests.
Settlement M;onitoring: The movement of the shoring walls should be surveyed by a licensed
surveyor. Results should be transmitted to us and structural engineer within 24 hours of each survey.
Survey should include lateral and vertical movements of every other soldier pile. Survey frequency
should include the initial or baseline survey: once every week during mass excavation; and once every
1234B-rpt 9
other week afier foundations are poured. We may increase the survey frequency at any time if
excessive wall movements are noticed. After the wall footings are poured, we will evaluate the
monitoring data, and recommend the timing of the termination of the monitoring program.
4.2 FOUNDATION SUPPORTS
We recommend that the proposed buildings be supported on conventional spread footings. Due to the
presence of random fill in the area of the proposed buildings (See Figures 5 and 6), we recommend
that the existing fill be removed and structural fill be placed. Details of geotechnical recommendations
for foundation design and construction are presented below.
Allowable Bearing Loads: Footings can be designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500
pounds per square foot (pst). This value includes a factor of safety of at least 3, and can be increased
by one-third for wind and seismic loads.
Footing Construction: All existing fill material under the footing should be removed and replaced by
compacted structural fill as shown on Figures 5 and 6. The material and compaction requirements of
structural fill are presented in Section 4.4 of this report. Prior to re-bar and concrete placement, all
footing bearing surfaces must be cleaned of loose soil cuttings. Any softened and loosened soil
encountered at footing subgrade should be further over-excavated, and the over-excavation should be
backfilled with structural fill. All footing bearing surfaces should be inspected by a geotechnical
engineer from our office prior to rebar and concrete placement. Our engineer will confirm the
bearing capacity of the sub grade soils, and provide recommendations regarding over-excavation, if
necessary.
The majority of soils at footing subgrade are silty in nature. The soil is susceptible to strength loss due
to wetting and disturbance. As such, we recommend that a 4-inch thick layer of crushed rock be
installed at the subgrade. This rock should be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition by a
mechanical compactor.
1234B-rpt 10 S&fJ
Settlement: Interior column footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations are
expected to experience approximately 1/2 inch of settlement. Continuous wall footings should
experience settlement of about 114 to 112 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings is
cxpected to be about 1/4 inch. The settlement will occur rapidly, essentially as the loads are applied.
Lateral Resistanc_e: Lateral resistance can be obtained from the passive earth pressure against the
footing sides and the friction at the contact of the footing bottom and bearing soil. Both can be
obtained using the parameters provided in Table 1.
Frost Protection and Minimum Width: All exterior footings should be founded at least 15 inches
below the adjacent finished grade to provide protection against frost action, and should be at least 18
inches in width to facilitate construction.
4.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ON PERMANENT RETAINING WALLS
Lateral earth pressures on permanent retaining walls, underground vaults or utility
trenches/pits, and resistance to lateral loads may be estimated using the recommended soil
parameters presented in Table I.
The at-rest case applies to unyielding walls, and would be appropriate for walls that are
structurally restrained Irom lateral deflection such as basement walls, utility trenches or pits. The
passive earth pressure and coefticient of friction include a safety factor of 1.5. The active case
applies to walls that are permitted to rotate or translate away from the retai ned soil by
approximately O.002H to O.004H, where H is the height of the wall.
4.3.1 Surcharge Induced Loads
Additional lateral earth pressures will result from surcharge loads from floor slabs or pavements
for parking that are located immediately adjacent to the walls. The surcharge-induced lateral earth
pressures are uniform over the depth of the wall. Surcharge-induced lateral pressures for the
"active" case may be calculated by multiplying the appl ied vertical pressure (in pst) by the
active earth pressure coefficient (K,). The value of K, is provided in Table I. The surcharge-
induced lateral pressures for the "at-rest" case are similarly calculated using an at-rest earth
pressure coefficient (Ko) provided in Table I. For surcharge loads that are not adjacent to the
1234B-rpt II SAIJ
wall, the induced lateral earth pressure will depend on the magnitude of the surcharge and the
distance from the wall. Such ind uced lateral load can be estimated using the equations shown on
Figure 8.
The slope-induced lateral earth pressure can be accounted for by increasing the effective height
of the wall by one-half the slope height. The traffic-induced lateral earth pressure can be
accounted for by increasing the effective wall height by 2 feet.
4.3.2 Seismic Induced Lateral Loads
For imbalanced, seismic induced lateral loads, the dynamic force can be calculated usmg the
following equation.
P, = 14.4H, where P, ~ uniform pressure in psf and H ~ wall height in feet
4.3.3 Backfill in front of Retaining Walls
Backfill in front of the wall should be structural fill. The material and compaction requirements
are presented in Section 4.4 of this report. The density of the structural fill can be assumed to be 130
pounds per cubic feet.
4.3.4 Backfill behind Retaining walls
Backfill behind the wall should be free-draining materials which are typically granular soils
containing less than 5 percent fines (silt and clay particles) and no particles greater than 4 inches
in diameter. The backfill material should be placed in 6 to 8-inch thick horizontal lifts and
compacted to at least 90 percent of the maxim um density in accordance with ASTM D-1557 test
procedures. In the areas where the fill will support pavement, sidewalk or slabs, the top four (4)
feet of the backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density. Care must
be taken when compacting backfill adjacent to retaining walls, to avoid creating excessive pressure
on the wall.
4.3.5 Drainage behind Retaining Walls
Rigid, perforated drainpipes should be installed behind retaining walls. Drainpipes should be at
1234B-rpl 12
least 4 inches in diameter, covered by a layer of uniform size drain gravel of at least 12 inches
in thickness, and be connected to a suitable discharge location. An adeq uate number of
cleanouts should be installed along the drain I ine for future maintenance.
4.4 STRUCTURAL FILL
The structural fill materials should meet both the material and compaction requirements presented
below.
Material Requirements: Structural fill should be free of organic and frozen material and
should consist of hard durable particles, such as sand, gravel, or quarry-processed stone.
The on-site sandy soils are suitable for structural till. The material should be moisture-
conditioned to +/-2% from their optimum moisture contents prior to use. Suitable
imported structural fill materials include silty sand, sand, mixture of sand and gravel
(pitrun). recycled concrete, and crushed rock.
All structural fill material should be approved by our geotechnical engineer prior to use.
Placement and Compaction Requirements: Structural fill shou Id be placed in loose
horizontal lifts not exceeding a thickness of 6 to 12 inches, depending on the material
type, compaction equipment, and number of passes made by the equipment. Structural fill
should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined using
the ASTM 0-1557 test procedures.
4.5 SITE PREPARATION AND DRAINAGE
The west building site should be prepared by the removal of all existing footings, slabs, underground
utilities, and all existing fill at the locations of new footings (at building gridlines A-4, A-5, A-6 and
A-7, Figure 3B). Any wet, sott, and organic soils encountered at the subgrade should be further
over-excavated. The subgrade soil should then be re-compacted to a firm and non-yielding
condition using a mechanical compactor that weighs at least 1,000 pounds. Structural fill can then be
placed in the areas of backfill and over-excavation.
1234B-rpt ]J
We recommend that the crawl space at the existing building be filled after the construction of the
shoring wall at the east side of the west building. Prior to fill, the ground surface should be
inspected by an engineer from our office. Any wet, soft, and organic soils encountered at the
subgrade should be over-excavated. The subgrade soil should then be re-compacted to a firm and
non-yielding condition using a mechanical compactor that weighs at least 1,000 pounds. Structural fill
can then be placed in the areas of fill and over-excavation.
To prevent built-up of hydrostatic pressure, backfill withiu 2 feet from the back (west) side of the
shoring wall should be free-draining granular fill (soils with less than 5% fines, see Figure 6) with
a maximum particle size less than 4 inches.
The east building site should be prepared by the removal of all existing fill. Any wet, soft, or organic
soils at the removal subgrade should be further excavated. The subgrade soil should then be compacted
to a firm and non-yielding condition using a mechanical compactor that weighs at least 1.000 pounds.
Structural fill can then be placed in the backfill areas.
The site surface should be graded so that surface water is directed away from the structural
areas. Standing water should not be allowed. Final site grades should be sloped away from the
buildings unless the area is paved, or yard drains installed to collect surface runoff. Onsite
infiltration of storm water is not recommended as the water would incur negative impacts on
the stability of the steep slope.
4.6 SLAB-ON-GRADE
Building slabs can be soil supported. We envision that the soil at the sub grade will be disturbed
and loosened by construction activities at the time of slab construction. We therefore
recommend that the subgrade be re-compacted prior to pour. Any wet and loose areas should
be over-excavated and backfilled with structural fill. Assuming that the slab subgrade is
prepared per recommendations presented above, a subgrade reaction modulus listed in Table I
can be used for slab-on-grade design. We recommend that slab-on-grade be underlain by a 15 mil
vapor barrier over at least 4-inch thick free-draining gravel.
1234B·rpl 14
4.7 UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONSTRUCTIO'"
All loose soil cuttings should be removed prior to the placement of bedding materials. Perched
groundwater and thus wet and loose soils may be present at the trench subgradc. The contractor should
make efforts to minimize sub grade disturbance, especially during the last foot of excavation. Some times
subgrade disturbance in wet and loose soil is inevitable, and subgrade stabilization is necessary in order to
avoid re-compression of the disturbed zone. Depending on the degrees of subgrade disturbance, the
stabilization may require a layer of quarry spalls (2 to 4 inches or 4 to 8 inches size crushed rock). When
compacted by a hoepac, a 12 to 18 inches thick layer of spalls would sink into the loose and soft soils,
interlock and eventually form a stable subbase. A chocker stone such as 1-114" clean crushed rock should be
installed over the quarry spalls. This stone should be at least 6 inches in thickness and should be compacted
to a firm and non-yielding condition by a mechanical compactor.
In the event that soft silty soils above groundwater table are encountered at subgrades, the subgrade should be
over-excavated a minimum of 6 inches. A non-woven geotextile having a minimum grab tensile strength of
200 pounds should be installed at the bottom of the over-excavation and the over-excavation backfilled with
1-1/4" minus crushed rock. The material should be compacted to a firm a non-yielding condition using a
mechanical compactor.
4.8 TEMPORARY EXCA V A nONS
Temporary cuts less than 3 feet in depth can be sloped at IH: IV (Horizontal to Vertical) or
flatter; temporary cuts deeper than 3 feet should be sloped at I .5H: I V. The cogtractor should
note the follQwjng recommendations.
I. A perched groundwater table may be present near the bottom of the cut. Therefore,
temporary cut s lop e s should be continuous from the top to bottom with go yertjca'
bank at the toe of the Cllt.
2. The slope face should be protected from weather using visqueen.
All permanent slopes should be no steeper than 2H: I V. Water should not be allowed to
flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanent slopes should be seeded with
1234B-rpt 15
the appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and maintain the slope stability.
4.9 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The geotechnical-related parameters to be used for seismic design in accordance with 2012 IBC
provisions are evaluated as described in Section 1613.3 of the 2012 IBC Code. The spectral response
accelerations for the "Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake" (MCER) were obtained from
the USGS website using a latitude of 47.487 degrees and a longitude of 122.218 degrees. The values
for Site Class B (rock) are:
Ss=I.45Ig
SI = 0.543 g
(short period, or 0.2 second spectral response)
(long period, or 1.0 second spectral response)
The Site Class is selected using the definitions in Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10 considering the average
properties of soils in the upper 100 feet of the soil profile at the site. The borings went to a maximum
depth of 50.5 feet. However, as materials interpreted to be Very Dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt with
gravel (Till Like) were encountered at the maximum depths explored, extrapolation of the
information on the logs can be used to estimate the average soil properties in the upper 100 feet. The
results indicate an average standard penetration resistance (N) of greater than 50, which corresponds
to Site Class C ("Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock") in Table 20.3-1 (ASCE 7-10).
The site coefficient values, obtained from Section 1613.3.3 of the 2012 IBC, are used to adjust the
mapped spectral response acceleration values to get the adjusted spectral response acceleration values
for the site. The recommended Site Coefficient values for Site Class Care:
F, = 1.00
F, = 1.30
(short period, or 0.2 second spectral response)
(1.0 second spectral response)
The most recent USGS Earthquake Hazards Map (U.S. Geologic Survey web site, 2008 data) has
indicated that a horizontal peak acceleration (PGA) of 0.61 g is appropriate for a 4275-year return
period event, i.e. an event having a 2 percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years.
Due to the presence of firm soils below the perched groundwater table, liquefaction potential is
negligible.
1234B-rpt 16
4.10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
We recommend the following our additional servIces during the design and construction of the
project.
1. Review design plans to contirm that our recommendations are properly interpreted and utilized in
the design.
2. Monitor shoring excavation and tieback installation. We will verify that suitable depths are
reached and soil conditions are encountered. We will also document the installation procedures,
construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, pile plumbness, load testing, and lock-
off loads.
3. Monitor excavation. We will confirm the stability of the excavations, and provide
recommendations regarding dewatering and sidewall stabilization, if needed.
4. Monitor foundation subgrade preparation. We will confirm the bearing capacity of the subgrade
soils, and assist the contractor in evaluating the protection and over-excavation requirements, if
any.
5. Monitor the placement and compaction of structural till. We will confirm the suitability of the
fill materials, and review the field density test results (to be conducted by a test agent).
6. Monitor the installation of subsurface drains. We will confirm that these drains are installed in
accordance with our recommendations.
7. Monitor site drainage and erosion control.
8. Other geotechnical issues deemed necessary.
1234B-rpt 17
5.0 CLOSURE
The recommendations presented in this report are provided for design purposes and are based on soi I
conditions disclosed by field observations and subsurface explorations. Subsurface information
presented herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between
exploration locations can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and
soil variations different trom those disclosed by the explorations will not be revealed. The
recommendations outlined in this report are based on the assumption that the development plan is
consistent with the description provided in this report. If the development plan is changed or
subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the exploration are observed during
construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions, and if necessary,
reconsider our design recommendations.
1234B·rpl 18 S&LF
300 Rainier Ave N -Coogle Maps
" ~
~
..
> ,
"
i'1~ Sl
andy
'k
, , , ,
" ~:
..
>
~
~
.
! ,
;
0
• t, ~_ .. ' ,'lot
S 1~6rh~'
,
l
Se~lrlf.'-r.,coma
Inlernational Aifpon
'"
"
,-,~ 'N'l' '" I,
Sea1ac
"<YO
Mawr-Skyw~y
Rf.'f1100 ioAuntclpal Aup
~larl!re Sports
I r
~~
J ;
(
t
" I.
I
I
1
I ~l, I
4/9/15,330 PM
NI'Weast,e
GQlf CillO AI Newc~slh~
. ';",
,;,,'
~>i-_ "~~ (:a5cade-f
" '"kVk'f
~'
>
, Map data ©:Z015 Google :zoooft~
Figure 1
Site Location Map
https: Ilwww.9oogle.com/maps/ place/300 + Rai n ier +Ave+ N, +Re nton, +W ... 9 3 5 5, 13z/ dala= !4m2! 3 m I! IsOx549042a676b6d63 3 :Ox9b Ibbc07 e b7 4 3 34d Page 1 of 1
jl. » '" 1 1 {en 1-liliri , I I I? i / ! z ,
1 i~~\ 1
/'-
l @
I i
i :
/
,
I 1 i
!
-,
j!
i !!
Ii
i Ii
,
/1 , ,
-I / " I ,
.1
I I i , ,
I
I i •
, , ,
,
~;r..----_______ ~__ _ __ ~ 1 Ii q I'
1
, if IIP{ I! I ,(7, ....... "---""'.'" • VJ
o 'I ,tlJi iii] ~"::..":._ 111/1 ;:0
I • i . \ \
fil,( C)
0
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
,
~ , H I ! a
9 s~
! ~§
! !~
" ~< , , c ~ , ~ , , ,
~
~ I
c :J ,
~ ,
~ ~ ~ r. ~ ~ , ! ~ ~
~
~ .-• ~
, ,
! !
1
til o c
n'
-----------~"~--------~------"'~-c" ~"" .. ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! ro ,
'!1I1 III
, , ; I "'I ~ , H~~ I ~H! •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:£" C"
1_ m ~'r--~-ru i"a :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'
• i
t , , ,
I , ,
~I
i
i ;::u-
!b
'T
!!
,
~--'--
i"H , I
~-TI
I I
" I I
I I
~ I I
I
.,< I I i hl, I'
I
~ I I I I • I I I I
I I
;',.._1. I
,,/ "
m ; ~II ~::,:I~
~i
, ,
,0
! , , ,
!
I,
'"
l
i II
I
,
~-
Renton Aerospace Training
Center
It_ Alrp«t I c:1tv' of_
"'!lGlJ>'"
;",,-10
~:'::E§ ~j';§j~
.... ;:0;;--1 '-Z-;G"l~
~;5 ,»
~~
m ~
,,'" ;6 "z ~C zcr. -0:6 ,nz •
o
c
B
A
,
"p
C WIMJ
, ,
il
11'14,2211,·,
~ ~I
'1!I<J.:(Z':·c·', n -
~
~
:tli' It ,
.~ "$..<.(0&1.', "sse.a.:;<\< ,
£,
CD %E~?ND FLOOR FRAMING PlAN
1
a WI'/>:o;,
11 .,,~"
• m ~
IlI>.c::·,'Z':c_,
HSSI'«l)(;a
lJ_:"
0' '6'
r -! "'=
/1rl"CQIK;OO :rSl[[lCl'CK
'l4rW'lo~ 'S!; W19<W29
~ 2
< "'''>:221'51 ,
WI4x<'2l1
11 ~ m ~ ,
• , • I': 19>4IJIZ?I<°'
" , , , " " ~ ~ ~ < ,
H$Sa<!,jI(l ><%(l.:r.<').!!
H'-'&Eh:l'8
:'JJ_::' 10_ (!'
