The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 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