2
,
W'2<53 ~, Iii
. "'.,'~' "joa I
C
.:;: ~
, ~ (.~ :: 1I',4:<2:?r15, '"
., '"' i;I,~~ I w;>t<r>fl:Y11c-,. °1 ~ ,
G-Wi;T~
HSS'["06~
!'CONC5lJ<llOOGfoAJE
W:"@,"EACHMV
~.
r--~-~l=-=_-=-~-~?'~~~~~=_-=--:i=--_-
""
~I ~ a ,
~
,SS8:<9>:ffl
• c·
~I <
j5SI\>!l:{\",
"'
11
I:i:
iii
'OUNDA TION LOADS
I
AT WORKING LOADS LEVE
GF MKA 411412015
PAGE20F2
':b
o ,
" ,
,
FIG liRE 38: The Struclural LOllds
3 4
•
MAGNUSSON
KLEMENC1C
1:11 e 'c
'e
I-
CD
~ a. e
~ I ,
c .. f o CD ' ...... 1 eel"
GI CD I Ili:U~
--
"'""",,'" ~noc>I!_
"' .... ~""'~""...o.d ._."",,.,, ... ,,,
f::~:."=';:;
. --
~'"
c ....... '" -~
='" C_"~"'_""
"-''''--'''
,~-
5203
.I --... --
!>;.\TlO!>;Al
PARK
SNOHOMISH
f
Figure4. Map of the Seattle area showing prominent
active fault systems. Red boxes are recently mapped
7.5-minute quadrangles-Fall City (2007). North Bend
(2009). Snoqualmie (coming 2009). and Carnation
(coming 20 10). Reference: USGS NR09-057
() 10 2D .lD 41) SO 6C -'c 80 'l() ~rl gO
"
CO IProposed Building "
C', 6S
EOr.
B-" ___ ----------. ~~ I .-=-5~
5C ~ Fill co
·E [Remove Fill and ----""' 4 5
: Backfill with M.Dense to Dense Silty Sand to
Structural Fill " Sandy Silt
411 :36~ 411
2
',:> 43 35
Dense to V.Dense Silty Sand to
_ ~ Iso Sandy Silt",
]
":[24 49 .
SP I 38 SM 5015' ;~, _-_____ ~-----.,~iM>i(-;".----SP 50/5" 25 . -a _
)(1 57 MUS &.)12" ~ 10 _ W
i" SMIM~ 15
5015"
50W V. Dense Silty Sand to
", I 58 Sandy Silt with gravel, 0
(Till like)
10014" ----' 50S
Probable Sand Stone
__ ft
10 20 ]0 ~Il 50 60 70 flO ~lO
r;'lstanC'E' I~e-=t:
Section AA
Figure 5
p,,:.
I',
;.,~
')~
S~
j~
·1 S c
.,S
c .j 0 c
"
" c 35
_iU
25
'; U
15
1 U
o 10 2·:1
65
ML 15{)/4"
5{)/S"
,r. 40 "
!=!
'" "
18
5014"
60
!..:l
'" "
'0 00 90 _ or!
--"
---
,Dense to Dense Silty
36 Sandy Silt ~
"
"
49
, 50/2"
5012"
S" I "",. Dense to V.Dense Silty Sand to
SP SOlS" Sandy Silt
50/5"
V. Dense Silty Sand to
Sand Silt with gravel (Till
like)
Surface
The Existing
---------------------------------Probable Sand Stone
le' 20 30 40 50 GO I~ ------p,-o n-Il --jou
Dit;ta!:ce (fee:)
Section BB
Figure 6
EO
7 ~,
co
65
60
50
4 "
"
35
30
25
20
10
10
Neglect
pressure
Pressure acts
over 2 pile
diameter or
pile spacing,
which ever is
less
H
D
Tieback force
Soldier Plle---........
Wall
Drain
295D (Static)
240D (Seismic)
passive pressure
Drain mat
Traffic
35H (Static)
62.5H (Seismic)
14.4H (Seismic)
35(H+D) (Static)
62.S(H+D) (Seismic)
Active pressure
Cantilever or Single-Row TIeback Wall
Pressure acts
over pile
spacing
Pressure acts
over one pile
diameter
Neglect
pressure
Pressure acts
over 2 pile
diameter or
pile spacing,
which ever is
Jess
H
Wall
o
Tieback force
295D (StatiC)
240D (Seismic)
passive pressure
mat
Traffic Surcharge q
2SH
35H (Statk)
62.5H (Seismic)
~
14.4H (Seismic)
E )
3$(H+D) (Static)
62.$(H+D) (Seismic)
Active pressure
Multiple-Row Tieback Wall
Pressure acts
over pile
spacing
Pressure acts
over one pile
diameter
NOTES: 1) For soldier pile spacing of 8 feet or less, lagging should be designed to withstand 25% of active pressure (temporary) or 50% of active pressure (permanent).
2) Seismic pressures pertain to permanent walls only; they need not be applied To temporary walls.
3) Surcharge Pressures: See Figure 6 for surcharge pressures.
4) For simplicity, active pressure diagram has been developed using "composite" soil properties.
5) Factor of safety of 1.$ has been applied to passive resistance.
6) Where appropriate, a uniform vertical "Traffic Surcharge" load of q '" 250 psf should be applied to the ground surface behind the wall. "Traffic Surcharge" represents typical construction vehicles
and materials. Heavy cranes or other unusual surcharge loads should be evaluated separately.
7) Minimum embedment, D'=' 10 ft.
8) See Figure 9 for tieback details.
9) Soldier Piles may be designed using the following parameters:
Allowable end bearing for Temporary (Permanent) cases:: 17.5 KSF (10 KSF) in M. Dense to Dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt and 25KSF (15 KSF) in Dense to V. Dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt.
Allowable side friction for Temporary (Permanent) cases = 0.14 KSF (0.12 KSF) in M. Dense to Dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt and 0.15KSF (0.13 KSF) in Dense to V. Dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt.
10) See Figures 5 &6 for description of soil strata.
11) See Figure 9 for drainage details.
Figure 7
Lateral Earth Pressure Diagrams
m.0.7~ iPK-. ~r--r--r--r--~~~r-~~~~~
:z: A' m =0.3 ....
~
:': .. ~~ ~ 0.61--j-+-+~--+':3:/~L.f---I-t-m-+-R--I
:3 ~ j ~/., / 0.1 .80H
0.8I---t-+I""'IT-,f--+--:I--+-~0:::. 3~.80~H I 0.5 .SSH
I / 0.7 .48H
j/I/
1.0 O~.....L.""~. e~...JL.-. .J,.4--'-..L..-!.6~...l..-.-!-8-..L..--.,JI.o
VALUE OF crH (~)
L
"'H ( H). 9,?On
Ii ~ (0.I6+n2)2
Z.nH J PH·O.55QL 1 ..... 1/ !'H FOR m)o,4,
H !' I '" r.!i.). 1.Z8m Zn '--f~ H 'uL (mZ .. n2)2
...",.~~:LlRESU~TANT ~H' 0.64QL
" (m2 +1)
PRESSURES FROM UNE LOAD QL
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MOOIFIID BY EXPERIMENT)
fleference: Foundations .nd earth Structure ••
Je.lgn Manual 7.2, Oepa:lmenl 01 Ihe Navy, May 1982
0 ~::::-:,..
\ -: ..... o.Z "-~m'0.6 ~\
\ m·Q."'1 'l'
~~ ~ "
, l/ ~~'0.4
c ,I 7 i5 06
~ i/ m ~ R
I 0.2 .78 .59H
OS
0.4 .78 .59H
I 0.6 .45 .48H
ID J o ,5 1.0 1.5
VALIJE HZ
OF crH (Op)
X'mH
SECTION A-A I
PRESSURES FROM POINT WAO Qp
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATION
MOOIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
Figure 8
Calculation of Lateral Loads Due to
Surcharge Loads
Tieback-+.
2'x2 'x2'
Gravel-fill~
ditch
Drain pipe
D = 10' Min
_I
Drain mat
(Miradrain or equivalent)
No load zone
H/4
,
, , , ,
, ,
, , , ,
,0°0
,/"-Locate all anchors
behind this line
Adhesion
~ (See note 1 below)
Soldier pile embedment (D) must be adequate to
provide required lateral and vertical capacity
10' Min
NOTES: 1) Anchors may be designed using the following allowable soil-concrete adhesion for low pressure and (high pressure
post-grout) installations: 0.7S KSF (1.5 KSF) in Fill, 1.0 KSF (2.0 KsF) in M. Dense to Dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt, and 1.25KsF
(2.5 KSF) in Dense to V. Dense Silty Sand to Sandy Silt
2) Verify tieback adhesion with 133% proof tests for every tiebacks. We also recommended that two 200% verification tests be
performed
3) Drain mat (miradrain or equivalent) should be installed over the lagging face. 4" diameter perforated schedule 40, pvc drain
pipe should be installed at the bottom of wall. The pipe and mat should have hydraulic connection (typically through weep
holes at 5 ft D.c.).
4) Clean-outs should be installed one at every 100 ft run and at every turn.
5) See Figures 5 & 6 for description of soil strata. Figure 9
Tieback Geometry
TABLE 1 -Summary of Recommended Soil Parameters for Aerospace Training Center Project
Granular Fill-Silty Sandi M.Denseto Dense Dense to V. Dense
ITEM Compacted Fill Gravel Silty Sand to Sandy Silt Silty Sand to Sandy Silt
Total Unit Weight y (pel) 125 120 125 128
Friction Angle $ (degrees) 36 30 34 36
Cohesion c (pst) 0 0 0 0
Drained Friction Angle $' (degrees) 36 30 34 36
Static Elastic Modulus E (kst) 1200 250 800 1500
Poisson's Ratio v 0.3 0.25 0.35 0.35
Active Earth Pressure Coeff Ka 0.26 0.33 0.28 0.26
At-Rest Earth Pressure Coetf Ko 0.41 0.5 0.44 0.41
Passive Earth Pressure CoeH Kp 2.57 2 2.36 2.57
Active Seismic Earth Pressure Coeff Kae 0.47 0.58 0.5 0.47
Passive Seismic Earth Pressure Coeff K", 2.13 1.6 1.93 2.13
Soil-Concrete Friction Coeff. 0.37 0.23 0.3 0.33
Soil Modulus Parameter (Lateral) k (pci) 90 25 90 225
Modulus Subgrade Reaction ks (pc i) 225 150 175 200 ---------
NOTES:
1. The ks values are typical tor results of tests on 30-inch diameter plate, and need not be corrected for size or shape of
loaded area.
2. Values listed above generally represent average to the slightly conservative side of average values based on
interpretation of available data. Natural variability of soil conditions and parameters are expected to occur throughout
the site.
3. The static E value apply to moderately large shear strain levels of approx 10-1 percent, i.e. for footing loads.
4. A safety factor of 1.5 was applied to achieve design values for K p ' ~, and Soil-Concrete Friction Coefficient.
V.Dense
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (Till Like)
135
40
toO
40
10000
0.35
0.22
0.36
3.07
0.41
2.6
0.37
225
225 --------
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LOGS
A total of3 soil test borings, B-I to B-3 were performed in 2012 and 3 additional borings B-4 to
B-6 were performed in 2015. The locations of these explorations are shown in Figure 2. B-1 and
B-2 were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig. As the grass lawn at B-3 was softened by rain
at the time of drilling and could not support the drill rig, B-3 was drilled with a hand auger. B-4,
B-5 and B-6 were advanced using a track mounted drill rig. Soil samples were taken during the
drilling of soil test borings in general accordance with ASTM 0-1586, "Standard Method for
Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils" (1.4" 1.0. sampler). The penetration test
involves driving the samplers 18 inches into the ground at the bottom of the borehole with a 140
pounds hammer dropping 30 inches. The numbers of blows needed for the samplers to penetrate
each 6 inches are recorded and are presented on the boring logs. The sum of the number of blows
required for the second and third 6 inches of penetration is termed "standard penetration
resistance" or the "N-value". In cases where 50 blows are insufficient to advance it through a 6
inches interval the penetration after 50 blows is recorded. The blow count provides an indication
of the density of the subsoil, and it is used in many empirical geotechnical engineering formulae.
The following table provides a general correlation of blow count with density and consistency.
DENSITY (GRANULAR SOILS) CONSISTENCY (FINE-GRAINED SOILS)
N-value <4 very loose N-value <2 very soft
5-10 loose 3-4 soft
11-30 medium dense 5-8 medium stiff
3 I-50 dense 9-15 stiff
>50 very dense 16-30 very stiff
>30 hard
A chart showing the Unified Soil Classification System is included at the end of this appendix.
~
"~ " '" ~~ ~ • '" ~ ~ ~ i'iet:
" ~~ ! ~.
! ~ 0 ~~ ~ iii '"
BORING B-1
Surface Condition. Bare
0 2
0 3 ~~ .~: , . I '
. 8M i -3 inches crushed rock at ground surface
i I Brown SIlty fine sand (moislXloose to medium denseXprobable filii
0 B ,.
• '0
10
5 : 0
'~
:fJ, :~
,
!
I ,
°t ;g ,~!'. ~'I :: i
'II
trace fine gravel at 5 'eet
10 03 'UI
> '3 • " '~I '.. Dark brown fine to medium gravel, trace tree debns (mOlslXmedium denseXprobable fill)
.: I
\l , 15 .18
• '0 , fJr ;.: I '
.~ ;"., Ml BlUish gray sin, trace organics (maist)(medium stiff)
: i':I'11 • ,! ;1 1
15' 0 2' 18
2 . 10
5
, il!'1 :~I'!!:
20
Client:
Dnlling Method.
sample Method:
Drill Contractor:
Drill DatE!:
Elevation.
~<-nlJ.-----;
,: !' ML ' Gray silt (relatively dry)(haroXpasslble siUstone)
,~',
ill I I-;Ii
'jilill ,LJL~
SRG Partnership, Inc,
(Boring log continues on Figur. A-1b)
3"-10 HSA advanced by truck-mount Drill Rig
SPT sampler driven by '~b auto hammer
Holocene Drilling
October 27, 2012
54 feet +1-Figure A-1a
S&EE
JobNo. 1234 Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
BORING B-1
(Continued)
20--0--~"2·'"~~~~~>r-"'~M~L--,G=-m-Y-S~i~~(-~~la~ti~ve~I-Y~d-~~)(~h-am~X-p~--s~ib~le-s~i~~s~ro-ne-)~--------------------------
I
" li ;: !i ,I '
26 a 5OI.(".c
4
, l-driller report: ve~ ham below 24 feet
rg~' '---
Auger refus.1 at 25 feet on October 27,2012
No groundwater encountered during drilling
35
40 ""_",'
Client:
Drilling Metnod:
Sample Melh<><l:
On11 Contractor.
OriIlDa .. :
EI.vation~
SRG Partnership, Inc.
3"·10 HSA advanced by truck·mount DMU Rig
SPT sampter driven by 14Q..1b auto hammer
Holocene OnJling
OCCober27,2012
54 feet "1-Figure A-1b
S&EE
..bb No. 1234 Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
¥ ... d! 0; .8 BORING B-2 '" ~E ! ~ • I M ~ ~ .c •• ! '" ! •• () ~ ,,~
~ un • '" Surface: asphalt pavement .E.E '" " 0
0 " '" 5nr3", Reddish brown fine sand with some medium gravel (molst)(very dense)
0 ,
" "
6 0 " " J>
0 " ,.
'"
10 a • 7
"
o ,SOl6"'
16
20
Client
Dolling Method:
Sample Mell1od,
Ilfjll ConITacw:
Ilfjll Date:
E.le~ation·
S&EE
Job No '234
,. .""1 Brown silty fine 10 coarse sand wilh fine to ooarse gravel (moislXvery dense) ,.
! ,. r • .~
,. .~ SM Bluish gray silty fine to medium sand with fine to coarse gravel , (Wet)(medium dense to dense)
01
' , "
'1& , !I ,e
Ii ,I i
, ~ ,ML : Dar!< gray sill (nnoislXhardXpossilDe siltstone) 0
,!8) i
I
" ,,-,-' ~-
(Boring log continu&s on Figure A-2b}
SRG Pannership. Inc.
3'"-10 HSA advanced by lnJok-mounl Dri~ Rig
SPT sampler driven by 14O-1b auto hammer
Holocene Driling
OctoDer 27,2012
55 feet +1-Figure A-2a
Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
I I ~ 0:
! @ .S' en
20 37
~
e~ i ~o a~ ~ ~~ ! ~~ E ~'5 QJ _£ til ,
BORING B-2
(Continued)
0 Sm-5 ML 'Gray sitt (relatively dry)(hardXposslble sittstone)
30 .
35.
Client:
Drilling Me1l1Od;
Sample Method"
Drill Contrador:
Drill Dale:
Elevation:
S&EE
Job I'{o 1234
! I
i I
:
-<trill.r repM: very hard below 24 feet
Auger refusal at 25 feet on October 27.2012
Groundwater encountered at a depth of 8.5 feet during drilling
SRG Partnerohip, Inc.
3"·10 HSA advanced by InJck-mount Drtll Rig
SPT sampler driven by 140-lb auto nammer
Hglocene DrlUing
October Z7. 2012
55 feet +1-Figure A-2b
Proposed Aerospace Training Center. Renton, WA
•
'" ~ E ~ ~ ,£ .~
~ ~ .ll
0
o
o
6
0'
o
10 0
15
20
Client:
DriI~ng Method:
Sample Method:
Dnll by:
Doll Date.
Elevation:
S&EE
... No 1234
~
d! ~ !:8 '':::; QI
QO: •• .9!
~. ~ Si; • .£..£: '"
1
·1
,L:
.~
..,
.8
~
'" u '" Surface -Grass lawn '" ISM' Brown silty sand with grass roots (topsoil) ,
Sp Light brown fine sand (moistXmedium dense to dense)
Bluish gray sitt (moist to wetXvery stiff)
Auger refusal at 10.5 feet on October 27,2012
No groundwater encountered during drilling
(80nng log conUnue. on Figure A-2b)
SRG Partnership, 1m::
3"-10 hand auger
grab sa.
S&EE
October 27,2012
56 feet +/.
BORING B-3
Figure A-3
Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
10
15
20
Client:
, ,
5 '1a
7 : 12 •
50 ·1e
7 12
11
i BORING B-4
U] o
~ Surface Candttian: Grass
, ISM
I
Dark brown and gray silly fine sand with organics, occasional layer of fine sand
(moist)( loose Xfill)
, , ,
~,,;
, , ,
i :'
, ,
ii' , ,
" , '
-blow count at 2,5 to 4 feet inflated by rock at sample~s tip
-4" lens of fine sand at 6,5 feel
-fine sand at 8 1o 10 feet
SM Brown and gray si~y fine to medium sand, trace fine gravel (moist)(medium dense to dense
-weI at 10,5 to 10,8 feet
-Ihin, waler-bearing sand lenses at 12,5 feel
~~ ;~ '~:' i
29 ' :'
, '
i MLI Gray sandy silt and siny fine sand water-beaflng sand lenses relatively dry)(hard
!I SM
-shell fragments at 20 feet
(Boring log continued on Figure A-4b)
SRG Partnership, Inc,
Drilling Metllod'
Sample Method:
3"-10 HSA adVanced by lrack-rnount Drill Rig
SPT samp&er driven by 140-lb auto hammer
Holocene Orilling Drill Contractor
Drill Dale:
Elevation:
S&EE
Job No 12348
Feb 23, 2015
55 feet +/. Figure A-4a
Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
------------
•
" ~
c'!l
'" ~o
~o ~ 8~ ~ i "" £ ~~
~ £"5 Q
OJ .s..s
£
Q. e
.!!!
~ .. to
-a
.Q
!
'" " '" '" Surlace Condition -Grass
BORING B-4
(Continued)
20 12 , ,. ML/ Gray sandy stlt and sitty fine sand with shell fragments and water-beanng sand lenses
(relatively dry)(hard)
19 ,.
SM 101
, " " ~ , 21 " ,.
, ,
26 12 " ~: 22 ,.
'21
:':3 : 11 '~ SM Gray silly fine to medium sand, little fine gravel (moist)(very dense) 50/5" 11
30, sp Gray fine sand (wetXvery dense)
5015" 5
35 50
5QI2'
" SOlS'
40
Client
Drilling Method'
Sample Method,
Drill Contractor:
Drill Date.
Elevation·
S&EE
Job I", 1704B
5
Gray fine sand and sitty fine sand (dryXvery dense)
7 r2~~V 7 ' I
, I"
Gray sandy silt and sitty fine sand (relatively dry)(hard)
, " ,
11
[ZJI 11
SM Gray silty fine to medium sand wrlh fine to coarse gravel (moistXvery dense)(till-like)
I'
(Boring log continued on Figure A-4c)
SRG Partnenshlp, Inc.
3"·10 HSA advanced by track-mount Drill Rig
SPT sampler driven by 140-lb auto hammer
Holocene Drilling
Feb 23,2015
55 feet +1-Figure A-4b
Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
" l'
"'~ " ~2 .. M ~ ~ ! :g:g
'li'li .Q on ..s.s
40
46
'" !
.!!! ~ " I/)
I
I .•
.!(!
.8
~
'" l)
'" " SM
Surface Condition: Grass
BORING B-4
(Continued)
Gray silty fine to medium sand with fine to coarse gravel (moist)(very dense)(till-like)
60,
:5015" 5 rv1
. : 5 ~ '---'_-'
65,
60:. ___ .
Client:
Drilling Melhod:
Sample Method'
Drill Contractor:
Drill Dat.:
Elevation:
S&EE
.lob No. 1Zl48
BOring completed at a depth of 50.5 feet
No steady groundwater table encountered during drilling, however, most sand layers and
lenses were water-bearing.
SRG Partnership, Inc.
3"·10 HSA advanced by trilck-mount Dritl Rig
SPT sampler driven by 140-lb auto hammer
HokJcene Dl'illing
Feb 23,2015
55 feet +/-Figure A-4c
Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
•
""
1
~ '" c~ £; II BORING 8-5 ~o "-.~ &:; 8 ~ ~ QIl: i V)
~~ V)
.c.c U 0 £~ .. V)
OJ V) ::> Surface Condition_" Grass
o
I SM Dar1< brown and gray siny fine sand wah organics (wet)(loose)(fill)
2 ,. ~ 3 ,,.
6 :
6 9 ,. ~ " : :l5
' '. 47 SMI Gray Silty fine sand and sandy sin with water-bearing sand lenses (moist)(very dense)
,
Ml
I
. 12 ,. ,~ ,
'" ,.
'9
10 40 " 50/5". 11 [SJ -water-bearing sand lenses at 10 feet
15
20
Client:
Drilling Method:
Samp~ Method:
Drill Contractor:
Drill Date,
Elevation"
S&EE
-llb flo. 12148
i! .
1
SM Gray silty fine sand wah flne to meOium gravel (dry to moistXvery dense)(till-like)
Ml ,GrayIsh brown SIn (dry)(hard)
Bonng completed at a depth of 15.5 feet.
No groundwater table was encountered during drilling, however, wet soil was present
from surface to a depth of 5.5 feet
SRG Partnership, Inc.
3"·10 HSA advanced by track-mount DriU Rig
SPT sampier driven by 140-lb auto hammer
Holocene Dnlling
Feb 23,2015
30 feet +/. Figure A-5
Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
" e .!!l c"l t .8 "" ~o c (§~ <!: ! ~ ~ " Hi <I)
~ L> Q uu ~ U) Surface Condition: Grass OJ .s.s U) '" 0
3 .,. •
. Brown fine sand (damp)(medium dense)
I
5 ,.
. 10 .,.
I Gray silt w~h shell fragments (dry to moist)(very stiff) " Ml
5OJ5'" 5
5
20.
Client
DrilUng Method
Sample Method:
Drill Conlractor:
Drill Dale:
Elevation'
(Borng log continued on Figure A~b)
SRG Partnership, Inc,
3"-ID HSA advanced by track-mounl Drill Rig
SPT sampler driven by 14O-1b auto hammer
Holocene Drilling
Fob 23, 2015
32 feet +1-
BORING B-6
Figure A-6a
S&EE
JobNo t234B Proposed Aerospace Training Center. Renton, WA
•
,
" ~ '" c~ -s 0 BORING B-6 .~~ :.l-.0
is 0:: a §, (Continued) ~ <! U)
~~ '" "'"" !; 0
as uu .. U) Surface Condition" Grass ££ U) '" 20 43 ,O~ 50/4" '" 8MI Gray Silty fine sand and sandy Silt. trace fine gravel. water-bearing sand lenses
ML (dry to moist)(very dense)
26
' '. ~! I ,.
34
26
.10014"
30
35
40
Client:
Dri'ling Method'
Sample Method:
Drill Contractor:
Drill Date:
Ele ... ation"
S&EE
.l1b "10. 12348
,"
55 Gray cemented fine sand (dry to moist)(very dense)(probable sandstone)
, r2:I J Borng completed at a depth of 28 feet
No steady groundwater table encountered during drilling, however. most sand
layers and lenses were water-bearing,
SRG Partnership. 'nc.
:)".10 HSA advanced by track·mount Drill Rig
SPT sampler dnven by 140-lb auto hammer
Holocene Drilling
Feb 23. 2015
32 feet +1-Figure A-6b
Proposed Aerospace Training Center, Renton, WA
•
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
... 1 . G§W I WELL-GRADED G~::~:::~:~S~~~~~~E~,--l-CL~~ DMSlDNS
;.CtG~--i-~r;~~~::~~;~VELSORGAAVEL:SANDMIXTUREs:---1 ~~~~;S : ~ ~;gw ~~ ~
I • I ,UTTLE OR NO FINES ' NO FINES) W X ~ ~ t::l :::i!: w 5!!? ~ ~ ------------------------,----------f-------J > z '" ~ ~ i'l ~ U);;;;
'·1-' GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT I GRAVELS 1 « ~::;:;;~;;;; 0 ffil!>'
:: ~ I ! MIXTURES I I IY. wCl}~ti) ~~. I.U iY:l 1.~iG;~-CLAYE;"-(fAAITE-LS-:-GRAVEL-:-SAND-CLAY +WI,(A:~E:'~~~S C!J Us ~~ I ~ ~~
I. ,MIXTURES AMQUNTOFFINES) ~j;: I 0:: 1<..0
S;-: -WELL:GRADED SAND OR GRAVELLY SANDS, -CLEAN ~ ~ : C!J ~ ~
i LlTTLEORNOFINES I )52?"T ~ffi: W ~~
Sp-1-POORLY-GRA-DEDSANOS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, __ " 1 __ ' (~~~~ ~~!;l ~§ i fQ ~~ E~
I LITTLE OR NO FINES "NOF!NES) ~ z~~~ o~ ! R ~~ ~~
~;~ ~~~~~~::~ANO-SILTM~X~~R~;-----------~ WI~~NF?~ES ~ :ijq~ i u ~~:
CLAYEY SANDS SAND-CLAY MIXTURES I (APPRECIABLE ~80')~::::> t;;~
INORGANIC SIL ~S, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR JAMOUNT OF FINES) -----! I
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY U) ~ w ~ ~
;~nl-;'~-'-iNKJR.GAr-liC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY SILTS & CLAYS <5 i ~ ~ ~
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ~ LIQUID LIMiTlESS THAN 50 U) 1"'" 8::
ORGANICSILTSANDORGANICSILT-clAYSOFLOW------1 I 0 §~ ;j::l
UJ 0 ~~ ~N~:~~~~-SILTS MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS F~NE ---~---------1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS I (!; :;: ~
FAT I ' ~'" I SILTS & CLAYS ~ ~~
:::~i OFml(Nlicc:[AYSOFMlfDflJM-f(j'HlGH PLASncm~, ------1 lIaUID UMIT GREATER THAN 50 I iL: §i~
.. ___ :~T~A~D~~THER~IGHL~~GA_~I_C_SO_I_LS ____ -_-_-_-_-___ J-=--=_HIG~LY ORGANIC S~S _~ =j
~ Nan-disturbed O&M Sampler
~ SPT (1.4" ID SAMPLER)
SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
DEPTH OF GROUNDWATER DURING EXPLORATION SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
AND KEY TO EXPLORATION LOG
S&EE
, '.
Renton Aerospace Training Center
Renton, Washington
Traffic Impact Analysis
May 2015
AUG 0 il 201'1
Prepared By:
1
Transportation Operations
Transportation Systems Division
Public Works Department
City of Renton
TabJe of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 7
Study Scope ................................................................................................................................. 7
Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 7
Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 8
Transportation System ................................................................................................................ 8
Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................ 9
Traffic Operations ..............................•...................••.................................................................... 9
Traffic Safety ..............................................•.....•......................................................................... 11
Future Without-Project Conditions ..............................................................•................................ 11
Planned Improvements ............................................................................................................. 12
Traffic Volumes ........................................................••.....................................................•.......... 12
Traffic Operations ...................................................................................................................... 12
Future With Project Conditions ............................................•........................................................ 14
Trip Generations ........................................................................................................................ 14
Trip Distribution and Assignment .............................................................................................. 15
Future With-Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 15
Future With-Project Traffic Operations ..................................................................................... 15
Site Access Analvsis ................................................................................................................... 16
Traffic Operations ...................................................................................................................... 16
Site Distance ............................... : .............................................................................................. 11
Traffic Safety Impacts ................................................................................................................ 17
Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusions ........................................•........................................................................................... 18
3
Tables
Table 1 study Area Existinc Roadway NetwarilSummary .. _ .. _ •...... _ ••.........•.••..•........... _._ ....•.•.•.••...•••••• 8
Table l: Existinc Transit Service • __ •••••• _._._ ••••• _ .................................................... _ .......... _ •.••••••••••••••• 9
Table 3: LOS CrIteria for SI&naIized and Un-5lenaHz2d intersections' ..................................................... 10
Table 4: ExIstIni Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS ........................................ _._ ..... 10
Table 5: Auident Data Summary (ZOlZ -Z014'_ •••• _ •• _ •••• __ •.••••••••••.••••..••.•••••••••••••• _ •••••.•••••••••••.•• _._ •• 11
Table 6: Without-Project Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Operations ......................... 13
Table 7: EstImated Daily and Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation ............................. _ ......•. _ .•...........• 14
Table 8 .. Projected Trip Generation for the Aerospace Traininc Center •••.••.•••• _ ••••.•••••.•••••••.•.•• _._ •••••••. 15
Table 9: With-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations ................................... 16
Table 10: Site Access Operatlons .••••• _ •••••••• _._ •.••• _._ ........................ _ ••.•••••••..••••••••..•.•••••••••••.•••••••.•.••..• 17
"'lIure 1: Site Vicinity and Study Intersections
fiaure l: Preliminary Site Plan
Figures
FilUre 3: Existlna Channelization and Traffic Control at Study Intersections
"'"ure 4: Existina Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
fiaure S: l016 Without-Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes
Fisure 6: Project Trip Distribution and Trip Assipment
F .... re 7: l016 With Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Weekday AM and PM Intersection LOS Worksheets
Appendix B: Without-Project Weekday AM and PM Intersection LOS WorkshelltS
Appendix C: Trip Generation Summary
Appendix D: With-Project Weekday AM and PM Intersection LOS Worksheets
5
~~-----------
Introduction
This traffic impact analysis (TlA) identifies transportation-related impacts associated with the
proposed Renton Aerospace Training Center.
Project Description
The project is the development of an aerospace training center located at 300 Rainier Avenue
North on the east side of Rainier Avenue North, and approximately 900 feet north of the Airport
Way/Renton Avenue Extension/Rainier Ave North intersection in the City of Renton. The site
currently is occupied by a building (former site of the Renton Chamber of Commerce) and a
parking lot providing a view ofthe Renton Airport. The proposed project would remove the
existing building and construct a new two-story 23,500 square feet training center building to be
completed and occupied by 2016. The facility would include multiple classrooms and
administrative offices. The existing parking lot would be maintained to serve the training center
needs. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and surrounding vicinity.
A preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 2. As shown in the site plan, two existing driveways
will be re-configured for site access along Rainier Avenue North.
Study Scope
This TIA evaluated existing 2013 as well as future 2016 weekday AM and PM peak hour
operations at the driveways and in the area surrounding the project site. A horizon year of 2016
was used for all analysis of future conditions as it represents the anticipated build-out year of
the proposed project.
Study Area
The analysis focuses on the AM and PM peak hour (between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00
p.m. respectively) operations at three existing off-site study intersections. These periods
represent the highest cumulative total traffic for the adjacent street system providing a
conservative timeframe for level of service (lOS) analysis. The study intersections include:
1. Airport Way/Shattuck Avenue South
2. Airport Way/Renton Avenue Extension/R~inier Avenue North
3. Rainier Avenue North/NW 3'd Place
The analysis also includes the operations at the two existing driveways serving the project site.
The north driveway is located at the intersection of Rainier Avenue North and NW 3'" Place and
the second driveway is located approximately 200 feet to the south, as part of the parking lot.
7
Existing Conditions
This section describes existing conditions within the identified study area. Characteristics are
provided for the existing transportation system, including traffic volumes and operations, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, transit service, and traffic safety.
Transportation System
The project site is located in the City of Renton on the east side of Rainier Avenue North and
approximately 900 feet north of the Airport Way/Renton Avenue Extension/Rainier Avenue
North intersection. Existing roadway characteristics within the project site study area are
described in Table 1.
Table 1 Study Area Existing Roadway Network Summary
Roadway Arterial Posted Number of Parking Sidewalk Bicycle
Classification Speed Umit Lanes Facilities
Rainier Ave Principal 35 mph 5 No Yes
N Arterial
Airport Way Principal 35 mph 6 No Yes
Arterial
Shattuck Commercial 25 mph 2 No Partial
Avenue Access
Street
NW3'" Residential 2Smph 2 No Partial
Place Access
Street
The channelization and traffic control of the three off-site study intersections can be found in
Figure 3. As shown, two of the study intersections are Signalized intersections. At the third
intersection, NW 3" Place is stop sign-controlled at Rainier Avenue North.
No
No
No
No
The project site is located in a commercial corridor area and abuts the Renton Airport, on the
east, an industrial employment area. Pedestrian facilities serving the site include sidewalks on . .
both sides of Rainier Avenue North and Airport Way. Crosswalks are provided at the Airport
Way/Renton Avenue Ext/Rainier Avenue North and Airport Way/Shattuck Avenue North
intersections. Based on traffic counts conducted at the study intersections, there is minimal
pedestrian activity in the immediate site vicinity. Bicycles typically share the roadway on both
Rainier Avenue North and Airport Way.
8
The project site is not currently served by transit. The closest bus stops are located
approximately 1500 feet to the south on Rainier Avenue North and are served by King County
Metro Routes 106 and 107. Both routes provide peak-hour access to and from downtown
Seattle and the downtown Renton Transit Center. Route characteristics are summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2: EKisting Transit Service
Routes Area Served Approximate A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Weekday Period Trips Period Trips
Operations
Hours
106 Renton-Seattle 5:27 A.M. to 13 32
11:30 P.M.
107 Renton-Seattle 5:35A.M. to 13 26
11:40 P.M.
Source; King County Metro Transit (February 2015
Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 illustrates the existing A.M. and P.M. peak-hour traffic volumes at the three study
intersections. Traffic volumes at each study intersection are from traffic counts conducted by
the City in 2010 and 2013. Traffic volumes were rounded to the nearest ten vehicles since
weekday volumes fluctuate day-to-day.
Traffic Operations
The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the
intersection's level of Service (lOS). lOS generally refers to the degree of congestion at an
intersection (or on a roadway). A letter scale from A to F generally describes intersection lOS,
with LOS A indicating free-flow conditions (motorists experience little or no delay) and lOS F
represents forced-flow conditions with long vehicle delays.
lOS for signalized intersections represent the average control delay (seconds per vehicle) and
can be reported for the overall intersection, for each approach, and for each lane group
movement (additional volume/capacity ratio criteria apply to lane group or movement LOS . .
only). LOS for intersections with stop-controlled approaches is also based on average control
delay and is reported for the stop-controlled minor approach or controlled minor lane group
(additional V /C ratio criteria apply to lane group or movement LOS only).
Table 3 provides a more detailed explanation of intersection LOS criteria.
9
Headways
(minutes)
15 to 30
15 to 30
Table 3· lOS Criteria for Signalized and Un·Signalized Intersections'
SiKllalized intersections Un-SiKllalized intersections
LOS by Volume-to-UIDilcitv {VIC Ratio2 LOS !!Jt: Volume-to-Cal!!!!<itv IV lCl Ratio'
Control Delay S 1.0 >1.0 Control Delay :0.0 >1.0
(sec/veh) (sec/veh)
SIO A F SIO A
> IOtoS20 B F >10to<20 B
>20tos3S C F > 20 to < 3S C
>35toS55 D F >35tos55 D
> 55 tos 80 E F >55toS80 E
>80 F F >80 F
" . Source. HCM2D1D Hlllhwoy cap;lcity Manual, TransportatIon Research Board, 2010 .
'For approach-based and Intersection-wide assessments at signals, LOS 15 defined solely by control delay
, For stop controlled intersections, the LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on
the minor street. LOS is not cakulated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole at stop
controlled intersections. For approach-based and intersection-wide assessments at all-way stop controHed
intersections and roundabouts, LOS is solely defined iilS control delav.
Existing levels of service, delays and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios were calculated using
Highway capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology using Synchro (version 8.0) Traffic Analysis
Software. City of Renton signal timing was used in the analysis of the existing intersections'
operations.
Table 4 summarizes the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak-hour existing LOS analysis at the three
study intersections. Detailed intersection LOS worksheets are contained in Appendix A.
Table 4: [Kisting Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection lOS
Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Airport Way/Shattuck
Avenue South
Airport Way/Renton
Avenue Extension/Rainier
Avenue North
Rainier Avenue North/NW
3,d Place
Source: HeM 2000 and Synchro S.O
, lOS as defined by lhe HeM
LOS' Delay'
Sec
A 3.7
0 37.3
A 0.5
2 Average delay per vehicle in seconds
'Volume-Io-capacity IV/C) ratio for signalized intersections
VIC' or LOS'
WM'
0.37 A
0.66 E
5 A
4 Worst Movement (WM) for minor street stop controlled intersections eastbound (EB) approach.
s "_": All way stop controlled intersection reports delay and lOS for the entire intersection.
10
Delay2
Sec
3.8
65.3
0.8
F
F
F
F
F
F
V/C'or
VIM'
0.52
0.95
,
Table 4 shows that the three study intersections operate at lOS E or better under existing peak
hour conditions.
Traffic Safety
Accident records were reviewed within the study area to document any potential traffic safety
issues. The most recent summary of accident data provided by the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is for the three-year period between January 1, 2012
and December 31, 2014.
A summary of total accidents and annual average accidents during this three-year period for
intersections and mid-block sections are provided in Table S. The accident rate is representative
of the number of accidents per one million entering vehicles (MEV) at each intersection and
mid-block location. Intersections or mid-block locations with a rate greater than 1.0 accident
per MEV are typically flagged for further investigation to determine whether an adverse
condition exists.
Table 5: Accident Data Summary (2012 ~ 2014)
Number of Reported Accidents
Intersection 2012 2013 2014 Total Annual Accidents
Average per MEV'
Airport WaY/Shattuck 2
Avenue South
Airport Way/Renton 6
Avenue Extension/Rainier
Avenue North
Rainier Avenue North/NW 0
3" Place
Mid-block Section
Airport Way between 0
Shattuck Avenue South
and Rainier Avenue North
Rainier Avenue North 2
between Airport Way and
NW 3'd Place
Source: WSDOT records (1/1/2012 -12/31/2014)
1 Million Entering Vehicles
, Not Applicable
2
11
0
1
5
Future Without-Project Conditions
3 7 2.3
5 22 7.3
0 0 0
1 2 0.6
1 8 1.1
This section describes future without-project conditions within the study area, including planned
improvements, traffic volumes, and traffic operations.
11
0.33
0.31
N/A
N/A
N/A
Planned Improvements
Based on a review of the Oty of Renton's Six-Year 12015-2020) Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), the Rainier Avenue North corridor is planned for traffic operation improvements
including new traffic signals, transit priority at signalized intersections, pedestrian-scale
illumination, wider sidewalks with streetscaping. pedestrian/bicycle path, and other non-
motorized improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The Six-Year TIP also
identifies the Airport Way corridor for planned transportation improvements including a
pedestrian/bicycle path separated from the travel lanes by landscaped area, pedestrian-scale
illumination, and other associated non-motorized improvements. Both the Rainier Avenue
North corridor and Airport Way corridor improvements are planned between 2015 and 2020.
No specific improvements have been identified to be completed by 2016; therefore no changes
to the roadway network have been included in evaluating future 2015 conditions.
Traffic Volumes
Future without-project weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by
increasing existing traffic volumes by a growth rate of two percent per year to 2016 conditions.
The growth rate was determined by City of Renton traffic volume count data and is consistent
with other projects completed in the City. No pipeline development projects that would
contribute to additional travel volumes were identified within the study area. Figure 5 presents
2016 without-project weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the three study
intersections.
Traffic Operations
A.M. and P.M. weekday peak hour intersection operations were evaluated for forecast 2016
without-project conditions. Intersection LOS was determined at the three study intersections
using LOS methodology described previously. Table 6 summarizes 2016 without-project
weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic operations and compares these forecast conditions to
the existing weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Detailed LOS worksheets future
without-project conditions are included in Appendix B.
12
Table 6: Without-Project Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Existing (2013) 2016 Without-Project
Intersection
Weekday A.M. Peak Hour
Airport Way/Shattuck
Avenue South
Airport Way/Renton
Avenue Extension/Rainier
Avenue North
Rainier Avenue North/NW
3"' Place
Weekday P.M. Peak Hour
Airport Way/Shattuck
Avenue South
Airport Way/Renton
Avenue Extension/Rainier
Avenue North
Rainier Avenue North/NW
3"' Place
Source: HCM 2000 and Synchro 8.0
1 lOS as defined by the HeM
1 Average delay per vehide in seconds
LOS' Delay>
A 3.7
D 37.3
A 0.5
A 3.8
E 65.3
A 0.8
3 Volume-to-capacity (V Ie) ratio for signalized intersections
Vlc'or LOS'
WM4
0.37 A
0.66 D
5 A
0.52 A
0.95 E
5 A
.. Worst Movement (WM) for minor street stop controlled intersections eastbound (EB) approach.
S H_H= All way stop controlled intersection reports delay and lOS for the entire intersection.
Delay>
4.3
38.8
0.40
3.7
73.1
0.90
As shown in Table 6, with the addition of background growth under without-project conditions,
the three study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS E or better.
13
VIc' or
WM4
0.37
0.70
5
0.53
0.99
•
Future With Project Conditions
This section describes the potential project-generated traffic impacts on the street network and
intersections within the study area. Estimated traffic volumes generated by the proposed
project are distributed and assigned to the study area street system. NeKl:, project generated
traffic volumes are added to the future without-project traffic volumes and any potential
impacts to traffic operations and safety are identified. Site access operations are also discussed.
Trip Generations
Trip generation for the proposed aerospace training center project is summarized in Table 7.
Estimates for project-generated vehicle trips are typically determined using daily and average
peak hour trip rates from the Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual
(9"' Edition, 2012). However, the proposed aerospace training center does not fit with any of
the land uses and trip generation rates included in the ITE manual. Therefore, trip generation
for the proposed project is based on this Aerospace Training Center's instructors and
administrator's estimate of number and type (special needs, out-of-town trainees, Boeing
Company staff and reSidents) traveling to and from the project site in various modes of
transportation (SOV, HOV, vanpools and shuttles). A summary of the trip generation data is
included in Appendix C. The existing building on site previously was used by the City of Renton
Chamber of Commerce and has been vacant for the past 4 years. As such, the site was assumed
to not be generating any existing trips.
Table 7' Estimated Dailv and Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation
Daily Trips A.M. Peak Hour trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out
Proposed
Aerospace 170 25 -25 -25
Training Center
Existing • * • • • •
Net New Trips· 170 25 -25 -25 . . .. ExIsting building has not been In use for several years; therefore assume no eXisting trips .
The proposed project will generate approximately 170 net new daily trips, approximately 25 net
new weekday A.M. peak hour trips (25 inbound and 0 outbound), and approximately 25 net new
P.M. peak hour trips (0 inbound and 25 outbound).
14
Total
25
•
25
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Figure 6 illustrates the distribution during the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in this figure,
90 percent ofthe trips would be oriented to/from the south on Rainier Avenue North and 10
percent to and from the north.
Project trips for the weekday daily AM and PM peak hours were assigned to the study
intersections based on existing travel patterns. The resulting trip assignment is shown in Figure
6.
Future With-Project Traffic Volumes
Site-generated weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the future
without project traffic volumes at the study intersections. The resulting Mure (2016) with-
project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 7. Table 8 summarizes the anticipated increase
in total entering traffic at the study intersection as the percent of future with-project traffic
volumes attributable to the proposed Aerospace Training Center.
Table 8 -Projected Trip Generation for the Aerospace Training Center
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Net 2016 Percent Net 2016 Percent
New Future Attributable New Future Attributable
Project With-to Project Project With-to Project
Trips Project Trips Project
Volumes' Volumes'
1. Rainier Avenue
North/Renton Avenue 22 3600 0.6 22 5400 0.4
Extension/ Airport Way
2. Airport
Way/Shattuck Avenue 10 2500 0.4 10 3550 0.3
South
3. Rainier Avenue 3 1640 0.2 3 2340 0.1 North/NW 3<d Place
1. Total number of vehIcles entering the intersection
As shown in Table 8, net new trips would be 0.6 percent or less of the total entering volumes at
the three study intersections during peak traffic hours.
Future With-Project Traffic Operations
Future 2016 With-project study intersection operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and
PM peak hours. Intersection lOS was calculated using the methodology described preViously.
The without-project conditions are compared to the with-project conditions to understand the
potential traffic impacts of the proposed Aerospace Training Center. Table 9 summarizes the
2016 without and with-project study intersections operations during weekday Am and peak
15
traffic hours, respectively. LOS worksheets are included in Appendix D. As shown in Table 9, the
LOS with the addition of Aerospace Training Center traffic remains at LOS E or better when
compared to without-project conditions.
Table 9: With·Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations
2016 Without-Project 2016 With-Project
Intersection
LOS· Delay" VIC' or LOS· Delay' VIc' or
WM4 WM4
Weekday A.M. Peak Hour
Rainier Avenue
North/Renton Avenue
Extension/Airport Way
Airport Way/Shattuck
Avenue South
Rainier Avenue North/NW
3"' Place
Weekday P.M. Peak Hour
Rainier Avenue
North/Renton Avenue
Extension/Airport Way
Airport Way/Shattuck
Avenue South
Rainier Avenue North/NW
3"' Place
Source: HCM 2000 and Synchro 8.0
I lOS as defined by the HCM
0 38.8
A 4.3
A 0.40
E 73.1
A 3.7
A 0.90
, Average delay per vehicle in seconds
'Volume·ta-capaclty (VIC) ratio for signalized intersections
0.70 0
0.37 A
5 A
0.99 E
0.S3 A
5 A
• Worst Movement (WM) for minor street stop controlled Intersections eastbound (EB) approach.
Site Access Analysis
39.1
4.3
0.40
73.6
3.8
0.90
The proposed aerospace training center will be accessed via two driveways along Rainier
Avenue North as shown on the site plan (see Figure 7). The north driveway (OWY1) will operate
as inbound only; the south driveway (OWY2) will operate as outbound only. with both rlght-
turns and left-turns allowed. Traffic operations and sight distances were evaluated at the two
proposed site access intersections with Rainier Avenue North.
Traffic Operations
Site access operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours and are shown in
Table 10 below. Intersection LOS was determined using the methodology described previously.
LOS worksheets are included in Appendix E. Table 10 shows that the two proposed access
intersections are forecast to operate at LOS A during both peak hours.
16
0.69
0.47
0.99
0.54
5
Table 10' Site Access Operations
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection LOS' Delay' WM' LOS' Delay' WM'
Rainier Avenue
North/OWn
Rainier Avenue
North/DWY2
Source: HCM 2000 .nd Synchro 8.0
I LOS as defined by the HeM
2 Average delay per vehicle in seconds
A 0.39 0.39 A
A 0.31 0.31 A
, Worst Movement (WM) for driveway stop-controlled intersections. WB ; westbound approach.
Site Distance
0.47
0.20
Site distance was evaluated at the two site access driveway intersections with Rainier Avenue
North. The methods and standards used to measure the available sight distance are defined in
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highwoys ond Street, 6'" Edition produced by the American
Association of State highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Based on a 3S-mph design
speed. the recommended stopping distance along the major road (Rainier Avenue North) is 2S0
feet from the driveway location. Similarly. the recommended entering sight distance for a
vehicle exiting the driveway onto the major road with a design speed of 3S mph is 390 feet
exiting to the left and 33S feet exiting to the right.
Field measurements at the two driveway locations show that the stopping sight distance is in
excess of 500 feet. The entering sight distance measured in the field was also in excess of the
required 390 feet and 335 feet at DWV2 (the southernmost driveway) for exiting left and right
turns. respectively.
Traffic Safety Impacts
Traffic generated by the proposed project could increase the probability of traffic accidents. It is
unlikely that project traffic would create safety issues or significantly increase the number of
reported accidents in the study area.
17
0.47
0.37
Mitigation Measures
All study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or better; therefore the proposed project
is not required to mitigate any intersection impact. Similarly, the driveway where project traffic
will be exiting onto Rainier Avenue North is forecast to operate at LOS A or better. To safely
expedite the movement of traffic exiting the project site to travel southbound on Rainier
Avenue North, modification of the existing channelization on Rainier Avenue North to provide a
merge lane with the through traffic (see Figure 2) is proposed as a mitigation measure. The
proposed project may also be required to pay a transportation impact fee to be determined by
the City. Payment of the transportation impact fee is assumed to mitigate any of the proposed
Aerospace Training Center project's long term traffic impact in the City.
Conclusions
This traffic impact analysis summarizes the traffic impacts of the proposed Aerospace Training
Center project. General findings and recommendations include:
• The project consists of removing an existing building that has been vacant for 4 years,
constructing a new Aerospace Training Center, and reconfiguring an existing parking
area.
• The proposed project would generate approximately 170 new daily trips, 25 new trips
during the AM peak hour, and 25 new trips during the PM peak hour.
• Project traffic would represent 0.1 to 0.6 percent of the 2016 peak hour traffic volumes
at the off·site study intersections.
• All study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or better with the addition of the
project traffic.
• The southernmost site access driveway would operate at LOS A and will meet the
minimum sight distance requirements
• To mitigate impacts of traffic exiting the project site to travel southbound on Rainier
Avenue North, modification of existing channelization in Rainier Avenue North is
proposed that will provide a merge lane with the through traffic.
• A transportation impact fee may be assessed to mitigate any long term traffic impacts
from the proposed project.
18
Figures
N
Figure 1 Project Site Vicinity A
CD Rainier Ave N &
Airport Way
,.-----
JUll
~
iiffr
"---
® Airport Way &
Shattuck Ave S
~
J~
~
"t
"'-10 Rainier Ave N &
NW 3rd PI --··U
-{It
itt
"'----~ Rainier Ave N &
1 Driveway 1
fr
t \
NW 4th St
'~I I~ I
~I_J! >. 'E
<II <II
I-J: I
NW3rdPI ~-~
----
NW 3rd St
I V I II z
Q)
~
~
.!!! c
. 1 . ~
== :i: z
rtJ ~Ld"~ Q)
~ ~ ~io\ • ~
0 <II ,.\e >.
J: !\.o~ rtJ ~ ~0~ Q) ~
~
.!!! c 'm 0:
~ ~~ \
Hardie A
VIII U'~
!
ITE
&;;.. Rainier Ave N &
'\.V Driveway 2
u
fr
LEGEND
® = STUDY INTERSECTIONS
~ =TRAFFIC SIGNAL
T =STOP CONTROL
Ii]
NOT TO SCALE
---Alrport-W--a-y.~ W :~:~: ... ~
. r:l
~ ~ STItlicuriiSt---". ~
!
•
i
j ,
" I
'------lC _.,ft, S Tobin 5t
(1),-__ _
Existing Channelization and Traffic Control at Study Intersection
Aerospace Training Center FIGURE 3
CD
CD
10
Rainier Ave N &
Airport Way --
I t i
:400) 150 870 350 (540
(140)
Airport Way &
Shattuck Ave S ----('.):; (f t'·)
Rainier Ave N &
NW 3rd PI
('000) (I.):; T
It
(1.)1.-"
(OIl)'.,
(OO)J(,,h1
~ Rainier Ave N &
W Driveway 1
it"
Je
10401
Ij
LeO). ra)·
I \
NW 4th St
'~ ~ z Z
<Il <Il > >
c( c(
(5 .!!
>. "E .. ..
I-J: !
NW3rdPI ~-~
NW 3rd SI
I V I II z
Q)
~ ...
. !!l c ·16
(1 \ a:
:!:
3: z
~LJ"~ en
Q)
.!!? <C;."f.\ • ~ ... '2 ~e 0 ~ :/\.Ul >.
:1.0 Q) {l ~0~ ~
...
.!!! c ·16 a:
..,
Airport Way
~ Rainier Ave N &
\:;;) Driveway 2 ----(~f
Ij
L(I).
lOOt ". (1140)
LEGEND
xx -WHk9y AM !'HIt Hour
(XI() • WHkdoy PM PHk Hour
@ -Studyln_,.
~ W perimeter Rot 2
Alrport-W---ay
~ -~~--~ S Tillicum si-----
(iJ-
NOT TO SCALE
•
-.lei) L--__ .
'~I
, ____ • _. S To'''St ,JL ..
Existing (2014) WeekclClY AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Aerospace Training Center FIGURE 4
:CD
®
CD
Rainier Ave N &
Airport Way ----
I f r
420) 160 100 38Cl (!580:
(110)
Airport Way &
Shattuck Ave S -----
(10)) (1) C (10)
(10)20J ~ LID (10)
(2020) ~ .-.1300
1080 (1-400)
(10)10, • ,-.0(20)
(10) 'J J~ C (20)
Rainier Ave N &
NW3rd PI
~-~)T
~
~~wJ
~w,
~~t (~)
,6;v.. Rainier Ave N &
W Driveway 1
-r.oo;-
07! e-
..t '0 1080)
ej
,-<5)0
,,---l0)0
I \
NW 41h SI
'~I I~ I
iL Ii
I-~:r,
NW3rdPI ~-~
NW 3rd SI
I VI II z
Q)
~ ...
,~
'iii ("1 \ II::
~ ~'
~ z
en ~IA'~ Q)
~ ~ ~;j..\ • ...
0 Ol -lEI >.
:r !l.o~ en t! ~EI<::' CD ~ ...
,!!1
I:
'iii
II::
~ "\~ \
as ./" '---H~l1ie ~I-e
U'/t.
'\ --,
ITE
,6;v.. Rainier Ave N &
\iJ Driveway 2 ---(~f)
ej
L(10) 0
.) (0
(mo)
LEGEND
xx • W .. kdoy AM PHk Hour
(XX) • W .. kdoy PM PHk Hour
@ . Study In_I
rIJ-
NOT TO SCALE
--Airport W;;----'--___ ~perl:et: R~~ d AJ~,rt W., . ---,,-.
, .~"C~-__ ~'I-----
\JI I IIln.um ~t en
£j
jl
en'---_. S Tobin SI ."
2016 Without Proiect Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes
Aerospace Training Center FIGURE 5
ICD
2)
10
Rainier Ave N &
Airport Way ----(10)
(2) 0 0 0 (10) ) ! l
(2)0-' ~ '-,0(0) - -,.,
'j t r
10
(0)
~
Airport Way &
5hattuck Ave 5
~
(10)10 !Jg) 2D (10)
.nl
(10)0-' ~ '-10
-.. "-(0) ,.,
'j t r
Rainier Ave N &
NW3rd PI
" -'
(3) o
) +
, 'j 1
~ Rainier Ave N &
W Driveway 1
(0)3
! l
tI En..,...,
t , ..
I \
NW 4th 5t L
'~I I~ 1
fIJi ~ L :t ,--I __ ....J
~
£
,~ -.---'r=
as
...,
NW 3rd PI
NW 3rd 5t
3: z
£
.91
'E
'" :t
. ~i-'1.
",-Ie
1>.o~ e~ ~ :t-E>
oI',()
" U'/i
Airport Way
~ Rainier Ave N &
'\V Driveway 2 --
+
t
LEGEND
xx = Weekdoy AM _ Hour
(XX) • Weekdoy PM _ Hour
@ DS\udy )n_.
ho{%1 • Percenl T~p OIolrlbullOn
W Perimeter
----
Ie' ;;. _ ... ,0::, -""-_"
,~ , 5 Tobin 51
Project Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment
Aerospace Training Center
riJ·
NOT TO SCALE
[
FIGURE 6
1)
10
®
Rainier Ave N &
Airport Way
(680)
(80) 40 370 250 (540)'
J l t.
(70) 20J ~ '-230 (310)' I"l'.lll-........ 20(500)
(120)", • ,--..0( ... ),
I 1 r
'420) 18D 110 360 (580: ~
Airport Way &
Shattuck Ave S
~
(10) j (1) C (10)
(1D)20J ~ '-1.(1.)
(2030)--.. ~1310
1080 (t400)
(10) 10, • ,,. (20)
(10) J 118 r. (20)
~
Rainier Ave N &
NW 3rd PI
~~
~1Dm J l
~
~~roJ
~1D,
~~t (~)
,6,;M Rainier Ave N &
W Driveway 1 ---110) ·'le '°
If
J 6,20
1000)
) \
NW 41h SI
, ~, I~
!LJ! >. "E
'" co ~ ~ L) ____ ~
NW 3rd PI
NW 3rd SI
3:
~ z .,
~ CD
~ Q)
.... E 0 '" >. ~ t!
1 \ ~~
~ ~~
as /'" '---H~I'(j;e A,,&
oS'~
'\ --,
ITE
Airport Way
~ ....
. !!!
.5
a:I a:
\ ...
,6,;M Rainier Ave N &
\2./ Driveway 2 .--
(1171))
or
If
8<01
("..)
'-(1.).
r(20)·
EldtCnly
LEGEND
xx • WeekdlY AM PMk HaY,
(XX) • WHkdlY PM PMk HaY,
® . StUdy I_lien.
W perimeter ~U'-~A
.. _---,
S Tobin SI
2016 With Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes
Aerospace Training Center
[I),
NOT TO SCALE
I
L
FIGURE 7
Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Weekday AM
and PM Intersection LOS Worksheets
HeM Signalized Intersectio ·lpacity Analysis
1: Rainier Av S/Rainier Ave N & Renton Av ExVAirport Wy
u..e Configurations
Volime (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
u..eWidth
T otaIlosI time (s)
u..e UtiI. Factor
Frpb, pedlbikes
~, pedIbikes
Frt
F1tProtected
Satd. Flow (prot)
FttPermiIted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hourfactor, PHF
Adj. Row (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
lane Group Flow (vph)
Conn. Peds. (IIIhr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Tum Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green. G (s)
Effective Green, 9 (5)
Actualed glC Ratio
Clearance TIme (5)
Vehicle Extension (5)
lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio
Uniform Delay. dl
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay. d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
-..
" ++ , 20 380 80
1900 1900 1900
12 11 12
3.0 3.0 3.0
1.00 0.95 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1752 3388 1531
0.95 1.00 1.00
1752 3388 1531
0.80 0.93 0.80
25 409 100
o 0 77
25 409 23
5 6
3% 3'Ifo 3'Ifo
Prot NA Perm
4 8
8
9.7 24.2 24.2
11.1 26.2 26.2
0.10 0.23 0.23
5.0 5.0 5.0
3.0 4.0 4.0
179 778 351
0.01 cO.12
0.02
0.14 0.53 0.07
46.6 38.5 34.3
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.4 0.8 0.1
46.9 39.3 34.4
D D C
38.7
D
-
"'I ++ ."
540 400 210
1900 1900 1900
12 11 12
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.97 0.95 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1534
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1534
0.94 0.95 0.84
574 421 250
o 0 160
574 421 90
6 5
3% 3% 3%
Prot NA Perm
7 3
3
24.4 38.9 38.9
26.4 40.9 40.9
0.23 0.36 0.38
5.0 5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0 4.0
787 1215 550
cO.17 0.12
0.06
0.73 0.35 0.16
40.5 26.8 24.9
1.00 1.00 1.00
3.6 0.2 0.2
44.1 27.0 25.1
D C C
34.5
C
Existing Am Peak Hour
t
"'I ++ 150 670
1900 1900
12 11
3.0 3.0
0.97 0.95
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
3400 3388
0.95 1.00
3400 3388
0.88
170
o
170
2
3%
Prot
5
120
13.0
0.11
4.0
4.0
387
0.05
0.44
47.1
1.00
1.1
48.2
D
0.88
761
0
761
3%
NA
1
31.3
32.3
0.28
4.0
4.0
959
cO.22
0.79
37.8
1.00
4.8
42.6
D
40.2
D
,
350
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
1.00
1528
1.00
1528
0.89
393
282
111
7
3%
Perm
1
31.3
323
0.28
4.0
4.0
432
0.07
0.26
31.6
1.00
0.4
32.0
C
"" 240
1900
12
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3400
0.95
3400
0.90
267
0
267
7
3%
Prot
2
15.1
17.1
0.15
5.0
4.0
510
CO.OS
0.52
44.7
1.00
1.3
46.0
D
00113/2015
++ ,
:BI 40
1900 1900
11 12
:to 3.0
0.95 1.00
1.00 0.99
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
1.00 1.00
3388 1546
1.00 1.00
3388 1546
0.86 0.69
419 58
o 39
419 19
2
3% 3%
NA Perm
6
35.4
36.4
0.32
4.0
4.0
lOSl
0.12
0.39
30.1
1.00
0.3
30.5
C
35.7
D
6
35.4
36.4
0.32
4.0
4.0
493
0.01
0.04
26.7
1.00
0.0
26.8
C
HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.3
0.66
114.0
65.3%
HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actualed Cyde Length (5)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis PeOOd (min)
c Critical Lane Group
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Taclics
City of Renton
15
Sum of lost time (5)
ICU Level of Service
120
C
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HeM Signalized Intersectiol _ apacity Analysis
2: Shattuck Av s/Airport Perimeter Rd. W & Airport W'I. .,.,.
I.aJe ConI!JIIlIIions
Vobne(vph) 20
Ideal Flow (~ 1900
laneWidlh 11
ToIaIl.o5Iline (s) 3.0
lane UtI. Facb" 1.00
Frpb, pedibikes 1.00
~, ped.tikes 1.00
Frt 1.00
Fltl'loEcEd 0.95
SaId. Flow (prot) 1694
FIt PenniIIBd 0.20
SaId. Flow fJJerm) 360
Peak.oourfacD', PHF 0.52
Adj. Flow (vph) 38
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 38
ContI. Peds. (111111)
Heavy Vehicles 1%) 3%
Tam Type Perm
Protected Phases
Pell1it\ed Phases 2
Aclualed Green, G (5) 25.0
Efleclive Green, 9 (s) 27.0
Aclualed glC Ratio 0.68
Clearance Tme (s) 5.0
Vehicle Extension Is) 5.0
I.aJe Grp Cap (vph) 243
vis Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Perm 0.11
vic Ratio 0.16
Uniform Delay, dl 2.4
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6
Delay (5) 3.0
Level of Service A
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Conlrol Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Acluated Cycle Length (5)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
-
940
1900
11
3.0
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4856
1.00
4856
0.91
1033
1
1047
3%
NA
2
25.0
27.0
0.68
5.0
5.0
3277
0.22
0.32
2.7
1.00
0.1
2.8
A
2.8
A
""\-~ -'-
10 10 1130 10
1900 1900 1900 1900
11 11 11 11
3.0 3.0 3.0
1.00 0.91 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1694 4868 1516
0.26 1.00 1.00
456 4868 1516
0.67 0.69 0.91 0.50
15 14 1242 20
0 0 0 6
0 14 1242 14
4
3% 3% 3% 3%
Penn NA Penn
2
2 2
25.0 25.0 25.0
27.0 27.0 27.0
0.68 0.68 0.68
5.0 5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0 5.0
307 3285 1023
cO.26
0.03 0.01
0.05 0.38 0.01
2.2 . 2.8 2.1
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.1 0.2 0.0
2.3 3.0 2.1
A A A
3.0
A
Sum of lost time (5)
ICU Level of Service
,
10
1900
11
0.63
16
0
0
7%
Perm
4
Existing Am Peak Hour
t ~ \..
10 10 20
1900 1900 1900
11 11 11
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.99
1636
0.91
1503
0.33 0.71 0.46
30 14 43
12 0 0
48 0 0
2
7% 7% 2%
NA Penn
4
4
6.0
7.0
0.18
4.0
3.0
263
0.03
0.18
14.1
1.00
0.3
14.4
B
14.4
B
6.0
A
0IW2I2015
~ .;'
10 10
1900 1900
11 11
3.0 3.0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
0.97 1.00
1755 1531
0.82 1.00
1475 1531
0.25 0.50
40 20
0 17
83 4
2% 2%
NA Perm
4
4
6.0 6.0
7.0 7.0
0.18 0.18
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
258 267
CO.OS 0.00
0.32 0.01
14.4 13.6
1.00 1.00
0.7 0.0
15.2 13.7
B B
14.9
B
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Existing Am Peak Hour
HCM Unsignalized Intersec.. Capacity Analysis
3: Rainier Ave N&NW3rdPL 05/13/2015
~ ... "\ t ~ '*'
lane~
Vobne (vehIh) 10 10 50 850 630 10
Sign ConImI Slop Free Free
GIada 0% 0% 0%
Peak lieu Facklr 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
IWIy ftow raIe (1ph) 11 11 56 944 700 11
I'edeskians
lane WidIh (II)
WaIki1g Speed (Ills)
Percent Ilkd:age
Right tum ftare (veil)
Median type None TWlll
Median sklrage veil) 2
Upstream s9lal (II) 645 px. pIaIDon unblocked 0.81
vC,lXlnflicting voIOOI8 1289 356 711
vCl, stage 1 conf vol 706
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 583
vCu, unblocked wi 887 356 711
te, single (5) 6.8 6.9 4.1
te, 2 stage (5) 5.8
IF (5) 3.5 3.3 2.2
pO queue free % 97 98 94
eM capacity (vehIh) 414 641 884
) ~~) I ,: : J' • ,':' ~I~ :~: ': '. _
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Leng1ll 95111 (ft)
Conlrol Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection C8pacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
22
11
11
503
0.04
3
12.5
B
12.5
B
AM peak 7:00 am 0912212013 Tactics
City of Renton
56
56
0
884
0.06
5
9.3
A
0.5
472
0
0
1700
0.28
0
0.0
0.5
34.4%
15
472
0
0
1700
0.28
0
0.0
467 244
0 0
0 11
1700 1700
0.27 0.14
0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0
ICU Level of ServIce A •
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersec .... Capacity Analysis
4: Rainier Ave NlRainier Ave N & Dvwy 1
t
Existing Am Peak Hour
05/13/2015
'_-, -. _ 'J:.. : ; I. _ " -__ ~!': :..:; ~r _ _ ~ _ _
I.a1e ConI!JJrations
Volume (vehIh)
S9I Control
GnIIe
Peak HoII" Factor
HcuIy!low raID (vph)
PedesIrians
I.a1e Width (It)
WaIkiIg Speed (1tIs)
Pen:ent Blockage
RighI1um tlare (veh)
MIdaItype
MediM mage veh)
UpsInIan si!JlaI (It) px. platoon unblocked
vC, wllIidi.1g volume
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 coni vol
¥Cu, unblocked vol
te, single (5)
te, 2 stage (5)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (vehIh)
V t10 o 0 800 0
Slop Free
0% O'JI.
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
o 0 956 0
lWlTl
2
760
0.81 0.81
1311 478
956
356
922 0
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
100 100
423 881
'I tt o 640
Free
O'JI.
0.90 0.90
o 711
lWlTl
2
0.81
956
485
4.1
2.2
100
873
. ,..... .. ,... --.~ ->. " • •
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume RighI
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Conlrol Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0
0
0
1700
0.00
0
0.0
A
0.0
A
AM peak 7:00 am 0912212013 Tactics
City of Renton
637
0
0
1700
0.37
0
0.0
0.0
319
0
0
1700
0.19
0
0.0
0.0
27.1%
15
O· 356 356
0 0 0
0 0 0
1700 1700 1700
0.00 . 0.21 0.21
0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
ICU Level 01 Service A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersec
5: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 2
l.aIe ConI!Jlralions
Vobne (vehIh)
sq, Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly now rate (~)
Pedestrians
l.aIe WidtI (ft)
WaIkilg Speed (ft/s)
Percent I3IocUge
R911 him flare (veh)
Mecian type
Melli .... storage veh)
UpsIiean signal (ft)
pl<, platoon unblocked
vC, confticting volume
vCl, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
te, single (s)
te, 2 slage (5)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capaciIy (vehJh)
Volume Total
Volume left
Volume RighI
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Lenglh 95th (ft)
Control Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Inlerseclion Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0
Stop
0%
0.90
0
0.80
1356
945
6.8
3.5
100
208
6
0
6
868
0.01
0
9.2
A
9.2
A
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renlon
Capacity Analysis
,
5
0.90
6
0.80
500
0
6.9
3.3
99
868
667
0
0
1700
0.39
0
0.0
0.0
t
t'ft
9IXI
Free
0%
0.90
11m
None
508
333
0
0
1700
0.20
0
0.0
0.0
34.9%
15
tt
0 0 640
Free
0%
0.90 0.90 0.90
0 0 711
None
0.80
1000
500
4.1
2.2
100
848
356 356
0 0
0 0
1700 1700
0.21 0.21
0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0
leu Level of Service •
Existing Am Peak Hour
A
05113/2l)15
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
Existing Pm Peak Hour
HeM Signalized Intersectio .. Japacity Analysis
1: Rainier Av S/Rainier Ave N & Renton Av Ext/Airport Wy 05113/2015
t
,-_. -;-,."" -;--. . . ,. . ( -. -.
~'.. __ ." __ :.... __ •• ' '4' " " ." l._ > ._ •• "
Lme~ 'I
V<*Jme(vph) 70
Ideal Flow (vphP) 1900
I..aIe WidIb 12
T alai L.osI1ine (s) 3.0
Lane UtiI. Factor tOO
Frpb, pedIbikes tOO
FIpb, pedIbikes tOO
Frt 1.00
FltPmtecled 0.95
SaId. Flow (prot) 1752
FIt Pennilled 0.95
SaId. Flow ClJermI 1752
Peak-hour facIDr, PHF 0.80
Adj. Flow (vph) 88
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 88
Conn. Peds. (#lhr) 4
Heavy Vehicles 1%1 3%
Turn Type Prot
Protected Phases 4
Pemi1Ied Phases
Actuated Green, G (5) 20.7
Effective Green, 9 (s) 22.7
Actuated glC Ratio 0.18
Ctec.ance nne (5) 5.0
Vehicle Extension 151 3.0
lane Grp Gap (vph) 318
vis Ratio Prot 0.05
vis Ratio Penn
vic Ratio 0.28
Unifonn Delay, dl 43.9
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5
Delay (5) 44.4
Level of Service D
Approach Detay (5)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (5)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
PM peak 4:00 pm 0912212013 Tactics
City of Renton
tt
950
1Il00
11
3.0
0.95
tOO
too
tOO
tOO
3388
too
3388
0.93
1022
0
1022
3%
NA
8
31.0
33.0
0.26
5.0
4.0
896
cO.3D
1.14
45.9
1.00
76.7
122.6
F
106.7
F
r'
120
1Il00
12
3.0
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.85
1.1111
1536
1.00
1536
0.80
150
98
52
4
3%
Perm
8
31.0
33.0
0.26
5.0
4.0
406
0.03
0.13
34.9
1.00
0.2
35.1
D
65.3
0.95
124.7
87.7%
15
'1'1 tt r' '1'1
460 480 300 400
1Il00 1900 1900 1Il00
12 11 12 12
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
0.97 0.95 tOO 0.97
1.00 tOO 0.98 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
tOO tOO 0.85 tOO
0.95 tOO tOO 0.95
3400 3388 1536 3400
0.95 1.00 tOO 0.95
3400 3388 1536 3400
0.94 0.95 0.84 0.88
489 505 357 455
0 0 254 0
489 505 103 455
4 4 8
3% 3% 3% 3%
Prot NA Perm Prot
7 3 5
3
23.7 34.0 34.0 20.0
25.7 36.0 36.0 21.0
0.21 0.29 0.29 0.17
5.0 : 5.0 5.0 4.0
4.0
700
cO.14
0.70
45.9
1.00
3.3
49.2
D
4.0 4.0 4.0
978 443 572
0.15 0.13
0.07
0.52 0.23 0.80
37.1 33.8 49.8
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.6 0.4 8.0
37.7 34.2 57.7
D C E
40.9
D
HCM 2000 Level of SeMce
Sum of lost time (5)
ICU Level of Service
tt
740
1900
11
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3388
1.00
3388
0.88
841
0
841
3%
NA
1
31.0
32.0
0.26
4.0
4.0
869
cO.25
0.97
45.8
1.00
22.8
68.7
E
60.7
E
r'
540
1900
12
3.0
tOO
0.98
tOO
0.85
1.00
1539
1.1111
1539
0.89
607
307
300
3
3%
Perm
1
31.0
32.0
0.26
4.0
4.0
394
0.19
0.76
42.8
1.00
8.9
51.8
D
E
12.0
E
'1'1
510
1900
12
3.0
0.97
tOO
1.00
1.00
0.95
3400
0.95
3400
0.90
567
0
567
3
3%
Prot
2
20.0
22.0
0.18
5.0
4.0
599
cO.17
0.95
50.8
1.00
24.3
75.0
E
tt r'
550 60
1900 1900
11 12
3.0 3.0
0.95 tOO
1.00 0.98
1.00 tOO
1.00 0.85
1.00 tOO
3388 1535
1.00 tOO
3388 1535
0.88 0.69
640 87
0 64
640 23
8
3% 3%
NA Perm
6
6
32.0 32.0
33.0 33.0
0.26 0.26
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
896 406
0.19
0.01
0.71 0.06
41.6 34.2
1.00 1.00
2.9 0.1
44.5 34.3
D C
57.2
E
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HeM Signalized Intersectio; lpacity Analysis
2: Shattuck Av SiAirport Perimeter Rd. W & Airport Wy
Lme Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
LmeWid1h
T oIaIlost line (5)
Lme UtiI. FackJr
FIPb, pedlbikes
~, pedlbikes
Frt
F~ Protected
SaId. Flow (prot)
RPennitled
Said. Flow Ipennl
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
ConD. Peds. (IMn)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Tum Type
Protected Phases
Pennilted Phases
Actuated Green, G (5)
Etlective Green, g (5)
Actuated glC Ratio
Clearance Tme (s)
Vehicle Extension (5)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Penn
vic Ratio
Unifonn Delay, dl
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (5)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
-.
'I ttt.
10 1980 10
1000 1000 1000
11 11 11
3.0 3.0
1.00 0.91
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
1694 4862
0.19 1.00
331 4862
0.50 0.91 0.67
20 2176 15
0 0 0
20 2191 0
4
3% 3% 3%
Penn NA
2
2
79.3 79.3
81.3 81.3
0.85 0.85
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
279 4108
cO.45
0.06
0.07 0.53
1.2 2.1
1.00 1.00
0.2 0.2
1.5 2.3
A A
2.3
A
-
'I ttt
20 1220
1000 1900
11 11
3.0 3.0
1.00 0.91
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
1694 4868
0.07 1.00
122 4868
0.69
29
o
29
3%
Penn
2
79.3
81.3
0.85
5.0
5.0
103
0.24
0.28
1.5
1.00
3.1
4.6
A
0.91
1341
0
1341
3%
NA
2
79.3
81.3
0.85
5.0
5.0
4114
0.28
0.33
1.6
1.00
0.1
1.7
A
1.7
A
" 10
1900
11
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1516
1.00
1516
0.50
20
2
18
3%
Penn
2
79.3
81.3
0.85
5.0
5.0
1281
0.01
0.01
1.2
1.00
0.0
1.2
A
isting PM Peak Hour
0/iI13/2015
t
oft
10 10 20
1900 1900 1000
11 11 11
3.0
0.63
16
0
0
7%
Penn
4
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.95
0.99
1603
0.93
1500
0.33
30
15
59
7%
NA
4
7.9
8.9
0.09
4.0
3.0
138
cO.04
0.43
41.3
1.00
2.2
43.4
o
43.4
o
0.71
28
0
0
2
7%
10
1000
11
0.46
22
0
0
2%
Perm
4
tf " 10 10
1900 1900
11 11
3.0 3.0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
0.98 1.00
1769 1531
0.87 1.00
1570 1531
0.25 0.50
40 20
o 18
62 2
2% 2%
NA Penn
4
4
7.9 7.9
8.9 8.9
0.09 0.09
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
145 141
0.04 0.00
0.43 0.01
41.2 39.7
1.00 1.00
2.0 0.0
43.3 39.7
0 0
42.4
0
u. 1_·.· ... _ ',J : '..!..I..l~ , _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (5)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
PM peak 4:00 pm 0912212013 Tactics
City of Renton
3.8
0.52
96.2
54.9%
15
HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
A
6.0
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersec •. _ .. Capacity Analysis
3: Rainier Ave N & NW 3rd PL • Existing Pm Peak Hour
0511312015
~ -I : . ~ ~_.~. _::1 .. , . : • _ _ _ _ _ _
lII1e~ ¥ 'i +t tTt
VoUne (whIh) 10 60 60 1040 1. 10
S9JConkDI SIDp Free Free
Glade 0% 0% 0%
Peak HoIr Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hwty low raIe (vph) 11 fiT fiT 1156 1178 11
Pa1eAialis
lII1e WidIJ (I\)
WaIIilg Speed (Ills)
Pen:enI BIoc:Uge
Right 111m flare (veil)
MedmJtype None TWLTL
Medan sklrage veil) 2
UpsIream si!Jlal (ft) 645 px. pIaIDon unblocked 0.77
vC, alliftittilig YOIume 1894 594 1189
vC1, stage 1 conI vol 1183
vC2. stage 2 conI vol 711
¥Cu, unblocked vol 1572 594 1189
te, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
te, 2 stage (5) 5.8
IF (5) 3.5 3.3 2.2
pO queue free % 95 85 89
eM capacity (veMI) 235 448 583
.-,". ;1: ',. '~'.t .: • ,,~
Volume Tolal
Volume lell
Volume RIght
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Lenglll 9511l (II)
Control Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilimtion
Analysis Period (min)
78
11
67
397
0.20
18
16.3
C
16.3
C
PM peak 4:00 pm 0912212013 Tactics
City of Renlan
fiT
67
0
583
0.11
10
120
B
0.7
578
0
0
1700
0.34
0
0.0
0.8
47.2%
15
-. . -
578! 785 404
o 0 0
o 0 11
1700 1700 1700
0.34 0.46 0.24
o 0 0
0.0' 0.0 0.0
0.0
leu level of Service A
Synthro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersec
4: Rainier Ave N & Ovwy 1
Capacity Analysis
1..iIIe~
VoUne (WlIv'h)
S91 Control
Gmda
Peak HIu Factor
Hourly low nile (vp/I)
PedesIrians
I..iIIe WidIh (II)
Wablg Speed (ft/s)
Perl:enl1IIockage
Rightlum I\a"e (veil)
MediIIIIype
Median sIDrage veil)
upstream signal (II) px. pIaIoon unblocked
we, oollllicting 1IOIume
vCl, stage 1 confvol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCII, unblocked vol
\C, silgIe (5)
\C, 2 stage (5)
IF (s)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (veM1)
t
V tft
501040 5
Slop Free
0% 0%
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
6 0 1156 6
TWLTL
2
760
0.78 0.78
1747 581
1158
589
1391 0
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
98 100
315 844
, ++
o 11&1
Free
0%
0.90 0.90
o 1178
lWlTL
2
0.78
1161
638
4.1
2.2
100
733
• + • \ • .,.""'; ."., ~
" l ~ j. j , ;' ~ ,. • • : • • •
Volume Total
VolumeLell
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capaci1y
OJeue Lenglh 95th (ft)
Conrot Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
AIII!rage Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilizalial
Analysis Period (min)
6
6
0
315
0.02
1
16.6
C
16.6
C
PM peak 4:00 pm 0912212013 Tactics
aty of Renton
770
0
0
1700
0.45
0
0.0
0.0
391
0
6
1700
0.23
0
0.0
0.0
39.3%
15
0
0
0
1700
0.00
0
0.0
0.0
589 589
0 0
0 0
1700 1700
0.35 0.35
0 0
0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
• Existing Pm Peak Hour
A
05113/2015
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersecw~ .. Capacity Analysis
5: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 2
t
• • <,. " \ -. . -__ __ _ _ ,j' __ • _'} '.' '0· ., _ _
La1e Configurations
Vobne (veMI)
Sign Control
Glade
Peak Hour Factor
HoutIy 1Iow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
La1e Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Penmt BIodaIge
Right rum tlare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Ups1Ieam s91a1 (ft) px. platoon unblocked
¥C, conflicting volume
¥Cl, stage 1 con! vol
vC2, stage 2 con! vol
vCu, unblodted vol
\C, single (5)
\C, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (vehJh)
7' t'tt o 5 1140 5
Slop Free
!I'll. !I'll.
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
o 6 1267 6
None
508
0.76 0.76
1892 636
1546 0
6.8 6.9
3.5 3.3
100 99
80 826
tt o 1120
Free
0%
0.90 0.90
o 1244
None
0.76
1272
733
4.1
2.2
100
661
• " I • ~ • '.' ~ • ~. •
Volume Total
Volume LefI
Volume Right
cSH
Volume 10 Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
. Intersection Cepacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
6
0
6
826
0.01
1
9.4
A
9.4
A
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
844
0
0
1700
0.50
0
0.0
0.0
428
0
6
1700
0.25
0
0.0
0.0
41.7%
15
622! 622
o 0
o 0
1700 1700
0.37 0.37
o 0
0.0 0.0
0.0
ICU Lete! of Service
Existing Pm Peak Hour
05I13/'1015
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
Appendix B: Without-Project
Weekday AM and PM Intersection
LOS Worksheets
HeM Signalized Intersectio .. _apacity Analysis
1: Rainier Av SlRainier Ave N & Renton Av ExtIAirport Wy
Vobne(vph) 20
Ideal Flow (vphP) 1900
LaneWidlh 12
T DIal Lnst time (5) 3.0
Lane Uti. FacIDr 1.00
Frpb, pedIbikes 1.00
~, pedIbIres 1.00
Frt 1.00
FH ProtecIBd 0.95
Satd. Flow (prof) 1752
FH Pennitiad 0.95
SaId. Flow (pennI 1752
Peak-llour fadDr, PHF 0.80
Adj. Row (vph) 25
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
lane Group Flow (vph) 25
Confl. Peds. (1Mlr) 5
He!!!! Vehicles {%l 3%
Tum Type Prot
Protected Phases 4
Permitted Phases
Acluated Green, G (s) 9.9
Elleclive Green, 9 (s) 11.9
Acluated glC Ratio 0.10
Clearance Tune (s) 5.0
Vehicle Extension {sl 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178
vis Ratio Prot 0.01
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio 0.14
Uniform Delay, dl 47.7
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4
Delay (s) 48.1
Level of Service D
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume 10 Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Inlersection capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (IIin)
c Critical Lane Group
AM peak 7:00 am 0912212013 T acties
City of Renton
-""
400 80
1900 1900
11 12
3.0 3.0
0.95 1.00
1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
1.00 1.00
3388 1530
1.00 1.00
3388 1530
0.93 0.80
430 100
0 77
430 23
6
3% 3%
NA Perm
8
8
25.1 25.1
27.1 27.1
0.23 0.23
5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0
786 355
cO.13
0.02
0.55 0.07
39.4 34.9
1.00 1.00
1.0 0.1
40.4 35.0
D D
39.8
D
-
580 500
1900 1900 1900
12 11 12
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.97 0.95 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1533
0.95 ' 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1533
0.94 0.95 0.84
617 526 369
0 0 233
617 526 136
6 5
3% 3% 3%
Prot NA Perm
7 3
3
25.7 40.9 40.9
27.7 . 429 42.9
0.24 0.37 0.37
5.0 : 5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0 4.0
807 r 1245 563
cO.18 0.16
0.09
0.76 0.42 0.24
41.5 27.6 25.6
1.00 1.00 1.00
4.6 0.3 0.3
46.1 27.9 25.9
D C C
34.8
C
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
With~ut Project AM Peak Hour
t
160 700 360
1900 1900 1900
12 11 12
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.97 0.95 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.97
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1527
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1527
0.88 0.88 0.89
182 795 404
0 0 282
182 795 122
2 7
3% 3% 3%
Prot NA Perm
5 1
1
125 31.4 31.4
13.5 324 324
0.12 0.28 0.28
4.0 4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0 4.0
393 940 423
0.05 cO.23
0.08
0.46 0.85 0.29
48.2 39.8 33.1
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.2 7.4 0.5
49.4 47.2 33.6
D D C
43.5
D
120
C
250
1900
12
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3400
0.95
3400
0.90
278
0
278
7
3%
Prot
2
15.5
17.5
0.15
5.0
4.0
509
cO.08
0.55
45.9
1.00
1.5
47.4
D
06I02fl015
370 40
1900 1900
11 12
3.0 3.0
0.95 1.00
1.00 0.99
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
1.00 1.00
3388 1546
1.00 1.00
3388 1546
0.86 0.69
430 58
0 40
430 18
2
3% 3%
NA Perm
6
6
35.4 35.4
36.4 36.4
0.31 0.31
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
1058 482
0.13
0.01
0.41 0.04
31.6 28.0
1.00 1.00
0.4 0.0
32.0 28.0
C C
37.3
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Without Project AM Peak Hour
HeM Signalized Intersectio apacity Analysis
2: Shattuck Av S/Airport Perimeter Rd. W & Airport Wy -..
'I #fo Lane ~raIions
VClbne(vph) 20 1080 10
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
I..aneWidUl
1900 1900 1900
11 11 11
T oIaIlDsIlime (5)
I..ane UIiI. Factor
Frpb, pedlbikes
~, ped.tIres
Frt
FIt PmIected
SaId. Flow (prot)
FIt PermitIed
SaId. Flow (perm)
P8ak~r~,PHF
Adj. Row (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
I..ane Group Flow (vph)
ConI. Peds. (fMlr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
TIA'II Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (5)
Etrective Green, 9 (5)
Actuated gIC Ratio
CIearalce Ttrne (5)
Vehicte Extension (5)
lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio
Uniform Detay, dl
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Detay (5)
level of Service
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Control Delay
3.0 3.0
1.00 0.91
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
1694 4857
0.17 1.00
298 4857
0.52
38
o
38
3%
Perm
2
79.4
81.4
0.83
5.0
5.0
248
0.13
0.15
1.5
1.00
0.6
2.1
A
0.91
1187
1
1201
3%
NA
2
79.4
81.4
0.83
5.0
5.0
4054
0.25
0.30
1.8
1.00
0.1
1.9
A
1.9
A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (5)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
0.67
15
0
0
4
3%
4.3
0.37
97.5
44.5%
15
-
'I ttt ."
10 1300 10 10
1900 1900 1900 1900
11 11 11 11
3.0 3.0 3.0
1.00 0.91 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1694 4868 1516
0.22 1.00 1.00
385 4868 1516
0.69 0.91 0.50 0.63
14 1429 20 16
0 0 2 0
14 1429 18 0
3% 3% 3% 7%
Perm NA Perm Perm
2
2 2 4
79.4 79.4 79.4
81.4 81.4 81.4
0.83 0.83 0.83
5.0 5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0 5.0
321 4064 1265
cO.29
0.04 0.01
0.04 0.35 0.01
1.4 1.9 1.3
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.1 0.1 0.0
1.5 2.0 1.4
A A A
2.0
A
HeM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU level of Service
t
4t
10 10 20
1900 1900 1900
11 11 11
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.99
1635
0.91
1509
0.33
30
12
48
7%
NA
4
9.1
10.1
0.10
4.0
3.0
156
0.03
0.31
40.5
1.00
1.1
41.6
D
41.6
o
0.71
14
0
0
2
7%
A
6.0
A
0.46
43
0
0
2%
Perm
4
05113/2015
4' ."
10 10
1900 1900
11 11
3.0 3.0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
0.97 1.00
1755 1531
0.83 1.00
1492 1531
0.25 0.50
40 20
o 18
83 2
2% 2%
NA Perm
4
4
9.1 9.1
10.1 10.1
0.10 0.10
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
154 158
cO.06 0.00
0.54 0.01
41.5 39.2
1.00 1.00
3.6 0.0
45.1 39.3
0 D
44.0
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersec. _ .. Capacity Analysis
3: Rainier Ave N & NW 3rd PL
I.aIe Coni!JlIlIIions
VoUne (\'IIhIh)
SVI ConInlI
GraIe
Peak Hcu Factor
Haudy low rate (vph)
Pedes1rians
I.aIe Width (II)
WaIkilg Speed (fils)
Pen:en11lIodaIge
Righllum fIa"e (veil)
Medlanlype
Meiflllll stnrage veil)
upstream signal (II)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, confticIing volume
vCl, stage 1 cont vol
vC2. stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
te, single (s)
te, 2 stage (5)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (vehIh)
V
10 10
Stop
0%
0.90 0.90
11 11
0.81
1461 378
750
711
1098 378
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
97 98
373 620
, t+ +10
50 1000 670 10
Free Free
O'JI. IJ!I.
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
56 1200 744 11
None TWLTl
2
645
756
756
4.1
22
93
851
. . . , ' . ~ " ' . " . ' :'. .' .
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Righi
cSH
Volume \0 Capacity
Queue Length 95th (It)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilizalion
Analysis Period (min)
22
11
11
465
0.05
4
13.1
8
13.1
8
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
56
56
0
851
0.07
5
9.5
A
0.4
600
0
0
1700
0.35
0
0.0
0.4
39.9%
15
600: 496 259
0 0 0
O! 0 11
1700 1700 1700
0.35 029 0.15
0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
ICU Lewl ot Service
Without Project AM Peak Hour
A
OM3I2015
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersee.
4: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 1
Capacity Analysis
lane Configurations
Volume (vehIh)
SigII Con1roI
Grade
Peak HOlI' Factor
Houtly !low rate (vph)
Pedesbians
lane Wid1h (ft)
Wakilg Speed (fils)
Pert:ent Blockage
Right tum ftare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upsfnlam signal (ft)
pJ(, platoon unblocked
vC, confticting volume
vCl, stage 1 OIlnf vol
vC2, stage 2 oonf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
te, single (5)
te, 2 stage (s)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capaci\y (vehIh)
t
V tt. o 0 800
Stop Free
D'JI. 0'4
0.90 0.90 0.90
o 0 989
lWlTl
2
760
0.86 0.86
1361 494
989
3n
1093 85
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
100 100
370 822
'I tt o 0 670
Free
0%
0.90 0.90 0.90
o 0 744
lWlTl
2
0.86
989
660
4.1
2.2
100
794
With~' ,t Project Am Peak Hour
0511312015
p ~", -::', ,., .:~ ::., -:: -
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to capacity
Queue Langill 95111 (ft)
Cenlrol Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
AnalysiS Period (min)
0
0
0
1700
0.00
0
0.0
A
0.0
A
AM peak 7:00 am 0912212013 Tactics
City of Renton
659
a
a
1700
0.39
0
0.0
0.0
330 0 372 372
0 0 0 a
0 0 a 0
1700 1700 1700 1700
0.19 0.00 0.22 0.22
0 0 0 a
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
27.9% 'ICU Level of Service
15
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersec1 Capacity Analysis
5: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 2
t
~ tft tt Lane Con1i!Jnfions
VoUne (vehIh) o 0 940 0 o 670
Free
0'lC0
Sign Control Slop Free
Grade '"' 0'lC0 Peak Hour Factor
Hourly now raIe (vph)
Pedestrians
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
001044 0 o 744
lane Width (II)
Walking Speed (fils)
Pen:en\ Blockage
Right tum ftare (veil)
Median type
Median storage veil)
Upstream signal (It)
px. platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vCl, stage 1 conI vol
vC2, stage 2 oonf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
te, single (s)
te, 2 stage (5)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (vehIh)
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue length 95th (It)
Control Delay (s)
lane lOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach lOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0.80
1417
1017
6.8
3.5
100
187
0
0
0
1700
0.00
0
0.0
A
0.0
A
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City 01 Renton
0.80
522
0
6.9
3.3
100
866
696
0
0
1700
0.41
0
0.0
0.0
None
508
348
0
0
1700
0.20
0
0.0
0.0
29.3%
15
None
0.80
1044
551
4.1
2.2
100
810
372' 372
o 0
01 0
1700 1700
0.22 0.22
o 0
0.0 0.0
0.0
ICU level 01 Service
Without Project AM Peak Hour
A
051\3/2015
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
HeM Signalized Intersectic apacity Analysis
1: Rainier Av SlRainier Ave N & Renton Av ExVAirport Wy
1..aIe~
VoUne(tph)
Ideal Flow (VJIhIj)
I..aIe WidI1
Total Lost lime (5)
I..aIe IJIl FacU
Frpb, paties
f1Jb, pedIbi'es
Fit
FIt ProIeded
Sakt Flow (prot)
FIt PellliIBI
SaId. Flow !penn!
Peak.lJour facU, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
ConII. Peds. (#lhr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
TlIlI Type
Protected Phases
PemiI1ed Phases
Actuated Green, G (5)
EIfectiw Green, 9 (s)
Actuated gIC Ratio
CIeaance Tme (5)
Vehicle Extension (s)
lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio
Uniform Delay, dl
Progression FacIDr
Inaemental Delay, d2
Delay (5)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Conlrol Delay
-
, t+ , "
70 990 120 4IKl
1000 1900 1900 1000
12 11 12 12
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
1752 3388 1536 3400
0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
1752 3388 1536 3400
0.80 0.93 0.80 0.94
88 1065 150 511
o 0 94 0
88 1065 56 511
4 4 4
3% 3% 3% 3%
Prot NA Penn Prot
4 8 7
8
21.0 31.1 31.1 24.4
23.0 33.1 33.1 26.4
0.18 0.26 0.26 0.21
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
320 892 404 714
0.05 cO.31 cO.15
0.04
0.28 1.19 0.14 0.72
44.1 46.2 35.3 46.1
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.5 98.3 0.2 3.7
44.6 144.6 35.6 49.8
0 F 0 0
125.3
F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Inlerseclion Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
73.1
0.99
125.6
90.8%
15
c Critical Lane Group
PM peak 4:00 pm 0912212013 Tactics
City of Renton
-t
t+ , " t+
500 310 420 770
1900 1900 1000 1900
11 12 12 11
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95
1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
3388 1536 3400 3388
1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
3388 1536 3400 3388
0.95 0.84 0.88
526 369 477
o 262 0
526 107 477
4 8
3% 3% 3%
NA Perm Prot
3 5
3
34.5 34.5 20.4
36.5 36.5 21.4
0.29 0.29 0.17
5.0 5.0 4.0
4.0 4.0 4.0
984 446 579
0.16 0.14
0.07
0.53 0.24 0.82
37.4 34.0 50.3
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.7 0.4 9.7
38.1 34.4 60.0
o C E
41.4
o
HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (5)
ICU Level of Service
0.88
875
0
875
3%
NA
1
31.0
32.0
0.25
4.0
4.0
863
cO.26
1.01
46.8
1.00
34.1
80.9
F
68.5
E
Without Project PM Peak Hour
05113/2015
,
560
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.85
1.00
1539
1.00
1539
0.89
629
307
322
3
3%
Penn
1
31.0
32.0
0.25
4.0
4.0
392
0.21
0.82
44.1
1.00
13.5
57.6
E
E
12.0
E
" t+ , 530 570 60
1900 1900 1900
12 11 12
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.97 0.95 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1535
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1535
0.90 0.86 0.69
589 663 87
o 0 64
589 663 23
3 8
3% 3% 3%
Prot NA Penn
2 6
20.1
22.1
0.18
5.0
4.0
598
cO. 17
0.98
51.6
1.00
32.8
84.4
F
6
31.7 31.7
32.7 32.7
0.26 0.26
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
882 399
0.20
0.01
0.75 0.06
42.7 34.9
1.00 1.00
3.9 0.1
46.6 35.0
o C
62.5
E
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Withnut Project PM Peak Hour
HeM Signalized IntersectiOL . ..,apacity Analysis
2: Shattuck Av SlAirport Perimeter Rd. W & Airport Wy 0lii13/2015
t
r •• ,-~ •. --;;.~. ,~.-; '';, --: -, ,.--,;. '".' ;." .: . .:.._~~_~_ ~ _____ ..=::...·w __ -__ ~,! .... ~ __ ~'__~._=__ ,:,_~ ___ ),., ____ ; _________ • ___ .: :" •
u..e Confi!paIions
VcUne(1Ph)
I Row(~
u..eWidlh
T oIaI Lost time (5)
u..e Uti. Factor
Frpb. ped/IJikes
~, pedIbikes
Frt
FIt ProIecIed
SaId. Row (prot)
FIt PennitIed
SaId. Flow (penn)
Peak41ourfaclor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Row (vph)
ConI. Peds. (#IIIr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
Turn Type
Prolected Phases
Pemitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (5)
Effective Green, 9 (5)
Actuated gIC Ratio
Clearance Tme (5)
Vehicle Extension (5)
Lane Grp cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Penn
vic Ratio
Uniform Delay, dl
Progression Factor
Inaemental Delay, d2
Delay (5)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Control Delay
., +tt.
10 2020 10
1900 1900 1900
11 11 11
3.0 3.0
1.110 0.91
1.110 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
1694 4862
0.15 1.00
265 4862
0.50 0.91 0.67
20 2220 15
o 0 0
20 2235 0
4
3% 3% 3%
Perm NA
2
2
79,3 79,3
81,3 81.3
0,85 0.85
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
223 4108
cO,46
0,08
0,09 0,54
1.2 2.1
1.00 1.00
0.4 0.3
1.6 2.4
A A
2,4
A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (5)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
3.7
0.53
96,2
55.7%
15
c Critical Lane Group
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
., t+t
20 1400
1900 1900
11 11
3.0 3,0
1.00 0.91
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
1694 4868
0,06 1.00
116 4868
0,69 0.91
29 1538
o 0
29 1538
3% 3%
Penn NA
2
2
79,3 79,3
81,3 81.3
0,85 0.85
5,0 5.0
5.0 5,0
98 4114
0.32
0.25
0,30 0,37
1.5 1.7
1.00 1,00
3.5 0.1
5,1 1.8
A A
1.9
A
" 20
1900
11
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1516
1.00
1516
0.50
40
4
36
3%
Perm
2
79,3
81.3
0,85
5.0
5,0
1281
0.02
0.03
1.2
1.00
0,0
1.2
A
10
1900
11
0.63
16
o
o
7%
Perm
4
HCM 2IlOO Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
• 10
1900
11
3.0
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.95
0.99
1603
0.93
1500
0.33
30
14
60
7%
NA
4
7,9
8.9
0.09
4.0
3.0
138
cO.04
0,44
41.3
1.00
2,2
43,5
D
43,5
D
20
1900
11
0.71
28
0
0
2
7%
A
6,0
B
10
1900
11
0.46
22
0
0
2%
Perm
4
4'
10
1900
11
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.98
1769
0.87
1570
0.25
40
o
62
2%
NA
4
7.9
8.9
0.09
4.0
3,0
145
0.04
0,43
41.2
1.00
2,0
43,3
D
42.4
D
" 10
1900
11
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1531
1.00
1531
0,50
20
18
2
2%
Perm
4
7.9
8.9
0,09
4.0
3.0
141
0.00
0.01
39.7
1.00
0,0
39,7
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersee.. Capacity Analysis
3: Rainier Ave N & NW 3rd PL
!.me Configurations
VOOme (vehIh)
Sign ConImI
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
HouJty low rate (vph)
Pedes1rians
!.me Wid1h (ft)
W<tilg Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right h.lm flare (veh)
Medimtype
Medim mage veh)
UpsIRmI signal (ft)
px, platoon unblocked
¥C, confflCling volume
¥Cl, stage 1 conI vol
¥C2, stage 2 conI vol
¥Cu, unblocked vol
te, single (s)
te, 2 stage (s)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (vehJh)
VolllmeTotaI
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
V 'I tt tfo
10 60 70 1080 1100
Stop Free Free
O'lfo 0'X0 0'X0
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
11 f.)l 78 1200 1222
None TWllL
2
645
0.77
1989 622 1244
1233
756
1681 622 1244
6.8 6.9 4.1
5.8
3.5 3.3 2.2
95 84 86
220 429 555
78 78 600 600 815
11 78 0 0 0
67 0 0 0 0
378 555 1700 1700 1700
0.21 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.48
19 12 0 0 0
17.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
C B
17.0 0.8 0.0
C
20
0.90
22
430
0
22
1700
0.25
0
0.0
InterSection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0.9
49.2%
15
ICU Level 01 Service
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
Wi" ut Project PM Peak Hour
A
05113/2015
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersec
4: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 1
l.aIe Configurations V
VokIne (veM1) 5
Sign ContmI Slop
GnIIa 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90
Hourly tIow mte (vph) 6
Pedestrians
l.aIe Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Pertent Blockage
RighI 111m flare (veh)
Mecian type
Median storage veh)
UpsIrean signal (ft)
px. platoon unblocked 0.77
¥C, oonfticting volume 1814
vCl, stage 1 confvol 1203
vC2. stage 2 conI vol 611
vCu, unblocked vol 1461
te, sintM (s) 6.8
te, 2 slage (5) 5.8
IF (5) 3.5
pO queue free % 98
eM capacity (vehJh) 300
Capacity Analysis
t
+t. '! ++
0 1000 5 0 1100
Free Free
0% 0%
0.90 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111
0 1200 6 0 1222
lWlTl lWlTl
2 2
760
0.77 0.77
603 1206
0 671
6.9 4.1
3.3 2.2
100 100
836 705
, ..'.,. . .' ~ ~ , ... .: 1 __ ' _ __ _ _ J _. '..:: ~
Volume Total 6 BOO 406 0: , 6fl 611
Volume Left 6 a a 0 0 0
Volume RighI 0 0 6 0 a 0
cSH 300 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume 10 Capacity 0.02 0.47 0.24 0.00 0.36 0.36
Queue Lenglh 951h (ft) 1 a a a a a
Conlrol Delay (5) 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s) 17.2 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS C
Average Delay
Without Project PM Peak Hour
05/13121115
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0.0
40.4%
15
ICU Level of Servtce A
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 Tactics
City 01 Renlon
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Interser.
5: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 2
lane ConIi!Jirajons
VokRne(WlMI) 0
Sign Con1roI Sklp
Grade 0%
Peak Hour FacIDr 0.00
HOUIIy flow raIe (vph) 0
Pedes1rians
lane WIdth (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
PeIl:ent Blockage
Right rom Dare (veil)
Medial type
Median storage veil)
Ups1ream signal (ft)
px. platoon unblocked 0.76
vC, confticting volume 1919
vCl, stage 1 confvol
vC2. slage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1573
te, sing1e (s) 6.8
tC, 2 stage (5)
IF (5) 3.5
pO queue free % 100
eM capacity (vehIh) 76
Without Project Pm Peak Hour
Capacity Analysis
0511312015
t
r' tT+ tt
5 1140 5 0 1170
Free Free
0% 0%
0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.00
6 1267 6 0 1300
None None
508
0.76 0.76
636 1272
0 719
6.9 4.1
3.3 2.2
99 100
821 865
" ~ ~ I " ~ I • I ,~ , -; , :' .~ -::, ::', _ ~ _
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Con1ro1 Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Ulilization
Analysis Period (min)
6
0
6
821
0.01
1
9.4
A
9.4
A
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
844
0
0
1700
0.50
0
0.0
0.0
428
0
6
1700
0.25
0
0.0
0.0
41.7%
15
650
0
0
1700
0.38
0
0.0
0.0
650
0
0
1700
0.38
0
0.0
ICU Level of Service A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
Appendix C: Trip Generation
Summary
0000 -0100 0010 -0200 0200 -0300
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1200 -BOO BOO -1400 1400 -1500
0 0 20
0 0 20
0 0 40
WMATI Persons
Admin staff
Teaching staff
Students
Manufacturing staff
MOl. /I
40
251
Usuall • Notes
4 Day and evenning
3 Day and evenning
25 Day and evenning
18 Day shift
WMA Tt ProJected
Traffic GeneratIon Estimate
0300 -0400 0400 -0500 0500 -0600 0600 -0700 0700 -0800 0800 -0900
0 0 20 0 25 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 20 0 25 0
1500' 1600 1600 -1700 1700 -1800 1800 -1900 1900 -ZOOO 2000 -2100
0 20 0 0 0 0
0 0 25 0 20 0
0 20 25 0 20 0
0900 -1000 1000-1100 1100 -1200
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2100 -2200 2200 -2300 2300 -2400
0 0 0
0 20 0
0 20 0
Appendix D: With-Project Weekday
AM and PM Intersection LOS
Worksheets
HeM Signalized Intersectiol Ipacity Analysis
1: Rainier Av SlRainier Ave N & Renton Av ExVAirport W't,
..1-
I.a1e CcdgInIians
VolJme(wph) 20
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
I.a1e WiIIh 12
T oIaIlost lime (s) 3.0
I.a1e U1I. Facb 1.00
Frpb, pedIbikes 1.00
~,ped.Ibbs 1.00
Frt 1.00
FIt PIlJlecti:l 0.95
SaId. Flow (prot) 1752
FIt Pemilled 0.95
said. Flow /!:alii} 1752
Peak-hourfactlr, PHF 0.80
A4 Row(vph) 25
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
I.a1e Group Flow (vph) 25
Con1I. Peds. (#Ihr) 5
Heavy Vehicfes ~ 3%
Tum Type Prot
Protected Phases 4
PemitIed Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 9,9
Effective Green, g (s) 11.9
Actuated glC Ratio 0.10
Cleaance TIII18 (s) 5.0
Vehicle Extension Is} 3.0
Lane G!p Gap (vph) 179
vis Ratio Prot 0,01
vis Ratio Penn
vic Ratio 0.14
Uniform Delay, dl 47,5
Progression FaclDr 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4
Delay (s) 47.9
Level of Service 0
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Volume 10 Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
-
400
l!1lO
11
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3388
1.00
3388
0.93
430
0
430
3%
NA
8
25.1
27.1
0,23
5.0
4,0
789
cO.13
0,54
39.2
1.00
1.0
40.2
0
39.5
0
•
80
1900
12
3.0
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.85
1.00
1530
1.00
1530
0.80
100
77
23
6
3%
Penn
8
25,1
27.1
0,23
5.0
4,0
358
0.02
0,07
34.7
1.00
0.1
34.8
C
0,69
116,3
67.7%
15
• -'-
560 420 ZIl
1900 l!1lO 1900
12 11 12
3.0 3.0 3.0
0.97 0.95 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1533
0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1533
0.94 ' 0.95 0.84
596 442 274
0 0 174
596 442 100
6 5
3% 3% 3%
Prot NA Penn
7 3
3
25.3 40.5 40.5
27.3 42.5 42.5
0.23 0.37 0.37
5.0 5,0 5.0
4,0 4,0 4.0
798 i 1238 560
cO.18 0,13
0.07
0.75 0.36 0.18
41.3 26.9 25,1
1.00 1.00 1.00
4.1 , 0.2 0.2
45.4 27.2 25,3
0 C C
35.0
0
Sum of lost time (5)
ICU Level of Service
'"
160
l!1lO
12
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3400
0.95
3400
0.88
182
0
182
2
3%
Prot
5
12.5
13.5
0.12
4.0
4.0
394
0.05
0,46
48.0
1.00
1.2
49.2
0
\/Ifjth Project AM Peak Hour
t
710
1900
11
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3388
1.00
3388
0.88
807
0
807
3%
NA
1
31.4
32.4
0.28
4.0
4.0
943
cO.24
0.86
39.7
1.00
B.O
47.7
0
43.8
0
I'
360
l!1lO
12
3.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.85
1.00
1527
1.00
1527
0.89
404
277
127
7
3%
Penn
1
31.4
32.4
0.28
4.0
4.0
425
0.08
0,30
33.0
1.00
0.5
33.6
C
12,0
C
~
250
1900
12
3.0
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
3400
0.95
3400
0.90
278
0
278
7
3%
Prot
2
15.5
17.5
0.15
5,0
4.0
511
cO,08
0.54
45.7
1.00
1.5
47.2
0
0511312015
! .'
370 40
1900 1900
11 12
3.0 3.0
0.95 1.00
1.00 0.99
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
1.00 1.00
3388 1546
1.00 1.00
3388 1546
0.86 0,69,
430 58
0 40
430 18
2
3% 3%
NA Penn
6
6
35.4 35,4
36.4 36,4
0.31 0,31
4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0
1060 483
0,13
0.01
0.41 0.04
31.4 27.8
1.00 1.00
0.3 0,0
31.8 27,8
C C
37,1
0
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
With Project AM Peak Hour
HeM Signalized Intersectic apacity Analysis
2: Shattuck Av S/Airport Perimeter Rd. W & Airport Wy 05113/2015
t
lale Configurations 'I ttft 'I ttt ." 4-01' ."
Volume (vph) 20 1080 10 10 1310 10 10 10 10 20 10 10
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1Il00 1Il00 1Il00 1900 1900 1900 1Il00 1Il00 1Il00
laleWidth 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Tolallost time (5) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
lale UtiI. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
~, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.85
FIt ProIecIed 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00
SaId. Flow (proQ 1694 4857 1694 4868 1516 1635 1755 1531
FIt Pemitled 0.17 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.83 1.00
SaId. Flow (pennI 294 4857 385 4868 1516 1509 1492 1531
Peak-l1our factor, PHF 0.52 0.91 0.67 0.69 0.91 0.50 0.63 0.33 0.71 0.46 0.25 0.50
Adj. Row (vph) 38 1187 15 14 1440 20 16 30 14 43 40 20
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 18
!.me Group Flow (vph) 38 1201 0 14 1440 18 0 48 0 0 83 2
ConI. Peds. (IIIbr) 4 2
Hea~ Vehicles 1'101 3'10 3'10 3'10 3'10 3'10 3'10 7'10 7% 7'10 2'Kt 2'10 2'Kt
Tum Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 2 4 4
Permitted Phases 2 2 2 4 4 4
Actuated Green, G (5) 79.4 79.4 79.4 79.4 79.4 9.1 9.1 9.1
EIfective Green, g (8) 81.4 81.4 81.4 81.4 81.4 10.1 10.1 10.1
Actuated glC Ratio 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance TlIl1e (5) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehide Extension lsI 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
!.me Grp Cap (vph) 245 4054 321 4064 1265 156 154 158
vIs Ratio Prot 0.25 cO.3D
vIs Ratio Perm 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.03 CO.OS 0.00
vIc Ratio 0.16 0.3D 0.04 0.35 0.01 0.31 0.54 0.01
Uniform Delay, dl 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.3 40.5 41.5 39.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incrernen1al Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 3.6 0.0
Delay (5) 2.1 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.4 41.6 45.1 39.3
Level of Service A A A A A D D D
Approach Delay (5) 1.9 2.0 41.6 44.0
Approach LOS A A D D
t '. , I.:'" I' ~.-" __
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycie Length (5)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
AM peak 7:00 am 0912212013 Tactics
City of Renlon
4.3
0.37
97.5
44.7%
15
HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (5)
ICU Level of Service
A
6.0
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
With Project AM Peak Hour
HCM Unsignalized Intersec Capacity Analysis
3: Rainier Ave N & NW 3rd PL 05/13/21115
t ~
"f , " ~ .~: " ' • ': , ~] I ;;-; ~ __
laJe Configurations
VoUne (vebIh)
S9J ConlrnI
GrIKIB
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly low raIe (vph)
Pedes1rians
laJe WidI1 (II)
Walking Speed (Ills)
Pen:enI Blockage
R911 tum flare (veh)
Median type
Median slDrage veh)
UpsIman si!Jlal (II)
px. platoon unblocked
1IC, IXJIIfticting volume
vCl, stage 1 confvol
vC2, stage 2 con! vol
vCu, unlllocked vol
te, sif9! (s)
te, 2 stage (s)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (vehIh)
V
10 10
SIIlp
0%
0.90 0.90
11 11
0.79
1361 378
750
611
932 378
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
97 98
393 620
'I ++ t10
50 900 670
Free Free
0'lI. 0'lI.
0.90 0.90 0.90
56 1Il00 744
None lWt:n.
2
645
756
756
4.1
2.2
93
851
10
0.90
11
t-'. ::;;: •• : •
.' ---~ #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume RighI
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Conlrol Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
22
11
11
481
0.05
4
12.8
B
12.8
B
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
56
56
0
851
0.07
5
9.5
A
0.5
500
0
0
1700
0.29
0
0.0
0.4
35.5%
15
5OO! 496 259
o 0 0
o 0 11
1700 1700 1700
0.29 0.29 0.15
o 0 0
0.0. 0.0 0.0
0.0
ICU Level of SeMce ' A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1 .
HCM Unsignalized Intersec..
4: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 1
lane Con~rations
VokJme (¥ShIh) 0
Sign Control StJp
Glade O'JC.
Peak Hour FacIllr 0.90
Hourly ftow rate (vph) 0
Pedestrians
lane WldIh (II)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veil)
Medimiype
Median storage veil)
Upstream signal (II)
p)(, platoon unblocked 0.80
vC, confticting volume 1394
vCl, stage 1 conI vol 1000
vC2, stage 2 conI vol 394
vCu, unblocked vol 982
te, single (5) 6.8
tC, 2 stage (5) 5.8
IF (s) 3.5
pO queue free % 100
eM capacity (veM1) 404
Capacity Analysis
t
t'f> 'I
0 890 20 10
Free
0%
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
0 !189 22 11
lWlTl
2
760
0.80 0.80
506 1011
0 500
6.9 4.1
3.3 2.2
100 99
863 844
-~ --
• ! , 'I I ' : '.": :: ' .: :
Volume Total 659 352 11 372 372
Volume Left 0 0 11 0 0
Volume Right 0 22 0 0 0
cSH 1700 1700 844 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.21 0.01 0.22 0.22
Queue Length 95th (II) 0 0 1 0 0
Control Delay (5) 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS A
Approach Delay (5) 0.0 0.1
Approach LOS
',", .. :( ·'1 ':1, 11-,
Average Delay
With Project AM Peak Hour
05113/2015
tt
670
Free
O'JC.
0.90
744
TWLTl
2
-- -
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0.1
28.6% I
15
ICU Level of Service A
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
Synchro B Report
Page 2
With Project AM Peak Hour
HCM Unsignalized Intersecl Capacity Analysis
5: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 2 05113/2015
t
l.a1e Conligurnlions V +t +t
Volume (veMl) 0 0 940 0 0 670
Sign Control SkIp Free Free
Grade '"' '"' ()'J(,
Peak Hour Faclor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly now rate (vph) 0 0 1044 0 0 744
PedesIrians
l.a1e Width (ft)
Wallling Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum ftae (veh)
Med"lIII1type TWLTl None
Median storage veil) 2
Upstream signal (II) 508
px. platoon unblocked 0.78 0.78 0.78
vC, confticfing volume 1417 522 1044
vCl, stage 1 conI vol 1044
vC2, stage 2 conI vol 3n
vCu, unblocked vol 979 0 504
te, single (5) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tC, 2 stage (5) 5.8
IF (5) 3.5 3.3 2.2
pO queue free % 100 100 100
eM capacity (vehIh) 398 850 828
, \. "'~, , I' :: • , :-' :'; ::-; .~ _
Volume Total
VolumeLell
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Lenglh 951h (II)
Control Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (8)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0
0
0
1700
0.00
0
0.0
A
0.0
A
AM peak 7:00 am 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
522
0
0
1700
0.31
0
0.0
0.0
522 372 372
0 0 0
0 0 0
1700 1700 1700
0.31 0.22 0.22
0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
29.3% • ICU Level 01 Service
15
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
HeM Signalized Intersectic apacity Analysis
1: Rainier Av SlRainier Ave N & Renton Av ExtiAirport Wy
I..a1e ConIirplbs
Vc*mIMIh)
Ideal FIDIr (vphpI)
I..a1eWdh
T oIaIlost lime (5)
I..a1e 1M. Factor
Frpb, pedIbikes
1)Jb, pedIbikes
Frt
FIt ProIetted
Satd. Flow (prot)
FIt PemitB! .
SaId. Flow (penn)
Peak-bour facklr, PHF
Adj. Aow (vph)
RTOR ReOOction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
CooII. Peds. (#Ihr)
Heavy Vehicles (%)
TinType
Protected Phases
PermitIed Phases
Acluated Green, G (5)
Elfeclive Green, 9 (s)
Acluated gc Ratio
CIeIRK:e Trne (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio
Uniform Delay, dl
Progression Factor
Inaemental 0eIay. d2
Delay (5)
Level of SeIVice
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
,
70
1900
12
3.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1752
0.95
1752
0.80
88
0
88
4
3%
Prot
4
21.0
23.0
0.18
5.0
3.0
320
0.05
0.28
44.1
1.00
0.5
44.6
0
-..
++
990
1900
11
3.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3388
1.00
3388
0.93
1065
0
1065
3%
NA
8
31.1
33.1
0.26
5.0
4.0
892
cO.31
1.19
46.2
1.00
98.3
144.6
F
125.3
F
" '1'1 120 480
1900 1900
12 12
3.0 3.0
1.00 0.97
0.98 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.85 1.00
1.00 0.95
1536 3400
1.00 0.95
1536 3400
0.80 0.94
150 511
94 0
56 511
4 4
3% 3%
Perm _ Prot
7
8
31.1 24.4
33.1 26.4
0.26 0.21
5.0 5.0
4.0 4.0
404 714
cO.15
0.04
0.14 0.72
35.3 46.1
1.00 1.00
0.2 3.7
35.6 49.8
0 0
-
++ " 500 310
1900 1900
11 12
3.0 3.0
0.95 1.00
1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
1.00 1.00
3388 1536
1.00 1.00
3388 1536
0.95 0.84
526 369
o 262
526 107
4
3% 3%
NA Perm
3
34.5
36.5
0.29
5.0
4.0
984
0.16
0.53
37.4
1.00
0.7
38.1
o
41.4
D
3
34.5
36.5
0.29
5.0
4.0
446
0.07
0.24
34.0
1.00
0.4
34.4
C
V''''h Project PM Peak Hour
0511312015
t
'1'1 ++ " '1'1 ++ " 420 770 560 540 580 60
1900 1900 1900 1900 l!ro 1900
12 11 12 12 11 12
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
3400 3388 1539 3400 3388 1535
0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 tOO
3400 3388 1539 3400 3388 1535
0.88 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.86 0.69
477 875 629 600 674 87
o 0 307 o 0 64
477 875 322 600 674 23
8 3 3 8
3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
5 1 2 6
1 6
20.4 31.0 31.0 20.1 31.7 31.7
21.4 32.0 32.0 22.1 32.7 32.7
0.17 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.26 0.26
4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
579 863 392 598 882 399
0.14 cO.26 cO.18 0.20
0.21 0.01
0.82 1.01 0.82 1.00 0.76 0.06
50.3 46.8 44.1 51.8 42.9 34.9
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
9.7 34.1 13.5 37.S 4.2 0.1
60.0 80.9 57.6 89.4 47.1 35.0
E F E F o C
68.5 65.0
E E
HCM 2000 Conlrol Delay 73.6
0.99
125.6
91.1%
HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Acluated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
An~ Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
15
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
12.0
F
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
With Project PM Peak Hour
HeM Signalized Intersectiol dpacity Analysis
2: Shattuck Av SlAirport Perimeter Rd. W & Airport Wy
lale~
Vobne(vph)
Ideal Flow (~
laleWidll
T oIaIlDst time (5)
lale UIi Factlr
Frpb, ped/IJikes
~, pecWlikes
Frt
FHPlUb:Ed
Satd. Flow (pro!)
FIt Pemilled
Satd. Flow !penn)
Peak-llour facklr, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Row (vph)
ContI. Peds. (1M1r)
HeavyVehides (%)
Tun Type
Protected Phases
Pemi1IBd Phases
Ac1uated Green, G (s)
EffecIiw Green, 9 (5)
Ac1uated glC Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (5)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Perm
vic Ratio
Uniform Delay, dl
Progression Factor
Inaemental Delay, d2
Delay(s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Control Delay
'I ttft
10 2030
1900 1900
11 11
3.0 3.0
1.00 0.91
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
1694 4862
0.15 1.00
265 4862
0.50 0.91
20 2231
0 0
20 2246
3% 3%
Penn NA
2
2
79.3 79.3
81.3 81.3
0.85 0.85
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
223 4108
eM6
0.08
0.09 0.55
1.2 2.1
1.00 1.00
0.4 0.3
1.6 2.4
A A
2.4
A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Ac1uated Cycle Lenglh (5)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
'I ttt 'f
10 20 1400 20 10
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
11 11 11 11 11
0.67
15
0
0
4
3%
3.8
0.54
96.2
55.9%
15
3.0 3.0 3.0
1.110 0.91 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1694 4868 1516
0.06 1.00 1.00
114 4868 1516
0.69 .
29
o
29
3%
Perm
2
79.3
81.3
0.85
5.0
5.0
96,
0.25 •
0.30
1.5
1.00
3.7
5.2
A
0.91
1538
0
1538
3%
NA
2
79.3
81.3
0.85
5.0
5.0
4114
0.32
0.37
1.7
1.00
0.1
1.8
A
1.9
A
0.50
40
4
36
3%
Perm
2
79.3
81.3
0.85
5.0
5.0
1281
0.02
0.03
1.2
1.00
0.0
1.2
A
0.63
16
0
0
7%
Perm
4
HCM 2000 Level of SeNice
Sum of lost time (5)
ICU Level of Service
4-
10 20
1900 1900
11 11
3.0
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.95
0.99
1603
0.93
1500
0.33
30
13
61
NA
4
7.9
8.9
0.09
4.0
3.0
138
cO.04
0.44
41.3
1.00
2.3
43.6
D
43.6
D
0.71
28
0
0
2
7%
A
6.0
B
05113/2015
4' 'f
10 10 10
1900 1900 1900
11 11 11
0.46
22
0
0
2%
Penn
4
3.0 3,0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.85
0.98 1.00
1769 1531
0.87 1.00
1570 1531
0.25 0.50
40 20
o 18
62 2
2% 2%
NA Perm
4
4
7.9 7.9
8.9 8.9
0.09 0.09
4.0 4.0
3.0 3.0
145 141
0.04 0.00
0.43 0.D1
41.2 39.7
1.00 1.00
2.0 0.0
43.3 39.7
D D
42.4
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Interset I Capacity Analysis
3: Rainier Ave N & NW 3rd PL
I..a1eCon~
VoUne (vehIh)
Sign Control
Glade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly IIow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
I..a1e Width (II)
Walking Speed (It/s)
Pen:enl Blockage
Rigll tum flare (veh)
Mecia11ype
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (II)
px. p1aloon unblocked
vC, confIicIi1g volume
vCl, stage 1 confvol
vC2, slage 2 conf vol
¥Cu, unblocked vol
te, single (s)
te, 2 stage (s)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (vehIh)
V
10 60
Slop
0%
0.90 0.90
11 67
0.77
2006 628
1244
761
1703 628
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
95 84
216 426
t !
'I tt tft
70 1090 1110
Free Free
O'l(, 0%
0.90 0.90 0.90
78 1211 1233
None TWLTL
2
645
1256
1256
4.1
2.2
86
550
20
0.90
22
With Project PM Peak Hour
05I13f2015
;'f'~;":'I .. ,I; ~I::< X:' ::-, ";'. -:<:' ~.,;. _
Volume T DIal
Volume Lell
Volume RighI
cSH
Volume 10 Capacity
Queue Length 95th (II)
Conlrol Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Ihlerseclion Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
78
11
67
374
0.21
19
17.1
C
17.1
C
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 Tactics
City of Renton
78
78
0
550
0.14
12
12.6
B
0.8
606
0
0
1700
0.36
0
0.0
0.9
49.5%
15
606
0
0
1700
0.36
0
0.0
822 433
0 0
0 22
1700 1700
0.48 0.25
0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0
ICU Level of Service A
Syncl1ro 8 Report
Page 1
HeM Unsignalized Intersec1 Capacity Analysis
4: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 1
I..aIe Configurations
Volume (WIhIb)
Sign Con1roI
Grade
Peak Hour Faclor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedesbians
I..aIe Wid1h (ft)
WaIIUng Speed (fils)
PenmI Blockage
Right tum flare (veil)
Meclmtype
Median storage veil)
I¥b .... n signal (ft) px. plaloon unblocked
¥C,conllicling volume
¥CI, stage 1 oonf vol
vC2, stage 2conf vol
¥Cu, unblocked vol
\C, singe (5)
\C, 2 stage (5)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (veh/h)
o
SIDp
0%
0.90
o
0.77
1828
1211
617
1480
6.8
5.8
3.5
100
296
t
+Tt o Imo 0
Free
'"' 0.90 0.90 0.90
o 1211 0
lWLR
2
760
0.77
606
0
6.9
3.3
100
836
'I ++ o 1110
Free
0%
0.90 0.90
o 1233
1WLTI.
2
0.77
1211
680
4.1
2.2
100
700
~ ) I -• ~ • : ~ : ,. ,
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intenlection Capaci1y Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
807
0
.0
1700
0.47
0
0.0
0.0
PM peak 4:00 pm 09/2212013 TacHcs
City of Renton
404
0
0
1700
0.24
0
0.0
0
0
0
1700
0.00
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.0%
15
617 617
0 0
0 0
1700 1700
0.36 . 0.36
0 0
0.0 0.0
ICU Level of Service
With Project PM Peak Hour
A
05fI3/2015
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Inters~
5: Rainier Ave N & Dvwy 2
I Capacity Analysis
ll-:-' -PS'·
I..aIe ConiguraIions
Volume (vehIh)
Sign ConIroI
Glade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourty low rail! (VJlh)
Pedeslrialls
I..aIe WidIh (ft)
Waking Speed (Ills)
Pen:ad IlInckage
Righllum flln (veil)
MeIia'I type
Median m-age veil)
Ups1Ieam signal (II) px. platoon unblocked
vC, confIitting volume
vCl, SIage 1 confvol
vC2, SIage 2 coni vol
¥Cu, unblocked vol
te, single (5)
te, 2 stage (5)
IF (5)
pO queue free %
eM capacity (veMl)
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to C8paciIy
Queue Lenglh 951h (ft)
Control Delay (5)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (5)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Intersection CapaciIy Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
t
V tt tt
20 10 1140 0 0 1170
Slop Free Free
0% 0% 0%
0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
22 11 1267 0 0 1300
0.76 0.76
1917 633
1267
650
1570 0
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
92 99
279 822
33 633
22 0
11 0
358 1700
0.09 0.37
8 0
16.1 0.0
C
16.1 0.0
C
lWlTL
2
508
633
0
0
1700
0.37
0
0.0
0.2
42.3%
15
650
0
0
1700
0.38
0
0.0
0.0
None
0.76
1267
713
4.1
2.2
100
669
650
0
0
1700
0.38
0
0.0
ICU Level of Service
PM peak 4:00 pm 0912212013 Tactics
Cily of Renlon
vVlln nOJeCI t-'IVI t-'eaK Hour
A
05I13f2015
Syncl1ro 8 Report
Page 3
RECEIPT EG00042092
BILLING CONTACT
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME ... . ........... .... .... . . ..
LUA 15-000582 PlAN ~ Environmental Review
PLAN -Modification
PLAN -Site Plan Review ~ Admin
PLAN -Variance
Technology Fee
Printed On: August 04, 2015 Prepared By: Roeale Timmons
R CITY OF ~ ---------. enton V
. .... ......•..
TRANSACTION
TYPE
","~"-~
Fee Payment
Fee Payment
Fee Payment
Fee Payment
Fee Payment
1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057
Transaction Date: August 04,2015
PAYMENT
METHOD ...............
Interoffice Account
Transfer
Interoffice Account
Transfer
Interoffice Account
Transfer
Interoffice Account
Transfer
Interoffice Account
Transfer
~--"
SUB TOTAL
TOTAL
AMOUNT PAID
. . .. .. .. ~
$1,000.00
$150.00
$1,500.00
$1,200.00
$115.50
$3,965.50
$3,965.50
Page 1 of 1
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
D rt epa men tCh arge d
Account Number
4.:J:J.73SII L611.
FINANCE AND INFORMATION SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
July 29,2015
Casaundra Commodore, Finance & Information Services
Department
Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager
Re: INTERFUND TRANSFER REQUEST
Instructions: Please note that failure to provide all digits will result in processing
delays. All Signatures and correct documentation must be included.
Please prepare the following inter-fund transfer:
Project, function, task, sub-task Description Amount
C:-/-iJIAt,. /'3. COO /.J-PJ L 'c<!'-T7--u" ..IN)
I ('A . .J.. J
Total ''X '1~s-; ~ . *Charged Department AuthorlZation*
APPROVAL SIGNATURE:
7
Printed N arne ....::..:1o:.:n:=a:::th:=an::....:W.:...i:::·ls:.:o:.::n'--____________ Date 7129/2015
CREDIT'
Account Number Project, function, task, sub-task Description Amount
Total
I Reason:
Note: Documentation to support this transfer request must be attached and all signatures are required.
Cash Transfer Fonru'FinanceJbh Revised 0 I /09